content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
Recent observations reveal the widespread
existence of magnetic fields in the universe and are producing
much firmer estimates of their strengths in interstellar and
intergalactic space. They also appear to be a common property of
the intracluster medium of galaxy clusters, extending well
beyond the core regions (see \cite{K} and references
therein). Strengths of ordered magnetic fields in the intracluster
medium of cooling flow clusters exceed those typically associated
with the interstellar medium of the Milky Way, suggesting that
galaxy formation and even cluster dynamics are, at least in some
cases, influenced by magnetic forces. Furthermore, reports of
Faraday rotation associated with high redshift Lyman-$\alpha$
absorption systems seem to imply that dynamically significant
magnetic fields may be present in condensations at high redshift
\cite{KPZ}. The more we look for
extragalactic magnetic fields, the more ubiquitous we find them
to be.
Large-scale magnetic fields introduce new ingredients into the
standard, but nevertheless uncertain, picture of the early
universe. They seem unlikely to survive an epoch of inflation,
but it is conceivable that large-scale fields and magnetic
inhomogeneities could be generated at the end of that era
or in subsequent phase transitions (see, e.g., \cite{R}).
Studies of magnetogenesis are partly
motivated by the need to explain the origin of large-scale galactic
fields. Typical spiral galaxies have magnetic fields of the order
of a few $\mu$G coherent over the plane of their disc. Such fields
could arise from a relatively large primordial seed field,
amplified by the collapse of the protogalaxy, or by a much weaker
one that has been strengthened by the galactic dynamo. Provided that
this mechanism is efficient, the seed can be as low as
$\sim10^{-30}$G
at present \cite{dlt}. However, in the absence of nonlinear amplification,
seeds of the order of $10^{-12}$G or even $10^{-8}$G are required
\cite{Ku}.
Determining whether the origin of galactic and cluster magnetic
fields is primordial or post-recombination is a difficult task,
since strong amplification in these virialized systems
overwhelms any traces of their earlier history. In contrast,
magnetic effects on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies,
or any magnetic presence away from clusters and galaxies, can provide better
insight into these early phases. If large-scale magnetic fields
are present throughout the universe today, their structure and
spectrum should bear clearer signatures of their past. Thus,
improved direct observations, such as high resolution Faraday
rotation maps and the study of extragalactic cosmic rays, may
help in this respect \cite{O}. For example, we would like to know
whether or not the intergalactic voids are permeated by a widespread
magnetic field, and whether there is magnetic
field evolution in galaxies. If large-scale magnetic fields were
present in the early universe, were they dynamically significant,
and if so, how have they affected the formation and evolution of
the observed structure? It is known that element abundances
constrain the strength of a primordial field at
the nucleosynthesis epoch \cite{gr}. Stronger
limits on a primordial magnetic field are imposed via
CMB anisotropies, since the field distorts the
acoustic peaks and induces Faraday rotation in
the polarization \cite{adgr,cmb,dky}.
In this article we assume the existence of a large-scale
ordered magnetic field of primordial origin {\em a priori}, and we
investigate the magnetic effects on density inhomogeneities.
Specifically, we
analyze magnetized density perturbations, magnetized
cosmic vortices (i.e., rotational instabilities), and
magnetized shape distortion.
Magnetized density perturbations were studied by Ruzmaikina and
Ruzmaikin \cite{RR} in Newtonian theory, while Wasserman \cite{W}
looked at the rotational behavior of a magnetized fluid.
Kim et al. \cite{kor} derive a magnetized Jeans length, assuming
that there are no density perturbations in the absence of the
field.
In a relativistic treatment, Battaner et al. \cite{bfj}
investigated magnetized
structure formation in the radiation era. Jedamzik et al. and
Subramanian \& Barrow
\cite{sb} have considered magnetic dissipative effects
at recombination.
We generalize aspects of these previous treatments by giving a
fully relativistic analysis of the scalar and vector contributions
of the magnetic field to the evolution of density
inhomogeneity. We
consider not only density perturbations and rotational
instabilities, but also the shape-distortion effects of the field.
Density perturbations are found explicitly in the radiation and
dust eras, including a new solution that shows how the
relativistic magneto-curvature coupling acts to enhance growth on
superhorizon scales. The existence of the magneto-curvature
coupling was first identified by Tsagas
and Barrow \cite{TB}.
The nonadiabatic magnetic effect on the modes
is clearly identified, including the magnetized isocurvature
modes. New solutions are also found for rotational
instabilities, which are significantly affected by the field,
and we show that magnetic effects actively generate shape distortion in the
density distribution.
We follow the relativistic analysis of cosmic electromagnetic fields
given by Ellis \cite{E2}, and we use the covariant and gauge-invariant
approach to perturbations \cite{EB,EB2,MT}. A covariant and
gauge-invariant analysis of magnetized density perturbations was
first developed by Tsagas and Barrow \cite{TB,T}, whose results we
extend.
We adopt the usual approximation that in the background,
which is a spatially flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW)
model,\footnote{
Spatial flatness is necessary for the gauge-invariance of
all the perturbative variables \cite{TB}.}
the ordered large-scale magnetic field is too weak to destroy
spatial isotropy.
The weak field approximation is an acceptable physical approximation when the
field energy density is a small fraction of the isotropically distributed
dominant energy density (see \cite{weak} for further discussion).
If one demands strict mathematical homogeneity in the background,
i.e., if one refuses to accept a coherent test field in the background,
then one must adopt a Bianchi I model for the background. However,
this is a highly complicated approach, which in the end will
give results that are practically indistinguishable from those
with an FRW background. (We are currently completing calculations
that confirm this statement \cite{tm}.)
The standard assumption of very high
conductivity is also made, so that we can ignore
large-scale electric fields, while maintaining the desired
coupling between the fluid and the magnetic field.
We use a single perfect fluid model, which is reasonable in the radiation era,
but does not apply during recombination, while
after last scattering, it means that our solutions only apply to a
baryon-dominated universe. (See \cite{ck} for a discussion of the effects of
cold dark matter (CDM) potential wells on the field.)
The assumption of a weak background magnetic field ensures that the
field terms in our linearized equations are first-order. Current
limits on the strength of a primordial magnetic field show that its
influence is secondary relative to that of the dominant matter
component. In practice, this allows for the possibility that
second-order fluid terms can have a strength comparable to that of
the linear magnetic terms. Nevertheless, such second-order terms do
not contain any further information regarding the lowest order
influence of the field on gravitational instability. We ignore the
second-order fluid terms, even though they may be of comparable
magnitude to the first-order magnetic effects. This approach is
consistent at linear order, and allows us to
isolate the lowest order magnetic effects
on gravitational instability.
Our aim is to identify the sources of the magnetic
effects, calculate their impact to lowest order, and discuss
their implications for the evolution of density inhomogeneities.
In Sec. II, we outline the formalism and the main equations that
govern the coupled evolution of density inhomogeneity, the magnetic field
and the curvature.
Sec. III considers magnetized density perturbations, identifying the
nonadiabatic effects of the field.
We find a new solution on superhorizon scales in the radiation
era, showing how the magneto-curvature coupling slightly enhances
growth. In the radiation era, a
small damping effect is wrongly predicted when the magneto-curvature
coupling is ignored. On subhorizon scales, magneto-sonic waves in
the radiation era have a slightly increased frequency, leading to
a decrease in the spacing of CMB acoustic peaks. In the dust era,
the growing mode on small scales is slightly damped by magnetic
effects.
We also find the pure-magnetic density perturbations,
i.e., the fluctuations created in a smooth plasma at
magnetogenesis. These include growing modes.
Magnetized isocurvature modes are characterized, and
found explicitly on superhorizon scales. These modes all decay,
in the radiation and dust eras.
Magnetized cosmic vortices are considered in Sec. IV. We show that
magnetized vorticity is scale-dependent , and that the field
generates
precession in the rotational vector. We solve exactly for the
rotational instabilities, showing that they propagate as
Alfv\'{e}n (vector) waves on small scales
during the radiation era. After recombination, such vortices
persist for longer than non-magnetized vortices.
Sec. V investigates magnetized
shape distortion, showing that the field is as an active
source of distortion. Purely magnetic distortion on superhorizon scales in the
dust era is shown to have a growing mode.
Conclusions are given in Sec. VI.
We use units with $c=1=8\pi G$ and our signature is $(-+++)$;
spacetime indices are $a,b,\cdots$ and (square) round brackets
enclosing indices denote (anti-)symmetrization.
\section{Cosmic magnetohydrodynamics}
As noted above, the cosmic magnetic field $B^a$ must have weak energy
density $\rho_{\rm mag}={1\over2}B_aB^a$
to be consistent with observational limits, so that
$c_{\rm a}\ll1$,
where $c_{\rm a}$ is the Alfv\'{e}n speed. The
Alfv\'{e}n speed, which effectively leads to a nonadiabatic increase in the sound
speed, is given by
\begin{equation}
c_{\rm a}^2= {B^2\over\rho} \,, \label{1}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the energy density of the cosmic fluid.
In the limit of vanishing density inhomogeneity, i.e., in the
background, the field is uniform, but its weak magnitude means that it
does not
disturb the background isotropy, so that the magnetic anisotropic
stress is negligible in the background.
In the actual inhomogeneous universe the
field's influence propagates via:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[]
the background energy density and pressure
($p_{\rm mag}={1\over3}\rho_{\rm mag}$) occur in terms of the form
$c_{\rm a}^2{\cal P}$, where ${\cal P}$ is a perturbed quantity, and
despite their weakness, they
can have observable consequences (e.g., a change in the spacing of
CMB acoustic peaks in the radiation era);
\item[]
spatial gradients of $\rho_{\rm mag}$ couple with gradients of $\rho$
and thus alter the fluctuations of $\rho$ (in particular,
introducing nonadiabatic modes);
\item[]
the background direction of the field introduces anisotropy by
picking out preferred directions in perturbed vector and tensor fields,
and preferred directional derivatives of perturbed scalar/ vector/ tensor fields,
leading to effects such as Faraday rotation;
\item[]
the background direction of the field is also the source of the
magneto-curvature coupling, via
terms of the form $K_{abcd}B^d$, where $K_{abcd}$ is the part of
the curvature tensor which vanishes in the background;
\item[]
fluctuations in the direction of the field
generate new anisotropies that can source magnetized
vortices (leading in particular to Alfv\'{e}n waves) and shape distortion.
\end{enumerate}
We include all of these aspects in our analysis, so that we
incorporate the full range of scalar
(magnetic energy density and
isotropic pressure) and vector (anisotropic stress) effects of the
field, allowing for fluctuations in both the magnitude and direction.
In order to provide a transparent relativistic generalization
of Newtonian analysis, and to use
variables that as far as possible have a direct physical
interpretation,
we adopt a covariant Lagrangian approach \cite{E2,EB,EB2,MT,M1,mb}.
This continues and develops the work of \cite{TB}. In particular, we
discuss in detail the physical meaning and implications of the
density perturbation solutions, and we extend the investigation to
cover magnetized cosmic vortices and shape distortion.
The cosmic perfect fluid defines a unique
four-velocity $u_a$ (with $u_au^a=-1$), and then
$h_{ab}=g_{ab}+u_au_b$,
where $g_{ab}$ is the spacetime metric, projects
into the local rest spaces of comoving
observers. The projection of a vector is
$V_{\langle a\rangle}=h_a{}^bV_b$, and
a projected second rank tensor
$S_{ab}$ splits irreducibly as
\[
S_{ab}={\textstyle{1\over3}}Sh_{ab}
+\varepsilon_{abc}S^c+
S_{\langle ab\rangle }\,,
\]
where
$S\equiv h_{ab}S^{ab}$ is the spatial trace,
$S_a\equiv{1\over2}\varepsilon_{abc}S^{bc}$ is the spatial
vector dual to the skew part of $S_{ab}$, and
$S_{\langle ab\rangle}\equiv[h_{(a}{}^ch_{b)}{}^d-{1\over3}h^{cd}
h_{ab}]S_{cd}$ is the projected symmetric tracefree (PSTF) part.
Here
$\varepsilon_{abc}=\eta_{abcd}u^d$ is the
projection of $\eta_{abcd}$, the spacetime alternating
tensor.
The covariant derivative splits into a comoving
time derivative $\dot{J}_{a\cdots b}=u^c\nabla_cJ_{a\cdots b}$,
and a covariant spatial derivative
$\mbox{D}_cJ_{a\cdots b}=h_c{}^dh_a{}^e\cdots h_b{}^f\nabla_dJ_{e\cdots f}$.
Then we define a covariant spatial divergence and curl that generalize
the Newtonian operators to curved spacetime \cite{M1}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mbox{div}\,V= \mbox{D}^aV_a\,,&~~& (\mbox{div}\,S)_a= \mbox{D}^bS_{ab}\,,\\
\mbox{curl}\,V_a=\varepsilon_{abc}\mbox{D}^bV^c\,,&~~&
\mbox{curl}\,S_{ab}=\varepsilon_{cd(a}\mbox{D}^cS_{b)}{}^d\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
The fluid kinematics are described by the expansion
$\Theta=\mbox{div}\,u$, four-acceleration $A_a=\dot{u}_a$,
vorticity $\omega_a=-{1\over2}\mbox{curl}\,u_a$ and shear
$\sigma_{ab}=\mbox{D}_{\langle a}u_{b\rangle}$.
Local curvature is described by the Ricci tensor $R_{ab}$, while
nonlocal tidal forces and gravitational radiation are described by
the electric and the magnetic parts of the Weyl tensor,
$E_{ab}=E_{\langle ab\rangle }= C_{acbd}u^cu^d$
and $H_{ab}=H_{\langle ab\rangle }={1\over2}
\varepsilon_{acd}C^{cd}{}{}_{be}u^e$.
The magnetized perfectly
conducting fluid has energy density
$\rho$ and isotropic pressure $p$.
The magnetic field is $B_a=B_{\langle a\rangle}$,
with energy density, isotropic
pressure and anisotropic stress given respectively by
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\rm mag}={\textstyle{1\over2}}B_aB^a\,,~p_{\rm mag}=
{\textstyle{1\over3}}\rho_{\rm mag}\,,~
\pi_{ab}=-B_{\langle a}B_{b\rangle}\,.
\label{emt'}\end{equation}
Then the total energy-momentum tensor is
\begin{equation}
T_{ab}=\left(\rho+\rho_{\rm mag}\right)u_au_b+ \left(p+p_{\rm
mag}\right)h_{ab}+\pi_{ab} \,. \label{emt}
\end{equation}
Notice that the absence of an electric
field means that there is no energy flux (Poynting vector).
The magnetic field appears from Eq. (\ref{emt}) to behave like
a radiation fluid with anisotropic stress. However, this fluid
picture does not fully encompass the vector properties of the
field, and in
particular, its coupling to the curvature.
In the background, $B_a$ is weak enough not to affect the
isotropy, i.e. the anisotropic stress is negligible in
the background, and $\rho_{\rm mag}\ll \rho$.
The background expansion is $\Theta=3H$, where $H=\dot{a}/a$ is
the Hubble rate.
The background is
covariantly characterized by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mbox{D}_a\Theta=\mbox{D}_a\rho=\mbox{D}_ap=\mbox{D}_bB_a=0 \,, \label{nograd}\\
&&A_a=\omega_a=0 \,, \label{novec}\\
&&\sigma_{ab}=E_{ab}=H_{ab}={\cal R}_{ab}=\pi_{ab}=0 \,,
\label{noten}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\[
{\cal R}_{ab}=
h_a{}^{c}h_b{}^{d}R_{cd}+R_{acbd}u^cu^d+\mbox{D}_cu_a\mbox{D}_bu^c-\Theta\mbox{D}_bu_a\,,
\]
with $R_{ab}$ the Ricci tensor
and $R_{abcd}$ the Riemann tensor.
Note that ${\cal R}_{ab}$ is the intrinsic 3-Ricci tensor
of spatial hypersurfaces only if $\omega_a=0$; otherwise there
are no such hypersurfaces orthogonal to $u^a$ \cite{E2}.
Quantities that vanish in the background
are gauge-invariant, and they covariantly describe linear deviations
from homogeneity and anisotropy.
We collect below the linearized evolution and constraint equations
given in \cite{TB}, rewritten in the streamlined formalism of
\cite{M1}, which considerably simplifies the equations and facilitates
analysis of their properties.
The following covariant identities \cite{MT} are used in deriving the
equations (assuming a flat background
with vanishing cosmological constant):
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm curl}\,\mbox{D}_af &=&-2\dot{f}\omega_a \,,
\label{id2} \\
\left(a\mbox{D}_af\right)^{\displaystyle{\cdot}} &=& a\mbox{D}_a\dot{f}+a\dot{f}A_a \,,
\label{a14}\\
\mbox{D}^2\left(\mbox{D}_af\right) &=&\mbox{D}_a\left(\mbox{D}^2f\right)
+2\dot{f}{\rm curl}\,\omega_a
\,, \label{a19}\\
\left(a\mbox{D}_aJ_{b\cdots}\right)^{\displaystyle{\cdot}} &=& a\mbox{D}_a\dot{J}_{b\cdots}\,,
\label{id1}\\
\mbox{D}_{[a}\mbox{D}_{b]}V_c &=&0=
\mbox{D}_{[a}\mbox{D}_{b]}S^{cd}
\,, \label{a17}\\
{\rm div}\,{\rm curl}\, V &=& 0 \,,\label{a20}\\
({\rm div}\,{\rm curl}\, S)_{a} &=& {\textstyle{1\over2}}{\rm curl}\, ({\rm div}\,
S)_{a}\,,\label{a18}\\
{\rm curl}\,{\rm curl}\, V_a &=& \mbox{D}_a ({\rm div}\, V)
-\mbox{D}^2V_a\,,
\label{id3}\\
{\rm curl}\,{\rm curl}\, S_{ab} &=& {\textstyle{3\over2}}\mbox{D}_{\langle a}({\rm div}\,
S)_{b\rangle}-\mbox{D}^2S_{ab}\,,\label{a23}
\end{eqnarray}
where the vectors and tensors vanish in the background,
$S_{ab}=S_{\langle ab\rangle}$. The magnetic field itself does not
vanish in the background, so that its projected derivatives do not
commute at linear order: the vector identity in Eq. (\ref{a17}) is replaced by
\[
\mbox{D}_{[a}\mbox{D}_{b]}B_c={\textstyle{1\over2}}{\cal
R}_{dcba}B^d-\varepsilon_{abd}\omega^d\dot{B}_c\,,
\]
where ${\cal R}_{abcd}$ is formed from $R_{abcd}$ and the
kinematic quantities \cite{TB}. This non-commutativity is the root
of the magneto-curvature coupling found in \cite{TB}.
\subsection{Maxwell's equations}
In the infinite
conductivity limit, Maxwell's equations \cite{E2,mb} provide three constraints,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{div}\,B&=&0 \,,\label{Max1}\\
\mbox{curl}\,B_a&=&\varepsilon_{abc}B^bA^c+j_a \,,\label{m'}\\
\omega^aB_a &=& {\textstyle{1\over2}}q\,, \label{m''}
\end{eqnarray}
where $j_a$ is the current and $q$ the charge density
generated by fluctuations,
and one propagation equation
\begin{equation}
\dot{B}_{\langle a\rangle}=-{\textstyle{2\over3}}\Theta B_a+
\sigma_{ab}B^b+ \varepsilon_{abc}B^b\omega^c \,, \label{Max2}
\end{equation}
which is the covariant form of the induction equation.
Note that
$\dot{B}_{\langle a\rangle}=\dot{B}_a-A_bB^bu_a$,
and $B^aA_a=0$ to first order
only in the case of a pressure-free perfect fluid \cite{TB}.
Contracting Eq. (\ref{Max2}) with $B^a$, and neglecting the second order term
$\sigma_{ab}\pi^{ab}$, we deduce
the radiation-like evolution law of the magnetic
energy density,
\begin{equation}
(B^2)^{\displaystyle{\cdot}}+{\textstyle{4\over3}}\Theta(B^2)=0
\,. \label{B^2ev}
\end{equation}
We can also derive the evolution of the anisotropic stress
from Eq. (\ref{Max2}):
\begin{equation}
\dot{\pi}_{ab}=-4H\pi_{ab}-{\textstyle{2\over3}}c_{\rm
a}^2\rho\sigma_{ab}\,,\label{pi}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Conservation laws}
Energy density conservation is expressed via the equation of
continuity
\
\dot{\rho}+\Theta(1+w)\rho=0 \,,
\
where $w=p/\rho$.
Notice the absence of magnetic
terms in this equation, since field energy conservation holds
separately as a consequence of Maxwell's equations, as shown in
Eq. (\ref{B^2ev}). The two energy conservation equations imply
\[
\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)^{\displaystyle{\cdot}}=(w-{\textstyle{1\over3}})\Theta
c_{\rm a}^2\,.
\]
On the other hand, the field does enter conservation of
momentum density
\begin{equation}
(1+w)\rho A_a+c_{\rm s}^2\mbox{D}_a\rho+
\varepsilon_{abc}B^b\mbox{curl}\,B^c=0 \,, \label{mdc}
\end{equation}
where
$c_{\rm s}^2=\dot{p}/\dot{\rho}$ is the adiabatic sound-speed
squared (with $\mbox{D}_ap=c_{\rm s}^2\mbox{D}_a\rho$).
This equation reflects the momentum density exchange between the
fluid and the field.
The magnetic field is a source of acceleration (provided
that curl $B_a$ is not parallel to $B_a$); it can destroy the geodesic
motion of the matter even in the absence of pressure.
\subsection{Kinematic equations}
Evolution of the expansion is governed
by the Raychaudhuri equation
\begin{equation}
\dot{\Theta}+{\textstyle{1\over3}}\Theta^2+
{\textstyle{1\over2}}(1+3w)\rho-\frac{c_{\rm a}^2}{3(1+w)}{\cal R}+
\frac{1}{2(1+w)a^2}\left(2c_{\rm s}^2\Delta+c_{\rm a}^2{\cal B}\right)-
\Lambda=0 \,, \label{Ray}
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant,
${\cal R}=h^{ab}{\cal R}_{ab}$ is the projected curvature scalar, and
\[
\Delta=a\mbox{D}^a\Delta_a\,,~~\Delta_a={a\mbox{D}_a\rho\over\rho}\,,~~
{\cal B}={a^2\mbox{D}^a{\cal B}_a\over B^2}\,,~~
{\cal B}_a=\mbox{D}_aB^2\,,
\]
describe perturbations in the fluid and field energy densities.
Note that the overall magnetic effect includes a coupling to the projected
curvature, $c_{\rm a}^2{\cal R}$.
Magnetic influence on cosmic rotation is encoded in the
vorticity propagation equation
\begin{equation}
\dot{\omega}_a+2H\omega_a=-{\textstyle{1\over2}}
\mbox{curl}\,A_a \,, \label{v'}
\end{equation}
which may be rewritten, after eliminating the acceleration term via
Eq. (\ref{mdc}), as
\begin{equation}
\dot{\omega}_a+\left(2-3c_{\rm s}^2\right)H\omega_a=
-\frac{1}{2(1+w)\rho}B^b\mbox{D}_b\mbox{curl}\,B_a \,. \label{dotom}
\end{equation}
Thus there is a magnetically induced vorticity component
parallel to $\mbox{curl}\,B_a$. The effect
disappears if the directional derivative
$B^b\mbox{D}_b\mbox{curl}\,B_a$ vanishes, i.e., when
$\mbox{curl}\,B_a$ does not change along the magnetic force
lines.
Kinematic anisotropies evolve via the shear propagation
equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\sigma}_{ab}+2H\sigma_{ab}&=&
-\frac{c_{\rm s}^2}{a(1+w)}\mbox{D}_{\langle a}\Delta_{b\rangle}-
\frac{1}{2(1+w)\rho}\mbox{D}_{\langle a}{\cal B}_{b\rangle}+
\frac{c_{\rm a}^2}{3(1+w)}{\cal R}_{\langle ab\rangle}
\nonumber\\&\mbox{}&+
{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\pi_{ab}+
\frac{1}{(1+w)\rho}B^c\mbox{D}_c\mbox{D}_{\langle a}B_{b\rangle}-
E_{ab} \,. \label{dotsh}
\end{eqnarray}
The direct magnetic effects propagate through the field's
anisotropic stress ($\pi_{ab}$), as well as via anisotropies in the
distribution of magnetic energy
density ($\mbox{D}_{\langle a}{\cal B}_{b\rangle}$)
and of the field
vector itself ($\mbox{D}_{\langle a}B_{b\rangle}$).
The latter effect vanishes when $\mbox{D}_{\langle a}B_{b\rangle}$
is invariant along the magnetic force lines. Also, the coupling
between the field and the projected curvature has led to an extra
magneto-geometrical contribution,
$c_{\rm a}^2{\cal R}_{\langle ab\rangle}$.
The kinematic quantities also obey constraint equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\mbox{div}\,\sigma\right)_a&=&
{\textstyle\frac{2}{3}}\mbox{D}_a\Theta+\mbox{curl}\,\omega_a \,, \label{shcon}\\
\mbox{div}\,\omega&=&0 \,, \label{vorcon}\\
H_{ab}&=&\mbox{curl}\,\sigma_{ab}+
\mbox{D}_{\langle a}\omega_{b\rangle} \,. \label{Hcon}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Curvature}
The electric and magnetic Weyl tensors obey Maxwell-like
equations \cite{E2,mb}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{E}_{ab}+3HE_{ab}-\mbox{curl}\,H_{ab} &=&
-{\textstyle{1\over2}}\rho(1+w)\sigma_{ab}+3H\pi_{ab}
\,,\label{gem1}\\
\dot{H}_{ab}+3HH_{ab}+\mbox{curl}\,E_{ab} &=&{\textstyle{1\over2}}
\mbox{curl}\,\pi_{ab}\,,\label{gem2}\\
\left({\rm div}\,E\right)_a&=&{\textstyle{1\over3}}\mbox{D}_a\rho
+{\textstyle{1\over6}}{\cal B}_a
-{\textstyle{1\over2}}\left({\rm div}\,\pi\right)_a
\,,\label{gem3}\\
\left({\rm div}\,H\right)_a&=&(1+w)\rho\omega_a\,,\label{gem4}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used Eq. (\ref{pi}). For a magnetized fluid the
projected curvature tensor ${\cal R}_{ab}$ is not in general
symmetric, but has the form ${\cal R}_{ab}={\cal R}_{\langle
ab\rangle}+{\textstyle{1\over3}}{\cal
R}h_{ab}+\varepsilon_{abc}{\cal R}^c$, where \cite{TB}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal R}_{\langle ab\rangle}&=&
\mbox{D}_{\langle a}A_{b\rangle}-
\frac{1}{a^3}\left(a^3\sigma_{ab}\right)^{\displaystyle{\cdot}}+\pi_{ab}\,,\label{3R_ab}\\
{\cal R}_a &=&\mbox{curl}\,A_a
-\frac{1}{a^3}\left(a^3\omega_{a}\right)^{\displaystyle{\cdot}}\,,\\
{\cal R}&=&2\left(\rho-{\textstyle{1\over3}}\Theta^2
+\Lambda\right)\label{3R''}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the background relation $3H^2=\rho+\Lambda$ ensures that
${\cal R}$ vanishes in the background, so that it is gauge-invariant.
By Eq. (\ref{v'}), the vector part of ${\cal R}_{ab}$ is simply
${\cal R}_a=-H\omega_a$,
which vanishes when the vorticity vanishes.
The dimensionless curvature perturbation ${\cal K}=a^2{\cal R}$
has comoving gradient \cite{TB}
\begin{equation}
a\mbox{D}_a{\cal K}=2\rho a^2\Delta_a+a^3{\cal B}_a-4Ha^3\mbox{D}_a\Theta\,,
\label{r}\end{equation}
which evolves as \cite{TB}
\begin{equation}
\left(a\mbox{D}_a{\cal K}\right)^{\displaystyle{\cdot}}=
{2aH\over\rho(1+w)}\mbox{D}^2\left( 2\rho c_{\rm
s}^2\Delta_a+a{\cal B}_a\right)
+24a^3H^2c_{\rm s}^2{\rm curl}\,\omega_a\,.
\label{r'}\end{equation}
\subsection{Evolution of inhomogeneities}
The key gauge-invariant quantities describing inhomogeneity
are the comoving spatial gradients of the fluid
density, the field density,
the expansion and the field vector:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_a={a\mbox{D}_a\rho\over\rho}\,,~~
{\cal B}_a=\mbox{D}_aB^2\,,~~
\Theta_a=a\mbox{D}_a\Theta\,,
~~B_{ab}=a\mbox{D}_bB_a\,. \label{grad}
\end{equation}
Their propagation
equations are \cite{TB}
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\Delta}_a&=&3wH\Delta_a+(1+w)\Theta_a+
\frac{3aH}{\rho}\varepsilon_{abc}B^b\mbox{curl}\,B^c \,,
\label{dotDel_a}\\ \dot{\Theta}_a&=&-2H\Theta_a-
{\textstyle{1\over2}}{\rho}\Delta_a- \frac{c_{\rm
s}^2}{1+w}\mbox{D}^2\Delta_a- {\textstyle{1\over2}}{a}{\cal B}_a-
\frac{a}{2(1+w)\rho}\mbox{D}^2{\cal B}_a \nonumber\\&\mbox{}&+
{\textstyle\frac{3}{2}}a\varepsilon_{abc}B^b\mbox{curl}\,B^c
-\left[6c_{\rm s}^2+\frac{4c_{\rm
a}^2}{1+w}\right]aH\mbox{curl}\,\omega_a \,,\label{dotThe_a}\\
\dot{B}_{ab}&=&-2HB_{ab}+ \frac{c_{\rm
s}^2H}{1+w}\left[3B_{\langle a}\Delta_{b\rangle}+
B_{[a}\Delta_{b]}\right]-B_{\langle a}\Theta_{b\rangle}-
B_{[a}\Theta_{b]} \nonumber\\&&{}
+aB^c\mbox{D}_c\sigma_{ab}+a\varepsilon_{ab}{}{}^dB^c\mbox{D}_{\langle
c}\omega_{d\rangle}-aB_{[a}{\rm
curl}\,\omega_{b]}-a\varepsilon_{acd}B^cH^d{}_b \,.
\label{dotB_ab}
\end{eqnarray}
Note how the magnetic field couples to the magnetic Weyl
curvature via the last term in Eq. (\ref{dotB_ab}).
By eliminating the expansion gradients from the time derivative of
Eq. (\ref{dotDel_a}),
we arrive at \cite{TB}
\begin{eqnarray}
\ddot{\Delta}_a&=&-\left(2+3c_{\rm s}^2-6w\right)H\dot{\Delta}_a+
{\textstyle{1\over2}}\left[\left(1-6c_{\rm s}^2+8w-3w^2\right)\rho
-2\left(3c_{\rm s}^2-5w\right)\Lambda\right]\Delta_a
\nonumber\\&&{}+ c_{\rm s}^2\mbox{D}^2\Delta_a +\frac{a}{2\rho}\mbox{D}^2{\cal
B}_a+ {3a\over\rho}\left[\left(c_{\rm s}^2-w\right)\rho+
\left(1+c_{\rm
s}^2\right)\Lambda\right]\varepsilon_{abc}B^b\mbox{curl}\,B^c
\nonumber\\&&{}+ {\textstyle{1\over2}}(1+w)a{\cal B}_a+
\left(\frac{3aH}{\rho}\right)\varepsilon_{abc}B^b\mbox{curl}\,
\dot{B}^{\langle c\rangle}+ \left[6(1+w)c_{\rm s}^2+4c_{\rm
a}^2\right]aH\mbox{curl}\,\omega_a \,.\label{ddotDel_a}
\end{eqnarray}
In the Newtonian limit, Eq. (\ref{ddotDel_a}) recovers the
results of \cite{RR}. The relativistic correction terms are the last three
terms on the right hand side, i.e., the terms with
${\cal B}_a$, $\varepsilon_{abc}B^b{\rm curl}\,\dot{B}^{\langle
c\rangle}$,
and ${\rm curl}\,\omega_a$.
\section{Magnetized density perturbations}
The equations (\ref{dotDel_a})--(\ref{dotB_ab})
provide the basis for a complete description of coupled
density-magnetic inhomogeneities.
We begin by isolating the evolution equations for the density
perturbation scalars $\Delta$
(a covariant alternative to the density contrast
$\delta\rho/\rho$) and ${\cal B}$ (describing fluctuations in the magnetic
energy density), and the curvature perturbation ${\cal K}$:
\[
\Delta=a\mbox{D}^a\Delta_a\,,~~{\cal B}={a^2\mbox{D}^a{\cal B}_a\over B^2}\,,~~
{\cal K}=a^2{\cal R}\,.
\]
The required evolution equations are \cite{TB}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ddot{\Delta}&=&-\left(2+3c_{\rm
s}^2-6w\right)H\dot{\Delta}+{\textstyle{1\over2}}
\left[\left(1-6c_{\rm s}^2+8w-3w^2\right)\rho-2 \left(3c_{\rm
s}^2-5w\right)\Lambda\right]\Delta \nonumber\\&&{} +c_{\rm
s}^2\mbox{D}^2\Delta -{\textstyle{1\over2}} \left[\left(1-3c_{\rm
s}^2+2w\right)\rho-\left(1+3c_{\rm s}^2
\right)\Lambda\right]c_{\rm a}^2{\cal B}+{\textstyle{1\over2}}
c_{\rm a}^2\mbox{D}^2{\cal B} \nonumber\\&&{}+{\textstyle{1\over3}}
\left[\left(2-3c_{\rm s}^2+3w\right)\rho-\left(1+3c_{\rm
s}^2\right) \Lambda\right]c_{\rm a}^2{\cal K} \,,\label{ddotDel}\\
\dot{{\cal B}}&=& \frac{4}{3(1+w)}\dot{\Delta}+ \frac{4(c_{\rm
s}^2-w)H}{1+w}\Delta \,, \label{dotcB}\\ \dot{{\cal K}}&=&
\frac{4c_{\rm s}^2H}{1+w}\Delta +\frac{2c_{\rm a}^2H}{1+w}{\cal B}
\,. \label{dotcK}
\end{eqnarray}
This system of equations governs the coupling
between density fluctuations $\Delta$,
magnetic fluctuations ${\cal B}$ and curvature fluctuations
${\cal K}$. Eq. (\ref{dotcK}) shows that ${\cal K}$ grows
if $\Delta$ and ${\cal B}$ are growing, while Eq. (\ref{dotcB})
shows that if $c_{\rm s}^2\geq w$ (which holds in the radiation
and dust eras), then ${\cal B}$ grows in concert with growing
$\Delta$.
The magnetic field introduces a direct effect, via the term
$c_{\rm a}^2{\cal K}$ in Eq. (\ref{ddotDel}),
of the curvature on the density perturbations.
In the non-magnetized case, there are two modes of $\Delta$, which
is governed by the single second-order equation (\ref{ddotDel})
with $c_{\rm a}=0$. In this case, the evolution of $\Delta$ is
independent of ${\cal K}$, and ${\cal K}$ is determined once $\Delta$
is known, via Eq. (\ref{dotcK}).
Magnetism introduces
two additional modes, since the system has four degrees of
freedom.
These modes are nonadiabatic, and can source density perturbations,
i.e., even when $\Delta(t_0)=0=\dot{\Delta}(t_0)$, magnetic effects
will lead to $\Delta\neq0$ for $t>t_0$.
If one omits the magneto-curvature effect, then the evolution
equation for ${\cal K}$, Eq. (\ref{dotcK}), is uncoupled from
the system, which can then be decoupled via
a third-order equation in $\Delta$. Neglecting the magneto-curvature
effect thus removes one of the additional nonadiabatic modes.
For zero
cosmological constant, we can solve the system analytically
in the radiation and dust eras,
treating super- and sub-horizon scales separately.
Some solutions
were given in \cite{TB}. There, however, magneto-curvature
effects were neglected in three out of the four cases. Here, we
generalize some of the solutions to
incorporate the magneto-curvature coupling, and we show that the
magneto-curvature coupling cannot in general be neglected, since
it leads to important qualitative differences in the behavior of
$\Delta$.
\subsection{Radiation era}
During the radiation era, $w=c_{\rm s}^2={1\over3}$,
$\rho=\rho_0(a_0/a)^4$,
and the Alfv\'{e}n speed does not change along
the fluid flow, i.e., $\dot{c}_{\rm a}=0$, reflecting the radiation-like
evolution of the magnetic energy density, as given by Eq. (\ref{B^2ev}).
For the Fourier modes
with comoving wave-number $k$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\left({a\over a_0}\right)^2\Delta'' &=&
\left[2-{\textstyle{1\over3}}\left(\frac{ k}{k_{{\rm h}0}}\right)^2
\left({a\over a_0}\right)^2\right]
\Delta-
\left[1+{\textstyle{1\over2}}
\left(\frac{ k}{k_{{\rm h}0}}\right)^2\left({a\over a_0}\right)^2
\right]c_{\rm a}^2{\cal B}+
2c_{\rm a}^2{\cal K} \,, \label{rnddotDel}\\
{\cal B}'&=& \Delta'\,,\label{rn'}\\
\left({a\over a_0}\right){\cal K}'&=&\Delta+
{\textstyle{3\over2}}c_{\rm a}^2{\cal B} \,, \label{rndotcB-dotcK}
\end{eqnarray}
where a prime denotes $d/d(a/a_0)$ and $k_{{\rm h}0}=a_0H_0$ is
the comoving wavenumber of the horizon at $a_0$.
\subsubsection{Superhorizon scales and the curvature coupling}
In the long wavelength limit $ k \ll k_{{\rm h}0}$, the
system has the power-law solution
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta&=&C_{(0)}+
\sum_{\alpha}C_{(\alpha)}\left({a\over a_0}\right)^\alpha
\,,\label{lrnDel}\\
{\cal B} &=& -\left({2\over3 c_{\rm a}^2}\right)C_{(0)}+
\sum_{\alpha}C_{(\alpha)}\left({a\over a_0}\right)^\alpha
\,,\label{lrn'}\\
{\cal K} &=&-\left({4\over3 c_{\rm
a}^2}\right)C_{(0)}+\left(1+{\textstyle{3\over2}}c_{\rm
a}^2\right)
\sum_{\alpha}{C_{(\alpha)}\over\alpha}\left({a\over a_0}\right)^\alpha
\,, \label{lrn''}
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_{(0)}$
and $C_{(\alpha)}$ are constants, and
the parameter $\alpha$ satisfies the cubic equation
\begin{equation}
\alpha^3-\alpha^2-\left(2-c_{\rm a}^2\right)\alpha
-(2+3c_{\rm a}^2)c_{\rm a}^2=0 \,.
\label{lrDelz}
\end{equation}
The cubic has one positive and two negative roots.
One of the negative roots corresponds to a decaying
nonadiabatic mode. The other
nonadiabatic mode is the $C_{(0)}$-mode, which is constant.
The remaining cubic roots correspond to the magnetized versions of
the standard adiabatic modes, one growing and one decaying.
Since $c_{\rm a}^2$ is small, we can find the roots perturbatively.
The zero-order roots are $0,-1,2$ (the $\alpha=0$ solution is
spurious in the non-magnetized case). To lowest order, we find
that:
\begin{equation}
\alpha=\left\{\begin{array}{r}
0-c_{\rm a}^2+O\left(c_{\rm a}^4\right)\,,\\
\\
-1+c_{\rm a}^2+O\left(c_{\rm a}^4\right)\,,\\
\\
2+{\textstyle{1\over2}}c_{\rm a}^4
+O\left(c_{\rm a}^6\right)\,.
\end{array}\right.
\label{nc}\end{equation}
Thus the adiabatic growing mode of the non-magnetized case is
slightly {\em enhanced} by magnetic effects
(the enhancement is not felt to lowest order in $c_{\rm a}^2$);
the adiabatic decaying mode
decays less rapidly by virtue of magnetic effects; the
decaying nonadiabatic mode decays very slowly;
and the final, nonadiabatic, mode is constant. To lowest order
\begin{equation}
\Delta= C_{(+)}\left({a\over a_0}\right)^2+C_{(1-)}\left({a\over
a_0}\right)^{-1+c_{\rm a}^2}+C_{(0)}+
C_{(2-)}\left({a\over
a_0}\right)^{-c_{\rm a}^2}
\,.\label{new}
\end{equation}
The magnetic and curvature fluctuations are
given by equations (\ref{lrn'}) and (\ref{lrn''}), with $\alpha$
given by Eq. (\ref{nc}).
This new solution in Eq. (\ref{new}) can be compared with the
solution that arises when the magneto-curvature coupling
term $c_{\rm a}^2{\cal K}$ is
ignored in Eq. (\ref{lrnDel}) \cite{TB}. Then the last term in Eq.
(\ref{lrDelz}) falls away, leading to the quadratic
$\alpha^2-\alpha-\left(2-c_{\rm a}^2\right)=0$. To lowest order
\[
\alpha=\left\{\begin{array}{r}
-1+{\textstyle{1\over3}}c_{\rm a}^2 \,,\\
\\
2-{\textstyle{1\over3}}c_{\rm a}^2 \,,
\end{array}\right.
\]
so that the density perturbation is given by
\
\Delta=C_{(+)}\left({a\over a_0}\right)^{2-{1\over3}c_{\rm a}^2}+
C_{(-)}\left({a\over a_0}\right)^{-1+{1\over3}c_{\rm a}^2}
+C_{(0)}\,,
\
and the magnetic fluctuations are
\[
{\cal B} = \Delta -\left[1-\left({2\over c_{\rm
a}^2}\right)\right]C_{(0)}\,.
\]
Clearly, omitting the magneto-curvature coupling has a significant
qualitative impact. Not only is one of the nonadiabatic modes
($C_{(2-)}$) removed, as expected, but we also find that the
growing mode is slightly {\em damped}, at odds with the correct
solution in Eq. (\ref{new}). Thus the magneto-curvature coupling,
which was identified in general in \cite{TB}, turns out to have a
crucial role in increasing (even though it is only by a small
amount) the standard adiabatic modes of density perturbations on
large scales in the radiation era. It is not reasonable to omit
the magneto-curvature coupling in this case.
\subsubsection{Subhorizon scales and magneto-sonic waves}
At the opposite end of the wavelength spectrum, when
$k \gg k_{{\rm h}0}$, we differentiate
Eq. (\ref{rnddotDel}) and use
Eq. (\ref{rndotcB-dotcK}) to decouple the system. Integrating once
we get
\
6\left({a\over a_0}\right)^2\Delta''+
2\left(\frac{ k}{k_{{\rm h}0}}\right)^2\left({a\over a_0}\right)^2
\left(1+{\textstyle{3\over2}}
c_{\rm a}^2\right)\Delta= 6C_{{\cal K}}-
3C_{{\cal B}}c_{\rm a}^2\left({k\over k_{{\rm
h}0}}\right)^2
\left({a\over a_0}\right)^2 \,,
\
where $C_{{\cal K}}$ is an additional constant associated with
curvature effects. (We have ignored higher
order terms in $c_{\rm a}^2$, given the
weakness of the magnetic field.) This has
solution (to lowest order in $c_{\rm a}^2$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta&=&\left[C_{(1)}-C_{{\cal K}}
{\rm Si}\left(\beta {k\over k_{{\rm h}0}}{a\over a_0}\right)
\right]\sin\left(\beta {k\over k_{{\rm h}0}}{a\over a_0}\right)\nonumber\\
&&{}+\left[C_{(2)}-C_{{\cal K}}
{\rm Ci}\left(\beta {k\over k_{{\rm h}0}}{a\over a_0}\right)
\right]\cos\left(\beta {k\over k_{{\rm h}0}}{a\over a_0}\right)
-C_{{\cal B}}c_{\rm a}^2
\,, \label{srnDel}
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_{(i)}$ are constants, Si and Ci are the sine and cosine
integral functions,\footnote{
${\rm Si}(x)=\int_0^xt^{-1}\sin t\,dt$ and
${\rm Ci}(x)=\gamma+\ln x+\int_0^xt^{-1}(\cos t-1)dt$,
where $\gamma= 0.578\cdots$ is Euler's constant \cite{AS}.
}
and
\begin{equation}
\beta=c_{\rm s}\left(1+{\textstyle{3\over4}}c_{\rm a}^2\right)
\,, \label{srDelz}
\end{equation}
where $c_{\rm s}=1/\sqrt{3}$ is the adiabatic sound speed. Thus
$\beta$ is the magnetized (nonadiabatic) sound speed of
magneto-sonic waves. These waves differ slightly in amplitude and
frequency from the adiabatic acoustic waves.
The magneto-curvature
coupling, reflected in the nonadiabatic $C_{{\cal K}}$ mode, has the effect of
slightly modulating the amplitude of acoustic oscillations, with
the effect decreasing as $a/a_0$ increases.
The main magnetic effect is on the frequency.
Comparing our result in Eq. (\ref{srDelz})
to the standard solutions of
magnetic-free models (see, e.g., \cite{P}),
we see that the field has
increased the frequency of acoustic oscillations.
Since $a\propto\sqrt{t}$, the magnetized acoustic frequency is
\begin{equation}
\nu_{\rm ac,mag}=\nu_{\rm ac}\left(1+{\textstyle{3\over2}}c_{\rm a}^2
\right)~\mbox{ where }~\nu_{\rm ac}={H_0\over3\pi }\left({k\over
k_{{\rm h}0}}\right)^2\,.
\label{3}\end{equation}
This magnetic correction results from the
the ``tensioning" effect of magnetic force lines in the plasma,
which produces a nonadiabatic increase of the sound speed via a
contribution from the Alfv\'{e}n speed.
As a result, the magnetic influence brings
the acoustic peaks of short-wavelength radiation density
oscillations closer, producing in principle an
observable signature on CMB anisotropies \cite{adgr}. An additional
effect comes from the nonadiabatic constant mode in Eq. (\ref{srnDel}). Its
presence suggests that the average value of the density contrast
is {\em nonzero}, unlike the magnetic-free case.
\subsection{Dust era}
After recombination, in a baryon-dominated cold matter
background, $w=0=c_{\rm s}^2$, $a=a_0 (t/t_0)^{2/3}$,
$H=2/3t$ and $\rho=4/3t^2$. The Alfv\'{e}n speed is no
longer constant, but by Eq. (\ref{B^2ev})
varies as
\
c_{\rm a}^2=\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0 \left({t_0\over t}\right)^{2/3}\,,
\
reflecting the fact that the magnetic
energy density drops faster than that of nonrelativistic
matter. Thus magnetic effects grow weaker as the expansion of the
universe proceeds beyond recombination.
The equations for the Fourier modes become
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta''&=&-{\textstyle{4\over3}}\left({t_0\over t}\right)\Delta'+
{\textstyle{2\over3}}\left({t_0\over t}\right)^2\Delta\nonumber\\
&&{}-
{\textstyle{2\over3}}\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0\left({t_0\over t}\right)^{8/3}\left[
1+{\textstyle{1\over3}}
\left(\frac{k}{k_{{\rm h}0}}\right)^2\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{2/3}
\right]{\cal B}+
{\textstyle{8\over9}}
\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0\left({t_0\over t}\right)^{8/3}{\cal K}
\,, \label{dnddotDel} \\
{\cal B}' &=& {\textstyle{4\over3}}\Delta' \,, \label{dn'} \\
{\cal K}' &=& {\textstyle{4\over3}}
\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0\left({t_0\over t}\right)^{5/3}
{\cal B}\,, \label{dndotcB-dotcK}
\end{eqnarray}
where a prime denotes $d/d(t/t_0)$.
Thus
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal B}&=&{\textstyle{4\over3}}\left(\Delta+C_{{\cal B}}\right)\,,
\label{dnc'} \\
{\cal K}'&=&{\textstyle{16\over9}}
\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0\left({t_0\over t}\right)^{5/3}
\left[\Delta+C_{{\cal B}}\right] \,, \label{dncB-dotcK}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\dot{C}_{{\cal B}}=0$. We can now decouple the system.
\subsubsection{Superhorizon scales}
For long wavelength fluctuations, we get
\begin{equation}
9\left({t\over t_0}\right)^3\Delta'''+36\left({t\over t_0}\right)^2
\Delta''+14\left({t\over t_0}\right)\Delta'-
4\Delta =0 \,, \label{ldndddotDel}
\end{equation}
to lowest order in $c_{\rm a}^2$. Note that curvature effects are
quadratic in $c_{\rm a}^2$ and do not contribute at this level. In
fact equations (\ref{dnddotDel}), (\ref{dndotcB-dotcK}) guarantee
that, to lowest order in $c_{\rm a}^2$, curvature has no effect on
magnetised disturbances in the dust distribution. We can solve Eq.
(\ref{ldndddotDel}), which is of Euler-type:
\begin{equation}
\Delta=C_{(+)}\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{2/3}+C_{(1-)}
\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{-1}+
C_{(2-)}\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{-2/3} \,. \label{lldnDel}
\end{equation}
Thus, the field has simply added the nonadiabatic decaying mode $C_{(2-)}$
to the evolution of superhorizon
density perturbations, while the non-magnetized adiabatic modes
are unchanged. The growth of large-scale
matter aggregations proceeds virtually unaffected by the presence
of the field or by curvature complexities.
Magnetic effects on superhorizon scales
in the dust era do not change the adiabatic growing mode to lowest order in
$c_{\rm a}^2$.
The adiabatic decaying mode is also unchanged (unlike the radiation
case).
However, a new nonadiabatic decaying mode arises, which decays less
rapidly than the adiabatic mode.
\subsubsection{Subhorizon scales}
On subhorizon scales
\begin{eqnarray*}
9\left({t\over t_0}\right)^3\Delta'''+36\left({t\over t_0}\right)^2
\Delta''+
14\left({t\over t_0}\right)\left[1+{\textstyle{4\over21}}
\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0\left({k\over k_{{\rm h}0}}\right)^2
\right]\Delta'&& \nonumber\\
{}-4\left[1-{\textstyle{4\over9}}\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0
\left({k\over k_{{\rm h}0}}\right)^2\right]
\Delta =-{\textstyle{16\over9}}\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0
\left({k\over k_{{\rm h}0}}\right)^2C_{{\cal B}} \,,~&&
\end{eqnarray*}
where again we have ignored terms of higher order in $(c_{\rm a}^2)_0$. The
solution is
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta&=&C_{(+)}\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{\alpha_+}+
C_{(-)}\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{\alpha_-}+
C_{({\cal B}-)}\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{-2/3}\nonumber\\
&&{}+
C_{\cal B}\left[\frac{4\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0 k ^2}
{4\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0 k ^2-9k_{{\rm h}0}^2}
\right] \,, \label{sdnDel}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
\alpha_\pm={\textstyle{1\over6}}\left[-1\pm5\sqrt{1-{\textstyle{32\over75}}
\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0\left({k \over k_{{\rm h}0}}\right)^2 }\,\right] \,.
\label{sdnz12}
\end{equation}
The magnetic influence is expressed in two ways: additional decaying
($C_{({\cal B}-)}$) and constant ($C_{{\cal B}}$) nonadiabatic modes; and
modification of the non-magnetized adiabatic modes ($C_{(\pm)}$).
The net effect is to
inhibit the growth of matter aggregations, as noted also in
the Newtonian case \cite{RR}. Note that the magnetic effects, direct
or indirect, become less important after matter-radiation equality,
due to the decrease of the Alfv\'{e}n speed.
The damping of the growing mode is greater on smaller scales.
Indeed there is a minimum scale, below which the solution in Eq.
(\ref{sdnDel}) oscillates, since the magnetic pressure balances
gravitational infall. This magnetic Jeans scale follows from Eq.
(\ref{sdnz12}):
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{\rm mJ}(t_0)={\textstyle{4\over5}}\pi\sqrt{6}\lambda_{\rm
a}(t_0)\,,\label{mj}
\end{equation}
where
\
\lambda_{\rm a}=c_{\rm a}t={\textstyle{2\over3}}c_{\rm a}\lambda_{\rm h}
\
is the Alfv\'{e}n horizon, with $\lambda_{\rm h}=H^{-1}$ the Hubble
scale.
In fact, given the weakness of the magnetic field, it is likely
that kinetic pressure cannot be ignored near the magnetic Jeans
scale. In this case, a more sophisticated analysis is necessary,
to incorporate nonrelativistic pressure effects in baryonic matter.
On scales well above the Alfv\'{e}n horizon (equivalently,
magnetic Jeans scale) but well within the Hubble horizon, i.e.,
for
\[
k_{{\rm h}0}\ll k\ll k_{{\rm a}0}~\mbox{ where }~k_{\rm
a}={3\over2c_{\rm a}}k_{\rm h}\,,
\]
we find that the magnetized corrections $\alpha_\pm$ of the
adiabatic exponents are
\[
\alpha_\pm=\left\{\begin{array}{r}
{\textstyle{2\over3}}-{\textstyle{2\over5}}(k/ k_{{\rm a}0})^2\,,\\
\\
-1+{\textstyle{2\over5}}(k/ k_{{\rm a}0})^2\,.\\
\end{array}\right.
\]
The way in which magnetic effects act to increase the adiabatic
Jeans length may be qualitatively understood as follows.
Consider a tube of magnetic
force-lines with instantaneous cross-sectional area
$\delta S$.
In a perfectly conducting medium the field remains
frozen into the fluid, i.e., the magnetic force-lines
always connect the same particles \cite{E2}.
More precisely, the induction equation (\ref{Max2}) shows that
$a^3B^a$ is a connecting vector. Thus the volume of the tube
is given by
\[
\delta V=\delta\ell\,\delta S\propto a^3B\,\delta S\,.
\]
However, we also have that in general, $\delta V\propto a^3$. It
follows that
\[
\left(B\,\delta S \right)^{\displaystyle{\cdot}}=0\,.
\]
The conservation law in Eq. (\ref{B^2ev}) shows that $B\propto
a^{-1}$; thus
\[
\delta S\propto a^2\,,
\]
so that the cross section of the
flux tube increases as the expansion redshifts the energy density
of the field. Thus the field acts against gravitational infall.
\subsection{Pure-magnetic and magnetized isocurvature perturbations}
We have seen that the magnetic field introduces nonadiabatic modes in the
density perturbations.
This means that the field itself can generate fluctuations in the
density, even when there are no primordial density fluctuations. Thus, if
\begin{equation}
\Delta(t_0)=0=\dot{\Delta}(t_0)\,,
\label{pm}\end{equation}
where $t_0$ is the epoch of magnetogenesis in the early radiation era,
then nonzero $\Delta$
will arise purely from the magnetic field; in the absence of magnetogenesis,
Eq. (\ref{pm}) would imply $\Delta=0$ for $t>t_0$. These nonadiabatic pure
magnetic density perturbations can be found explicitly from the
solutions given above. On superhorizon scales
(assuming that the field is created on these scales at $t_0$), the general
solution in Eq. (\ref{new}) implies with the initial conditions in
Eq. (\ref{pm}) that
the pure-magnetic nonadiabatic mode is (to lowest
order in $c_{\rm a}^2$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_{\rm pm}& =&
-{\textstyle{1\over3}}\left[C_{(0)}+C_{(2-)}\right]
\left({a\over a_0}\right)^{2}\left[1+2
\left({a\over a_0}\right)^{-3+c_{\rm a}^2}\right]
\nonumber\\
&&{}+C_{(0)}+C_{(2-)}\left({a\over a_0}\right)^{-c_{\rm a}^2}\,.
\label{new'}
\end{eqnarray}
The pure-magnetic density perturbations have a
dominant growing mode of the same strength as
in the non-magnetized adiabatic case. The decaying modes are in
fact the isocurvature part of the pure-magnetic density
perturbations, as we now show.
Equation (\ref{pm}) is often taken to characterize isocurvature
perturbations, but it does so only in specific cases
\cite{ent}. For
magnetized perturbations, this is not the isocurvature condition.
Isocurvature density perturbations are those for which the
curvature perturbation of the initial hypersurface orthogonal to the fluid flow
is spatially constant, i.e.,
$(a\mbox{D}_a{\cal K})(t_0)=0$. (There is also the implicit condition
that $\omega_a=0$, which is necessary for the existence of
the spatial hypersurface.) Taking the
the comoving divergence of Eqs. (\ref{r}) and (\ref{dotDel_a}),
we find the condition for magnetized isocurvature perturbations:
\begin{equation}
\dot{\Delta}+{\textstyle{3\over2}}(1-w)H\Delta={\textstyle{3\over4}}(1-w)
c_{\rm a}^2H{\cal B}-c_{\rm a}^2H{\cal K}~\mbox{ at }~t=t_0\,.\label{iso1}
\end{equation}
In the non-magnetized case $c_{\rm a}=0$, it is clear that this
condition is satisfied by Eq. (\ref{pm}), but when $c_{\rm a}>0$, then
Eq. (\ref{pm}) does not characterize isocurvature perturbations.
As an example, consider the implication of the magnetized
isocurvature condition in the dust era, on scales well above the
Alfv\'{e}n horizon but well within the Hubble horizon, i.e.,
$k_{{\rm h}0}\ll k\ll k_{{\rm a}0}$. Then Eqs.
(\ref{iso1}) and (\ref{sdnDel}) give, to lowest order,
\[
C_{(+)}={\textstyle{2\over5}}\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0\left[C_{(-)}
+C_{{\cal B}}\right]-{\textstyle{1\over5}}C_{{\cal K}}\,.
\]
On superhorizon scales,
Eq. (\ref{iso1}) holds for all $t$ by virtue of Eq. (\ref{r'}),
which implies $(a\mbox{D}_a{\cal K})^{\displaystyle{\cdot}}=0$. The magnetized
isocurvature condition then selects a sub-class of the general
superhorizon solutions found above.
In the radiation era, we find
(to lowest order in $c_{\rm a}^2$)
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\rm iso}=C_{(1-)}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}c_a^2}+
C_{(2-)}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}c_a^2} \,.
\label{iso4}\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{iso4}) arises from the general superhorizon
solution Eq. (\ref{new}) by eliminating the non-decaying modes.
In the dust era,
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\rm iso}=C_{(1-)}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{-1}+
C_{(2-)}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{-\frac{2}{3}} \,,
\label{iso5}\end{equation}
which is a special case of the general superhorizon dust solution
Eq. (\ref{lldnDel}), once again without the growing mode.
It is clear from Eqs. (\ref{iso4}) and (\ref{iso5}) that
magnetized isocurvature perturbations on superhorizon scales
are purely decaying. They are
very different from the pure-magnetic solution Eq. (\ref{new'}) that is based on
the initial conditions in Eq. (\ref{pm}). The latter has a
constant and a growing mode. Magnetized nonadiabatic perturbations
on superhorizon scales can contribute to the growing mode and
generate a constant mode, whereas the
magnetized isocurvature perturbations are purely decaying.
\section{Magnetized cosmic vortices and Alfv\'{e}n waves}
In the previous section, we
generalized the results given in \cite{TB}, which itself
provided a relativistic extension of previous work on
magnetized density perturbations.
A general inhomogeneous perturbation
is characterized not only by its magnitude, i.e. the density
perturbation $\Delta$, but also by its rotation and
deformation properties, as described in general terms in \cite{EB2,MT}.
Recently, these properties were investigated in CDM,
and it
was shown how the small stresses (isotropic and anisotropic)
from residual velocity dispersion can have an important effect
on rotation and deformation, even though the effect on density
perturbations is effectively negligible \cite{mtm}.
The evolution equations for rotational
and deformation variables in an imperfect fluid were derived in \cite{MT}.
The evolution equations for inhomogeneities were coupled
to causal transport equations for viscosity and heat conduction.
By Eq. (\ref{emt'}), a magnetized perfect
fluid can be considered as an imperfect fluid with
anisotropic stress, and the equations of \cite{MT}
may be specialized to this case. However, the system needs to
be completed by evolution equations for the magnetic
stress, which are
determined by Maxwell's equations. Here we investigate the coupled
equations governing rotational and deformational inhomogeneity
in the fluid and magnetic field.
The comoving gradient of the density inhomogeneity $\Delta_a$
splits irreducibly as
\
a\mbox{D}_b\Delta_a=
{\textstyle{1\over3}}\Delta h_{ab}+
\varepsilon_{abc}W^c+
\xi_{ab} \,.
\
The density perturbation is the comoving divergence,
the rotational part is given by the comoving curl and the
deformation part is the comoving PSTF derivative:
\
\Delta=a\mbox{D}^a\Delta_a\,,~~
W_a=-{\textstyle{1\over2}}a\,{\rm curl}\,\Delta_{a}\,,~~
\xi_{ab}=a\mbox{D}_{\langle a}\Delta_{b\rangle}\,.
\
The vector $W_a$ governs
rotational instabilities in the density distribution of the
matter, and ${\rm div}\, W=0$.
On the other hand, $\xi_{ab}$ determines the volume-true
anisotropic distortion, with $h^{ab}\xi_{ab}=0$.
Both quantities describe differential, i.e., infinitesimal,
properties. Here we focus on rotation, and in the next section
we look at anisotropic deformations.
A fundamental property of rotational perturbations is that they
are proportional to the vorticity vector. This arises from
the identity Eq. (\ref{id2})
which ensures that the curl of any gradient field, such as $\Delta_a$,
derives from the vorticity. It follows that
\begin{equation}
W_a=-3a^2H(1+w)\omega_a\,.
\label{w}\end{equation}
Not only $W_a$,
but also rotational perturbations in
magnetic density and expansion inhomogeneities, are parallel to the vorticity:
\[
{\rm curl}\,{\cal B}_a\equiv{\rm curl}\,\mbox{D}_aB^2={4\over3(1+w)}W_a\,,~
{\rm curl}\,\Theta_a\equiv{\rm curl}\,a\mbox{D}_a\Theta=-{\dot{H}\over(1+w)H}W_a\,.
\]
Thus all rotational instability in the magnetized medium arises from
vorticity. As we have seen from the vorticity propagation
equation (\ref{dotom}), magnetic inhomogeneities can source vorticity.
Rewriting Eq. (\ref{dotom}) using Eq. (\ref{w}), we have
\begin{equation}
\dot{W}_a+{\textstyle{3\over2}}(1-w)HW_a=\left(
\frac{3a^2H}{2\rho}\right)B^b\mbox{D}_b\mbox{curl}\,B_a \,. \label{dotW_a}
\end{equation}
Thus the field is a source of vorticity provided that its curl varies
along its force lines.
Furthermore, the effect of the field is to induce precession of
the rotational vector $W_a$. In the absence of the field, $\dot{W}_a$
remains parallel to $W_a$, so that the initial direction is
preserved along the fluid flow. By contrast, in the magnetized
case, $\dot{W}_a$ is no longer parallel to $W_a$, and the initial
direction changes along the fluid flow. The rate of precession is
\begin{equation}
\nu_{\rm prec}={|B^b\mbox{D}_b\mbox{curl}\,B_a|\over2(1+w)\rho|\omega_a|}\,.
\label{prec}
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{dotW_a}) shows how the magnetic field can become a
source of density vortices. However, the field effect upon
pre-existing rotational perturbations is not clear yet. To
quantify the magnetic influence on $W_a$ we need to go one step
further and obtain a decoupled equation for the
evolution of $W_a$.
We take the curl of Eq. (\ref{ddotDel_a}), using the above results and the
identities in Eqs. (\ref{id2}), (\ref{id1}) and (\ref{id3}),
and we arrive at the required evolution equation (with $\Lambda=0$):
\begin{equation}
\ddot{W}_a+\left(4-3w\right)H\dot{W}_a+
{\textstyle{1\over2}}\left[1-7w+3c_{\rm s}^2(1+w)\right]\rho W_a=
\left[\frac{c_{\rm a}^2}{3(1+w)}\right]\mbox{D}^2W_a \,. \label{ddotW_a}
\end{equation}
This is a wave equation for $W_a$, with signal speed $v_{\rm a}$ given
by\footnote{
A similar equation was derived in \cite{MT}
for a fluid with shear viscosity; in that case
$v^2=\eta/[\tau\rho(1+w)]$, where $\eta$ is the viscosity and $\tau$
is the causal relaxation time.
}
\[
v_{\rm a}^2={c_{\rm a}^2\over 3(1+w)}\,.
\]
Propagating solutions of this equation are Alfv\'{e}n waves
(compare \cite{cmb}), i.e., incompressible, vector waves, as
opposed to the compressible, scalar magneto-sonic waves.
In the non-magnetized case, the signal speed vanishes, and no wave
solutions exist.
We note also that the only scale-dependence arising in the wave equation is
via the magnetic $c_{\rm a}^2$ term. Thus magnetized vortices are
scale-dependent, unlike the non-magnetized case.
Decomposing the solenoidal vector $W_a$ into Fourier modes
${\cal W}$, Eq. (\ref{ddotW_a}) gives
\begin{equation}
\ddot{\cal W}+\left(4-3w\right)H\dot{\cal W}+
\left\{{\textstyle{1\over2}}
\left[1-7w+3c_{\rm s}^2(1+w)\right]\rho+
\frac{ c_{\rm a}^2k^2}{3(1+w)a^2}\right\}{\cal W}=0\,. \label{nddotW_a}
\end{equation}
Clearly, $W_a$ can only grow if the term in square brackets becomes
negative. If $\dot{w}=0$, as in the radiation and dust eras, then the quantity
$1-7w+3(1+w)c_{\rm s}^2=(3w-1)(w-1)$
becomes negative when ${1\over3}<w<1$.
Thus it is only when matter stiffer than
radiation dominates the universe (and is coupled to the magnetic field),
that vortices in the density distribution can grow (in the linear
regime).
Furthermore, the presence of the
magnetic field ensures that such growth occurs only on scales larger
than the critical ``rotational Jeans" wavelength
\
\lambda_{\rm rJ}=2\pi c_{\rm a}\left[{\frac{2}{3(3w-1)(1-w^2)\rho}}
\right]^{1/2} \,,
\
which is small due to the weakness of the field.
In the radiation era, Eq. (\ref{nddotW_a})
becomes
\
{\cal W}''+{2}\left({a_0\over a}\right){\cal W}'+
\left({k\over k_{{\rm a}0}}\right)^2{\cal W}=0 \,,
\
where a prime denotes $d/d(a/a_0)$, and $k_{\rm a}=2k_{\rm h}/c_{\rm a}$
is the wavenumber of the Alfv\'{e}n horizon
$\lambda_{\rm a}={1\over2}c_{\rm a}\lambda_{\rm h}$. This has
the general solution
\begin{equation}
{\cal W}=\frac{a_0}{a}
\left[C_{(1)}\cos\left(
{k\over k_{{\rm a}0}}\frac{a}{a_0}\right)
+C_{(2)}\sin\left(
{k\over k_{{\rm a}0}}{a\over a_0}\right)\right]
\,, \label{rW_a}
\end{equation}
which describes Alfv\'{e}n waves.
The Alfv\'{e}n frequency
\begin{equation}
\nu_{\rm a}={H_0\over\pi}\left({k\over k_{{\rm
a}0}}\right)^2={\textstyle{1\over2}}\delta\nu_{\rm ac}\,,
\label{osc}\end{equation}
where $\delta\nu_{\rm ac}=\nu_{\rm ac,mag}-\nu_{\rm ac}$ is the
excess magnetic acoustic frequency given in Eq. (\ref{3}).
Thus local differential vortices in the density distribution are
``flip-flopping" in concert with the acoustic oscillations in the
density perturbations.
Alfv\'{e}n waves are a purely magnetic effect, arising from
the fluctuations in the magnetic field direction.
These waves have decaying amplitude, in common with non-magnetized
(and non-propagating) vector perturbations.
On scales well beyond the Alfv\'{e}n horizon, $k\ll k_{{\rm a}0}$,
the oscillatory behavior
is not felt, and Eq. (\ref{rW_a}) gives, to lowest order,
\[
{\cal W}=C_{(1)}\left[{a_0\over
a}-{\textstyle{1\over2}}\left({k\over k_{{\rm a}0}}
\right)^2\left({a\over
a_0}\right)\right]+C_{(2)}
\left({ k\over k_{{\rm a}0}}\right)\,.
\]
On superhorizon scales, the oscillations
disappear: ${\cal W}\rightarrow C_{(1)}(a_0/a)$, regaining the
standard non-magnetized result.
Thus, before matter-radiation
equality, and on scales much larger than the Alfv\'{e}n horizon,
density vortices evolve unaffected by the presence of a
cosmological magnetic field.
After equality, in the matter-dominated dust era, Eq.
(\ref{nddotW_a}) becomes
\begin{equation}
3\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^2{\cal W}''+8\left({t\over t_0}\right)
{\cal W}'+\left[2+
\left({k\over k_{{\rm a}0}}\right)^2\right]{\cal W}=0 \,, \label{dnddW_a}
\end{equation}
where a prime denotes $d/d(t/t_0)$.
The solution is
\begin{equation}
{\cal W}=C_{(+)}\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{\alpha_+}+
C_{(-)}\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{\alpha_-}\,, \label{dW_a}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\alpha_\pm={\textstyle{1\over6}}\left[-5
\pm\sqrt{1-12 \left(
{k\over k_{{\rm a}0}}\right)^2}\,\right]
\,. \label{dz12}
\end{equation}
Therefore, any rotational instabilities present in the density
distribution of the dust die away with time, as they do in
non-magnetized cosmologies. The field effect on a given mode $k$ is
to reduce the depletion rate of $W_a$ by an amount proportional to
the initial Alfv\'{e}n speed squared, $(c_{\rm a}^2)_0$. Thus,
magnetized dust universes will contain more residual vortices than
magnetic-free ones. However, the effect is confined within a narrow
wavelength band beyond the Alfv\'{e}n horizon $\lambda_{\rm a}$. On
much larger scales, the field
influence becomes negligible, and $W_a\propto t_0/t$ as in
non-magnetized models.
On scales with $k>k_{{\rm a}0}/\sqrt{12}$, i.e. within a few times
the Alfv\'{e}n scale, Eq. (\ref{dz12}) shows that the density
vortices oscillate as Alfv\'{e}n waves.
\section{Magnetized shape-distortion}
We monitor anisotropic deformation (shape distortion)
in the density distribution of the medium
through the PSTF tensor
$\xi_{ab}=a\mbox{D}_{\langle a}\Delta_{b\rangle}$.
This is associated with density variations that do not
represent matter aggregations,
since the associated
divergence of $\Delta_a$ is zero, but rather describe changes in
the local anisotropy pattern of the density gradients.
Distortion in the density is coupled to
distortion in the expansion and the magnetic energy
density, defined via the PSTF tensors
\begin{equation}
\vartheta_{ab}=a^2\mbox{D}_{\langle a}\mbox{D}_{b\rangle}\Theta\,,~~
\beta_{ab}=
\frac{a^2}{B^2}\mbox{D}_{\langle a}\mbox{D}_{b\rangle}B^2 \,, \label{vthe_ab-bet_ab}
\end{equation}
which vanish in the background and are thus gauge-invariant.
The propagation equations for $\xi_{ab}$, $\vartheta_{ab}$ and $\beta_{ab}$
follow from the comoving PSTF derivatives of Eqs.
(\ref{dotDel_a})--(\ref{dotB_ab}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\xi}_{ab}&=& 3wH\xi_{ab}- (1+w)\vartheta_{ab}+
{\textstyle{3\over2}}c_{\rm a}^2H\beta_{ab}- c_{\rm
a}^2H\kappa_{ab}- 3H\mu_{ab} \,, \label{dotxi}\\
\dot{\vartheta}_{ab}&=&-2H\vartheta_{ab}-
{\textstyle{1\over2}}{\rho}\xi_{ab}- \frac{c_{\rm
s}^2}{1+w}\mbox{D}^2\xi_{ab}+ {\textstyle{1\over4}}{c_{\rm
a}^2\rho}\beta_{ab}- \frac{c_{\rm
a}^2}{2(1+w)}\mbox{D}^2\beta_{ab}\nonumber\\
&&{}-{\textstyle{1\over2}}{c_{\rm a}^2\rho}\kappa_{ab}-
{\textstyle{3\over2}}\rho\mu_{ab}- \left(6c_{\rm
s}^2+\frac{4c_{\rm a}^2}{1+w}\right)H\varpi_{ab} \,,
\label{dotvth}\\
\dot{\beta}_{ab}&=&\frac{4}{3(1+w)}\dot{\xi}_{ab}+ \frac{4(c_{\rm
s}^2-w)H}{1+w}\xi_{ab} \,. \label{dotbet}
\end{eqnarray}
The additional
gauge-invariant PSTF tensors
\
\kappa_{ab}=a^2{\cal R}_{\langle ab\rangle}\,,~~
\varpi_{ab}=a^2\mbox{D}_{\langle a}\mbox{curl}\,\omega_{b\rangle}\,,~~
\mu_{ab}={a\over\rho}B^c\mbox{D}_cB_{\langle ab\rangle} \,,
\
respectively describe distortions caused by projected
curvature, rotation and by anisotropies in the distribution of the
magnetic field gradients. The first is due to the natural coupling
of the field to the curvature and is given by
\
\kappa_{ab}=a^2\left({\textstyle{1\over2}}\pi_{ab}-
H\sigma_{ab}+
E_{ab}\right)\,,
\
obtained from Eq. (\ref{3R_ab}) by means of the shear propagation
equation (\ref{dotsh}).
The second arises from the fluid flow, which
generally is not hypersurface orthogonal. It has no impact
on deformation if the rather special condition
$\mbox{D}_{\langle a}\mbox{curl}\,\omega_{b\rangle}=0$ holds.
Finally, the effect of $\mu_{ab}$ vanishes when any
anisotropies present in the distribution of $B_{ab}\equiv a\mbox{D}_bB_a$ remain
invariant along the magnetic force-lines, that is when
$B^c\mbox{D}_cB_{\langle ab\rangle}=0$.
Note that both the scalar and vector aspects of the field
contribute to shape distortion.
Equations (\ref{dotxi}) and (\ref{dotvth}) combine to provide a
second order differential equation, also obtained by
taking the comoving PSTF derivative of
Eq. (\ref{ddotDel_a}). With $\Lambda=0$, we
have
\begin{eqnarray}
\ddot{\xi}_{ab}&=&-\left(2+3c_{\rm s}^2-6w\right)H\dot{\xi}_{ab}+
{\textstyle{1\over2}}
\left(1-6c_{\rm s}^2+8w-3w^2\right)\rho\xi_{ab}+
c_{\rm s}^2\mbox{D}^2\xi_{ab}
\nonumber\\&\mbox{}&-{\textstyle{1\over2}}
\left(1-3c_{\rm s}^2+2w\right)c_{\rm a}^2\rho\beta_{ab}+
{\textstyle{1\over2}}c_{\rm
a}^2\mbox{D}^2\beta_{ab}+{\textstyle{1\over3}}
\left(2-3c_{\rm s}^2+3w\right)\left(c_{\rm a}^2\rho\kappa_{ab}+3\rho\mu_{ab}\right)
\nonumber\\&\mbox{}&+
\left[6(1+w)c_{\rm s}^2+2c_{\rm a}^2\right]H\varpi_{ab} \,. \label{ddotxi_ab}
\end{eqnarray}
This is coupled to Eq. (\ref{dotbet}) for the growth of
infinitesimal distortions in the magnetic energy density. The
other source terms, namely $\kappa_{ab}$, $\mu_{ab}$ and
$\varpi_{ab}$, evolve according to
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\kappa}_{ab}&=&-\frac{1}{1+w}\dot{\xi}_{ab}+ \frac{(c_{\rm
s}^2+3w)H}{1+w}\xi_{ab}+ \frac{2c_{\rm a}^2H}{1+w}\beta_{ab}-
\frac{4H}{1+w}\mu_{ab}-2\varpi_{ab}- \mbox{D}^2\sigma_{ab} \,,
\label{dotkap}\\ \dot{\mu}_{ab}&=&-\left[4-3(1+w)\right]H\mu_{ab}+
\frac{c_{\rm a}^2}{3(1+w)}\dot{\xi}_{ab}+ \frac{(c_{\rm
s}^2-w)c_{\rm a}^2H}{1+w}\xi_{ab} \nonumber\\ &&{}- \frac{c_{\rm
a}^4H}{2(1+w)}\beta_{ab}+ \frac{c_{\rm a}^4H}{3(1+w)}\kappa_{ab}+
{\textstyle{1\over3}}c_{\rm a}^2a^2\mbox{D}^2\sigma_{ab} \,,
\label{dotmu}\\ \dot{\varpi}_{ab}&=&-(2-3c_{\rm s}^2)H\varpi_{ab}+
\frac{a}{2(1+w)\rho}\mbox{D}_c\mbox{D}_{\langle
a}B^d\mbox{D}_{|d|}\left[B_{b\rangle}{}^c-B^c{}_{b\rangle}\right]\,.
\label{dotvpi}
\end{eqnarray}
We used
the propagation equations (\ref{gem1}) and (\ref{pi})
for $E_{ab}$ and $\pi_{ab}$, which
imply
\[
\dot{E}_{ab}=-3HE_{ab}+
{\textstyle{3\over2}}H\pi_{ab}-
{\textstyle{1\over2}}(1+w)\rho\sigma_{ab}-
\mbox{D}^2\sigma_{ab}+
\frac{1}{a^2}\left(\vartheta_{ab}+2\varpi_{ab}\right) \,,
\]
on using the
constraint equations (\ref{shcon}) and (\ref{Hcon}).
Equation (\ref{dotmu}) requires Eqs.
(\ref{Max2}) and
(\ref{dotxi}). Finally, to obtain the evolution formula of
$\varpi_{ab}$ we have successively taken the comoving curl and
the comoving PSTF derivative of Eq. (\ref{dotom}).
The system of equations (\ref{dotbet})--(\ref{dotvpi}) provides in principle a
complete description of linear infinitesimal shape distortion generated
by magnetic effects, provided we have a prescription for the $\mbox{D}^2\sigma_{ab}$
terms in Eqs. (\ref{dotkap}) and (\ref{dotmu}),
and for the last term on the right of Eq. (\ref{dotvpi}). Even
without these terms, the system is too complicated to
analyze in general. However,
it is clear in general terms how magnetic effects will actively
generate distortion. We can illustrate this
by comparing with the non-magnetized case in a simple example.
For simplicity, consider superhorizon scales in the dust era
(neglecting vorticity).
Suppose that at a given event $(t_0,\vec{x}_0)$, we have no
initial distortion or rate of distortion:
\begin{equation}
(\xi_{ab})_0=0=(\dot{\xi}_{ab})_0\,,
\label{d1}\end{equation}
In the non-magnetized case, the distortion system collapses
to the single equation
\[
\ddot{\xi}_{ab}=-2H\dot{\xi}_{ab}+
{\textstyle{3\over2}}H^2\xi_{ab}\,.
\]
It follows that along the
fluid flow line through $\vec{x}_0$, no distortion is generated:
\[
\xi_{ab}(t,\vec{x}_0)=0\,.
\]
The evolution is purely {\em passive}, or inertial,
i.e., distortion can only develop if it is there {\em a priori}.
In the magnetized case, by contrast, distortion is {\em actively} and
nonadiabatically generated by magnetic effects.
Equation (\ref{ddotxi_ab}) shows that
\[
H_0^{-2}(\ddot{\xi}_{ab})_0=\left(c_{\rm
a}^2\right)_0\left[-{\textstyle{3\over2}}\left(\kappa_{ab}\right)_0+
2\left(\kappa_{ab}\right)_0\right]+6\left(\mu_{ab}\right)_0\,,
\]
so that $(\ddot{\xi}_{ab})_0\neq0$. Distortion is immediately
generated along the flow line. In fact, the distortion has a
growing mode, as we now show.
The superhorizon scalar modes of the distortion
tensors satisfy a system that follows from Eqs. (\ref{dotbet}) and
(\ref{ddotxi_ab})--(\ref{dotmu}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi''&=&-{\textstyle{4\over3}}\left({t_0\over t}\right)\xi'+
{\textstyle{2\over3}}\left({t_0\over t}\right)^2\xi-
{\textstyle{2\over9}}\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0\left({t_0\over t}\right)^{8/3}
[3\beta-4\kappa]+
{\textstyle{8\over3}}\left({t_0\over t}\right)^2\mu \,, \label{dnddotxi}\\
\beta'&=&{\textstyle{4\over3}}\xi' \,, \label{dndotbet}\\
\kappa'&=&-\xi'+{\textstyle{4\over3}}\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0
\left({t_0\over t}\right)^{5/3}\beta-
{\textstyle{8\over3}}\left({t_0\over t}\right)\mu \,, \label{dndotkap}\\
\mu'&=&-{\textstyle{2\over3}}\left({t_0\over
t}\right)\mu+{\textstyle{1\over3}}\left(c_{\rm
a}^2\right)_0\left({t_0\over t}\right)^{2/3}\xi'\,.
\label{dndotmu}
\end{eqnarray}
Equations (\ref{dndotbet}) and (\ref{dndotmu}) integrate to
\begin{equation}
\beta={\textstyle{4\over3}}\left(\xi+\Gamma_\beta\right)\,,~~
\mu={\textstyle{4\over3}}\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0
\left({t_0\over t}\right)^{2/3}
\left[\xi+\Gamma_\mu\right] \,, \label{dnbetmu}
\end{equation}
where $\dot{\Gamma}_\beta=0= \dot{\Gamma}_\mu$. Then
Eq. (\ref{dnbetmu}) transforms Eq. (\ref{dndotkap}) into
\begin{equation}
\kappa'=-\xi'+{\textstyle{8\over9}}\left(c_{\rm a}^2\right)_0
\left({t_0\over
t}\right)^{2/3}\left[\xi+2\Gamma_\beta-\Gamma_\mu\right]\,.
\label{dndotkap1}
\end{equation}
According to Eq. (\ref{dnbetmu}), the effect of any anisotropies
present in the distribution of $B_{ab}\equiv a\mbox{D}_aB_b$ on $\xi$
decreases after matter-radiation equilibrium. Since $\mu$
is a key source of shape-distortion, we expect the evolution
of $\xi$ to approach that of $\Delta$ as the universe expands.
Equation (\ref{dnddotxi}) gives
\[
9\left({t\over t_0}\right)^3\xi'''+36\left({t\over t_0}\right)^2\xi''+
14\left({t\over t_0}\right)\xi'-
4\xi=0 \,,
\]
on using Eqs. (\ref{dnbetmu}) and (\ref{dndotkap1}).
This has the same form as the corresponding density perturbation
equation (\ref{ldndddotDel}), and the solution is thus of the form Eq.
(\ref{lldnDel}). Imposing the initial conditions in Eq. (\ref{d1}), we find
that
\begin{equation}
\xi(t,\vec{x}_0)=\Gamma\left[\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{2/3}+4\left({t\over t_0}
\right)^{-1}-5\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{-2/3}\right] \,, \label{lldnxi}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma$ is a constant.
Thus the shape distortion has a growing mode along the fluid flow
line, due purely to magnetic effects; in the absence of the
magnetic field, $\Gamma=0$.
(A similar situation arises in the simpler case of distortion generated by
velocity dispersion \cite{mtm}.)
\section{Conclusion}
We have given a fully general relativistic treatment of
the scalar and vector effects of a weak large-scale magnetic field
on cosmological density inhomogeneity. This
refines the results of \cite{TB} on magnetized
density perturbations, and extends that work to
analyze magnetized vortices and
shape distortion in the density distribution.
Our covariant Lagrangian approach allows us to
derive gauge-invariant
evolution equations for all these aspects of density
inhomogeneity in the general linear case, i.e., incorporating
all fluctuations of, and couplings between, the field, the fluid and the
curvature. In summary, magnetized density perturbations are governed by
Eqs. (\ref{ddotDel})--(\ref{dotcK}), magnetized density vortices are governed
by Eq. (\ref{ddotW_a}), and magnetized shape distortion is
governed by Eqs. (\ref{dotbet})--(\ref{dotvpi}).
We give the solutions in closed form for magnetized density perturbations and
vortices, in the radiation and dust eras. Some of the scalar
solutions and all of the vector solutions are new.
For magnetized shape
distortion, we found a special solution with a growing mode.
Given the overall weakness of the field, the magnetic
effects described here are secondary relative to those of the
matter. In some
cases, second-order fluid effects may be comparable in strength
to first-order magnetic effects.
However, their presence does
not affect the field impact, which remains the same.
Thus we can neglect the second-order effects in a consistent
linear analysis that probes the lowest order magnetic effect on
density inhomogeneity.
To lowest
order, the magnetic influence on gravitational instability may be
summarised as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The magneto-curvature coupling, which is a direct consequence of
the field's vectorial nature, first identified in \cite{TB}, has
an important influence. In particular, on superhorizon scales
in the radiation era, this coupling slightly enhances the growing
mode of density perturbations, as shown in Eqs.
(\ref{lrnDel}) and (\ref{nc}):
\[
\Delta= C_{(+)}\left({a\over a_0}\right)^{2+{1\over2}c_{\rm a}^4}
+C_{(1-)}\left({a\over a_0}\right)^{-1+c_{\rm a}^2}+C_{(0)}+
C_{(2-)}\left({a\over
a_0}\right)^{-c_{\rm a}^2}\,.
\]
When the coupling is neglected, the
growing mode is incorrectly found to be damped relative to the non-magnetized
case.
\item
Magneto-sonic waves in the radiation era are given in exact form in Eq.
(\ref{srnDel}),
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta&=&\left[C_{(1)}-C_{{\cal K}}
{\rm Si}\left(\beta {k\over k_{{\rm h}0}}{a\over a_0}\right)
\right]\sin\left(\beta {k\over k_{{\rm h}0}}{a\over a_0}\right)\nonumber\\
&&{}+\left[C_{(2)}-C_{{\cal K}}
{\rm Ci}\left(\beta {k\over k_{{\rm h}0}}{a\over a_0}\right)
\right]\cos\left(\beta {k\over k_{{\rm h}0}}{a\over a_0}\right)
-C_{{\cal B}}c_{\rm a}^2\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
This shows the nonadiabatic modulation of the amplitude and
increase in the frequency of acoustic oscillations. These effects,
together with the nonzero average value implied by the $C_{{\cal B}}$
term, have
potentially important implications for the CMB acoustic peaks,
some of which have been investigated in \cite{adgr}.
\item
In the dust era, subhorizon magnetized density perturbations are
given exactly in Eq. (\ref{sdnDel}), which leads to the magnetized
Jeans scale in Eq. (\ref{mj}):
\[
\lambda_{\rm mJ}(t_0)={\textstyle{8\over15}}\pi\sqrt{6}
\left(c_{\rm a}\right)_0\lambda_{{\rm h}0}\,.
\]
On scales such that $\lambda_{\rm mJ}\ll\lambda\ll\lambda_{\rm
h}$, the density perturbations are
\[
\Delta=C_{(+)}\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{{2\over3}-\epsilon}+
C_{(-)}\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{-1+\epsilon}+
C_{({\cal B}-)}\left({t\over t_0}\right)^{-2/3}
-{\textstyle{5\over2}}\epsilon
C_{\cal B}\,,
\]
where $\epsilon={2\over5}(k/k_{{\rm a}0})^2$. This shows the small
damping effect on the adiabatic growing mode, as well as the new
nonadiabatic modes. These results imply small modifications to
structure formation in the linear regime. However, they are
limited by the fact that we have neglected any non-baryonic matter
or cosmological term.
\item
Pure-magnetic density fluctuations, which are induced in an
initially smooth fluid by magnetogenesis, are given on
superhorizon scales by Eq. (\ref{new'}). This solution would be
important in any attempt to model
large-scale structure formation as seeded by magnetogenesis.
\item
Magnetized isocurvature perturbations are characterized by Eq.
(\ref{iso1}). On superhorizon scales, these modes are purely
decaying.
\item
The field is a source of incompressible rotational
instabilities, and the condition for this to happen is given via
Eq. (\ref{dotW_a}).
Magnetized density vortices are shown be scale-dependent
and to precess, at a rate given
by Eq. (\ref{prec}).
The general propagation equation for these vortices
(i.e., incorporating all relevant effects) is given by Eq.
(\ref{ddotW_a}):
\[
\ddot{W}_a+\left(4-3w\right)H\dot{W}_a+
{\textstyle{1\over2}}\left[1-7w+3c_{\rm s}^2(1+w)\right]\rho W_a=
\left[\frac{c_{\rm a}^2}{3(1+w)}\right]\mbox{D}^2W_a \,.
\]
In the radiation era, the Alfv\'{e}n wave solutions are given exactly
in Eq. (\ref{rW_a}). The Alfv\'{e}n frequency and wave-speed are
\[
\nu_{\rm a}={H_0\over\pi}\left({k\over k_{{\rm
a}0}}\right)^2\,,~~
v_{\rm a}={\textstyle{1\over2}}c_{\rm a}\,.
\]
These results generalize some of the theoretical results of Durrer
et al.
\cite{dky}, who then go further and apply the results to determine the effect
of Alfv\'{e}n wave modes on CMB anisotropies.
\item
After recombination, magnetized density vortices are given exactly in
Eq. (\ref{dW_a}). They decay like their
adiabatic counterparts, but at a slower rate, so that rotational
instability persists for longer in a magnetic universe.
This will have a small effect on structure formation in the linear
regime.
\item
Finally, we have investigated for the first time
magnetic effects on infinitesimal shape distortion in the
density distribution. The magnetic influence is
manifold. Anisotropies in the field energy density,
together with those in the distribution of the magnetic vector
itself are direct sources of density deformation. The field's
coupling to curvature and rotation also acts as an indirect source
of magnetically induced shape distortions. Following the evolution
of shape-distortion along the worldline of a fluid
element, we showed that the field is an {\em active} source of
distortion. On superhorizon scales, we showed
via a special solution of the shape-distortion system that
there is a growing mode of magnetized shape-distortion [see
Eq. (\ref{lldnxi})].
Unlike the magnetic effects on density and rotational
perturbations, which are small corrections of the non-magnetized
results, magnetic effects on shape-distortion constitute a
significant change from the non-magnetized (and {\em passive})
case. (A similar statement applies in the case of velocity
dispersion effects in CDM \cite{mtm}.)
The results on magnetized shape-distortion have potentially
important implications for (linear) structure formation. Not only
is distortion actively generated once scales re-enter the Hubble
horizon and begin to collapse, but it is also actively generated
while the scales are beyond the horizon. Of course, the shape
distortion in the linear regime will be overwhelmed by effects
that arise during the nonlinear stages of collapse.
\end{enumerate}
\[ \]
{\bf Acknowledgments:} CGT is supported by PPARC. We thank Marco Bruni
and David Matravers for useful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
The concept of deformation quantization of a symmetric manifold $M$ has
been defined by Bayen, Flato, Fronsdal, Lichnerovich, and Sternheimer in
\cite{BFFLS}. Deformation quantization means a formal $*$-product
$$f_1*f_2=f_1 \cdot f_2+\sum_{k=1}^\infty C_k(f_1,f_2)t^k,\qquad f_1,f_2 \in
C^\infty(M)$$
with some additional properties, where $C_k:C^\infty(M)\times C^\infty(M)\to
C^\infty(M)$ are bidifferential operators.
In the special case of the unit disc in ${\mathbb C}$ with
$SU_{1,1}$-invariant symplectic structure, a formal $*$-product and explicit
fopmulae for $C_k$, $k \in{\mathbb N}$, are derivable by a method of Berezin
\cite{CGR, B}.
Our intention is to replace the ordinary disc with its q-analogue. We
are going to produce $U_q \mathfrak{su}_{11}$-invariant formal deformation
of our quantum disc and to obtain an explicit formula for $C_k$, $k
\in{\mathbb N}$, using a q-analogue of the Berezin method \cite{SSV5}.
Our work is closely related to the paper of Klimek and Lesniewski \cite{KL}
on two-parameter deformation of the unit disc. The explicit formulae for
$C_k$ we provide below work as a natural complement to the results of this
paper.
\bigskip
\section{Covariant symbols of linear operators}
Everywhere in the sequel the field of complex numbers ${\mathbb C}$ is
assumed as a ground field. Let also $q \in(0,1)$.
Consider the well known algebra ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$ with two
generators $z,z^*$ and a single commutation relation $z^*z=q^2zz^*+1-q^2$.
Our intention is to produce a formal $*$-product
\begin{equation}f_1*f_2=f_1 \cdot f_2+\sum_{k=1}^\infty
C_k(f_1,f_2)t^k,\qquad f_1,f_2 \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q,
\end{equation}
(with some remarkable properties) to be given by explicit formulae for
bilinear operators $C_k:{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q \times{\rm Pol}({\mathbb
C})_q \to{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$.
We describe in this section the method of producing this $*$-product whose
idea is due to F. Berezin.
It was explained in \cite{SSV1} that the vector space $D({\mathbb U})_q'$
of formal series $\displaystyle \sum_{j,k=0}^\infty a_{jk}z^jz^{*k}$ with
complex coefficients is a q-analogue of the space of distributions in the
unit disc ${\mathbb U}=\{z \in{\mathbb C}|\;|z|<1 \}$. Equip this space of
formal series with the topology of coefficientwise convergence. Since
$\{z^jz^{*k}\}_{j,k \in{\mathbb Z}_+}$ constitute a basis in the vector
space ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$, ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$ admits an
embedding into $D({\mathbb U})_q'$ as a dense linear subvariety.
Consider the unital subalgebra ${\mathbb C}[z]_q \subset{\rm Pol}({\mathbb
C})_q$ generated by $z \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$. Let $\alpha>0$. We
follow \cite{KL} in equipping the vector space ${\mathbb C}[z]_q$ with the
scalar product
$(z^j,z^k)_\alpha=\delta_{jk}\dfrac{(q^2;q^2)_k}{(q^{4 \alpha+2};q^2)_k}$,
$j,k \in{\mathbb Z}_+$, where
$(a;q^2)_k=(1-a)(1-q^2a)\ldots(1-q^{2(k-1)}a)$. Let $L_a^2(d \nu_ \alpha)_q$
be the a completion of ${\mathbb C}[z]_q$ with respect to the norm $\| \psi
\|_\alpha=(\psi,\psi)_\alpha^{1/2}$. It was demonstrated in \cite{KL} that
the Hilbert space $L_a^2(d \nu_ \alpha)_q$ is a q-analogue of the weighted
Bergman space. Let $\widehat{z}$ be a linear operator of
multiplication by $z$:
$$\widehat{z}:L_a^2(d \nu_ \alpha)_q \to L_a^2(d \nu_ \alpha)_q;\qquad
\widehat{z}:\psi(z)\mapsto z \cdot \psi(z),$$
and denote by $\widehat{z}^*$ the adjoint operator in $L_a^2(d \nu_
\alpha)_q$ to $\widehat{z}$. The
definition of the scalar product in $L_a^2(d \nu_ \alpha)_q$ implies that
the operators $\widehat{z}$, $\widehat{z}^*$ are bounded.
Equip the space ${\cal L}_\alpha$ of bounded
linear operators in $L_a^2(d \nu_ \alpha)_q$ with the weakest topology in
which all the linear functionals
$$l_{\psi_1,\psi_2}:{\cal L}_\alpha \to{\mathbb C},\qquad
l_{\psi_1,\psi_2}:A \mapsto(A \psi_1,\psi_2)_\alpha,\qquad \psi_1,\psi_2
\in{\mathbb C}[z]_q$$
are continuous. The following proposition is a straightforward consequence
of the definitions (see the proof in \cite{SSV1}).
\medskip
\begin{proposition} Given any bounded linear operator $\widehat{f}$ in the
Hilbert space $L_a^2(d \nu_ \alpha)_q$, there exists a unique formal series
$f=\sum \limits_{j,k=0}^\infty a_{jk}z^jz^{*k}\in D({\mathbb U})_q'$ such
that $\widehat{f}=\sum \limits_{j,k=0}^\infty a_{jk}\widehat{z}^j
\widehat{z}^{*k}$.
\end{proposition}
\medskip
Thus we get an injective linear map ${\cal L}_\alpha \to D({\mathbb
U})_q'$, $\widehat{f}\mapsto f$. The distribution $f$ is called a {\sl
covariant symbol} of the linear operator $\widehat{f}$.
\medskip
{\sc Remark 2.2.} For an arbitrary $f \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb
C})_q$, there exists a unique operator $\widehat{f}\in{\cal L}_\alpha$ with
the covariant symbol $f$. Specifically, for $f=\sum
\limits_{j,k=0}^{N(f)}a_{jk}z^jz^{*k}$, one has $\widehat{f}=\sum
\limits_{j,k=0}^{N(f)}a_{jk}\widehat{z}^j \widehat{z}^{*k}$.
\medskip
We follow F. Berezin in producing the $*$-product of covariant symbols
using the ordinary product of the associated linear operators.
Let $f_1,f_2 \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$ and $\widehat{f}_1,\widehat{f}_2
\in{\cal L}_\alpha$ be the operators whose covariant symbols are $f_1$,
$f_2$. Under the notation $t=q^{4 \alpha}$, let $m_t(f_1,f_2)$ stand for the
covariant symbol of the product $\widehat{f}_1 \cdot \widehat{f}_2$ of the
linear maps $\widehat{f}_1$, $\widehat{f}_2$. Evidently, we have constructed
a bilinear map $m_t:{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q \times{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q
\to D({\mathbb U})_q'$.
The $*$-product $f_1*f_2$ of $f_1,f_2 \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$ is to be
introduced by replacement of the one-parameter family of distributions
$m_t(f_1,f_2)$, $t \in(0,1)$, with its asymptotic expansion as $t \to 0$.
\bigskip
\section{\boldmath$*$-Product}
The term {\sl 'order one differential calculus over the algebra ${\rm
Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$'} stand for a ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$-bimodule
$\Omega^1({\mathbb C})_q$ equipped with a linear map $d:{\rm Pol}({\mathbb
C})_q \to \Omega^1({\mathbb C})_q$ such that \\ i) $d$ satisfies the
Leibniz rule $d(f_1f_2)=df_1 \cdot f_2+f_1 \cdot df_2$ for any $f_1,f_2
\in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$,\\ ii) $\Omega^1({\mathbb C})_q$ is a linear
span of $f_1 \cdot df_2 \cdot f_3$, $f_1,f_2,f_3 \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb
C})_q$ (see \cite{KS}).
One can find in \cite{SV} a construction of that kind of order one
differential calculus for a wide class of prehomogeneous vector spaces $V$.
In the case $V={\mathbb C}$ we deal with this calculus is well known; it can
be described in terms of the following commutation relations:
$$z \cdot dz=q^{-2}dz \cdot z,\qquad z^*dz^*=q^2dz^*z^*,\qquad z^*dz=q^2dz
\cdot z^*,\qquad z \cdot dz^*=q^{-2}dz^*z.$$
The partial derivatives $\dfrac{\partial^{(r)}}{\partial z}$,
$\dfrac{\partial^{(r)}}{\partial z^*}$, $\dfrac{\partial^{(l)}}{\partial
z}$, $\dfrac{\partial^{(l)}}{\partial z^*}$ are
linear operators in ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$ given by
$$df=\frac{\partial^{(r)}f}{\partial z}dz+\frac{\partial^{(r)}f} {\partial
z^*}dz^*=dz \frac{\partial^{(l)}f}{\partial
z}+dz^*\frac{\partial^{(l)}f}{\partial z^*},$$
with $f \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$.
Let $\widetilde{\square}:{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q^{\otimes 2}\to{\rm
Pol}({\mathbb C})_q^{\otimes 2}$, $m_0:{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q^{\otimes
2}\to{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$ be linear operators given by
$$\widetilde{\square}(f_1 \otimes
f_2)=\left(\frac{\partial^{(r)}f_1}{\partial z^*}\otimes 1 \right)\cdot
q^{-2}(1-(1+q^{-2})z^*\otimes z+q^{-2}z^{*2}\otimes z^2)\cdot \left(1
\otimes \frac{\partial^{(l)}f_2}{\partial z}\right),$$
$m_0(f_1 \otimes f_2)=f_1f_2$, with $f_1,f_2 \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$.
\medskip
\begin{theorem}\label{ae}For all $f_1,f_2 \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$, the
following asymptotic expansion in $D({\mathbb U})_q'$ is valid:
$$m_t(f_1,f_2)\sim_{_{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!t \to 0}}f_1*f_2,\qquad{\rm with}$$
\begin{equation}\label{stpr}f_1*f_2=f_1 \cdot f_2+\sum_{k=1}^\infty
C_k(f_1,f_2)t^k \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]],
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Ck}C_k(f_1,f_2)=m_0 \left(\left(p_k
\left(\widetilde{\square}\right)-
p_{k-1}\left(\widetilde{\square}\right)\right)(f_1 \otimes f_2)\right),
\end{equation}
and $p_k(x)$, $k \in{\mathbb Z}_+$, are polynomials given by
\begin{equation}\label{pk}p_k(x)=\sum_{j=0}^k
\frac{(q^{-2k};q^2)_j}{(q^2;q^2)^2_j}q^{2j}
\prod_{i=0}^{j-1}(1-q^{2i}((1-q^2)^2 x+1+q^2)+q^{4i+2}).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\medskip
This statement is to be proved in the next section, using the results of
\cite{SSV5} on a q-analogue of the Berezin transform \cite{UU}.
We are grateful to H. T. Koelink who attracted our attention to the fact
that the polynomials $p_k(x)$ differ from the polynomials of Al-Salam --
Chihara \cite{K} only by normalizing multiples and a linear change of the
variable $x$.
\bigskip
\section{A q-analogue of the Berezin transform}
Remind the notation $t=q^{4 \alpha}$, with $q \in(0,1)$, $\alpha>0$.
Consider the linear map ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q \to{\cal L}_\alpha$ which
sends a polynomial $\stackrel{\circ}{f}=\sum \limits_{jk}b_{jk}z^{*j}z^k$ to
the linear operator $\widehat{f}=\sum
\limits_{jk}b_{jk}\widehat{z}^{*j}\widehat{z}^k$. The polynomial
$\stackrel{\circ}{f}$ will be called a {\sl contravariant symbol} of the
linear operator $\widehat{f}$.
Note that our definitions of covariant and contravariant symbols agree with
the conventional ones, as one can observe from \cite{SSV5} (specifically,
see proposition 6.6 and lemma 7.2 of that work).
The term {\sl 'q-transform of Berezin'} will be stand for the linear
operator $B_{q,t}:{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q \to D({\mathbb U})_q'$,
$B_{q,t}:\stackrel{\circ}{f}\mapsto f$, which sends the contravariant
symbols of linear operators $\widehat{f}=\sum
\limits_{jk}b_{jk}\widehat{z}^{*j}\widehat{z}^k$ to their covariant symbols.
\medskip
{\sc Remark 4.1.} It is easy to extend the operators $B_{q,t}$ onto the
entire {\sl 'space of bounded functions in the quantum disc'} via a
non-standard approach to their construction (see \cite{SSV5}).
\medskip
\cite[proposition 5.5]{SSV5} imply
\medskip
\begin{proposition}\label{Bqtae}Given arbitrary $\stackrel{\circ}{f}\in{\rm
Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$, the following {\sl asymptotic expansion} in the
topological vector space $D({\mathbb U})_q'$ is valid:
$$B_{q,t}\stackrel{\circ}{f}\;\sim_{_{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!t \to
0}}\;\stackrel{\circ}{f}+\sum_{k=1}^\infty((p_k(\square)\stackrel{\circ}{f}-
p_{k-1}(\square)\stackrel{\circ}{f})t^k,$$
with $\square$ being a q-analogue of the Laplace-Beltrami operator
$$\square f \stackrel{\rm def}{=}(1-zz^*)^2 \frac{\partial^{(l)}}{\partial
z^*}\frac{\partial^{(l)}f}{\partial z}=q^2 \frac{\partial^{(r)}}{\partial
z^*}\frac{\partial^{(r)}f}{\partial z}(1-zz^*)^2,$$
with $f \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$ and $p_k$, $k \in{\mathbb Z}_+$, being
polynomials given by (\ref{pk}).
\end{proposition}
\medskip
It follows from the definition of the bilinear maps $m_t$, $t \in(0,1)$,
that for all $i,j,k,l \in{\mathbb Z}_+$, $f_1,f_2 \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb
C})_q$,
$$m_t(z^if_1,f_2)=z^im_t(f_1,f_2),$$
$$m_t(f_1,f_2z^{*l})=m_t(f_1,f_2)z^{*l},$$
$$m_t(z^{*j},z^k)=B_{q,t}(z^{*j}z^k).$$
Hence for all $i,j,k,l \in{\mathbb Z}_+$ one has
\begin{equation}\label{mtBqt}m_t((z^iz^{*j}),(z^kz^{*l}))=
z^iB_{q,t}(z^{*j}z^k)z^{*l}.
\end{equation}
We are about to deduce theorem \ref{ae} from (\ref{mtBqt}) and proposition
\ref{Bqtae}. In fact, one can easily demonstrate as in \cite[proposition
8.3]{SSV5} that
$$\square(f_2(z^*)\cdot f_1(z))=q^2 \frac{\partial^{(r)}f_2(z^*)}{\partial
z^*}(1-zz^*)^2 \frac{\partial^{(l)}f_1(z)}{\partial z}=$$
$$=\frac{\partial^{(r)}f_2(z^*)}{\partial
z^*}q^{-2}(1-(1+q^{-2})z^*z+
q^{-2}z^{*2}z^2)\frac{\partial^{(l)}f_1(z)}{\partial z}$$
for arbitrary polynomials $f_1(z)$, $f_2(z^*)$. What remains is to compare
this expression for $\square$ with the definition of $\widetilde{\square}$
and apply the fact that $\{z^iz^{*j}\}_{i,j \in{\mathbb Z}_+}$ constitute a
basis in the vector space ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$.
\bigskip
\section{A formal associativity}
\begin{proposition}\label{m}The multiplication in ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb
C})_q[[t]]$ given by the bilinear map
$$m:{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]]\times{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]]\to{\rm
Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]],$$
\begin{equation}\label{mf}m:\sum_{j=0}^\infty a_jt^j \times
\sum_{k=0}^\infty b_kt^k \mapsto \sum_{i=0}^\infty \left(\sum_{j+k=i}a_j*b_k
\right)t^i\;\footnotemark,
\end{equation}
\footnotetext{The outward sum clearly converges in the topological vector
space ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]]$.} with $\{a_j \}_{j \in{\mathbb
Z}_+},\{b_k \}_{k \in{\mathbb Z}_+}\in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$, is
associative.
\end{proposition}
\medskip
{\bf Proof.} Introduce the algebra ${\rm End}_{\mathbb C}({\mathbb
C}[z]_q)$ of all linear operators in the vector space ${\mathbb C}[z]_q$,
and the algebra ${\rm End}_{\mathbb C}({\mathbb C}[z]_q)[[t]]$ of formal
series with coefficients in ${\rm End}_{\mathbb C}({\mathbb C}[z]_q)$. To
prove our statement, it suffices to establish an isomorphism of the algebra
${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]]$ equipped with the multiplication $m$ and a
subalgebra of ${\rm End}_{\mathbb C}({\mathbb C}[z]_q)[[t]]$ given the
standard multiplication. Let ${\cal I}:{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q \to{\rm
End}_{\mathbb C}({\mathbb C}[z]_q)[[t]]$ be such a linear operator that for
all $j,k,m \in{\mathbb Z}_+$
$${\cal I}(z^jz^{*k}):z^m \mapsto \left
\{\begin{array}{ccl}\dfrac{(q^{2m};q^{-2})_k}{(tq^{2m};q^{-2})_k}z^{m-k+j}&,&
k \le m \\ 0 &,& k>m \end{array}\right..$$
(More precisely, one should replace the rational function
$1/(tq^{2m};q^{-2})_k$ of an indeterminate $t$ with its Teylor expansion.)
The following lemma follows from the construction of \cite[section
7]{SSV5}.
\medskip
\begin{lemma}\label{Q}The linear map
$$Q:{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]]\to{\rm End}_{\mathbb C}({\mathbb
C}[z]_q)[[t]],$$
$$Q:\sum_{j=0}^\infty f_jt^j \mapsto \sum_{j=0}^\infty{\cal
I}(f_j)t^j\;\footnote{The convergence of the series
$\sum \limits_{j=0}^\infty{\cal I}(f_j)t^j$ in the space ${\rm End}_{\mathbb
C}({\mathbb C}[z]_q)[[t]]$ is obvious.},\qquad \{f_j \}_{j \in{\mathbb
Z}_+}\subset{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q,$$ is injective, and for all
$\psi_1,\psi_2 \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]]$ one has
$Qm(\psi_1,\psi_2)=(Q \psi_1)\cdot(Q \psi_2)$.
\end{lemma}
\medskip
Lemma \ref{Q} implies the associativity of the multiplication $m$ in
${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]]$. Thus, proposition \ref{m} is proved. \hfill
$\blacksquare$
\medskip
Define a linear operator $*$ in ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]]$ by
$$\left(\sum_{j=0}^\infty f_jt^j \right)^*=\sum_{j=0}^\infty f_j^*t^j,\qquad
\{f_j \}_{j \in{\mathbb Z}_+}\subset{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q.$$
\medskip
\begin{proposition} $*$ is an involution in ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]]$
equipped by $m$ as a multiplication:
$$m(\psi_1,\psi_2)^*=m(\psi_2^*,\psi_1^*),\qquad \psi_1,\psi_2 \in{\rm
Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]].$$
\end{proposition}
\smallskip
{\bf Proof.} For all $f_1,f_2 \in{\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$ one has
$$(m_0(f_1 \otimes f_2))^*=m_0(f_2^*\otimes f_1^*),$$
$$\widetilde{\square}^{21}(f_1 \otimes
f_2)^{*\otimes*}=\widetilde{\square}(f_1^*\otimes f_2^*)$$
with $\widetilde{\square}^{21}=c_0 \square c_0$, and $c_0$ being the flip of
tensor multiples. What remains is to observe that the coefficients of
$p_n(x)$, $n \in{\mathbb Z}_+$, are real, and to apply (\ref{mf}),
(\ref{stpr}), (\ref{Ck}). \hfill $\blacksquare$
\bigskip
\section{\boldmath $U_q \mathfrak{su}_{1,1}$-invariance}
Remind some well known results on the quantum group $SU_{1,1}$ and the
quantum disc (see, for example, \cite{CP, SSV2}).
The quantum universal enveloping algebra $U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2$ is a Hopf
algebra over ${\mathbb C}$ determined by the generators $K$, $K^{-1}$, $E$,
$F$, and the relations
$$KK^{-1}=K^{-1}K=1,\qquad K^{\pm 1}E=q^{\pm 2}EK^{\pm 1},\qquad K^{\pm
1}F=q^{\mp 2}FK^{\pm 1},$$
$$EF-FE=(K-K^{-1})/(q-q^{-1}).$$
Comultiplication $\Delta:U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2 \to U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2 \otimes
U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2$, counit $\varepsilon:U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2 \to{\mathbb
C}$ and antipode $S:U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2 \to U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2$ are given
by
$$\Delta(K^{\pm 1})=K^{\pm 1}\otimes K^{\pm 1},\qquad \Delta(E)=E \otimes
1+K \otimes E,\qquad \Delta(F)=F \otimes K^{-1}+1 \otimes F,$$
$$\varepsilon(E)=\varepsilon(F)=\varepsilon(K^{\pm 1}-1)=0,$$
$$S(K^{\pm 1})=K^{\mp 1},\qquad S(E)=-K^{-1}E,\qquad S(F)=-FK.$$
The structure of Hopf algebra allows one to define a tensor product of $U_q
\mathfrak{sl}_2$-modules and a tensor product of their morphisms. Thus, we
obtain a tensor category of $U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2$-modules.
Consider an algebra $F$ equipped also with a structure of $U_q
\mathfrak{sl}_2$-module. $F$ is called a $U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2$-module
algebra if the multiplication
$$m_F:F \otimes F \to F,\qquad m_F:f_1 \otimes f_2 \mapsto f_1f_2,\qquad
f_1,f_2 \in F,$$
is a morphism of $U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2$-modules. (In the case $F$ has a unit,
the above definition should also include its invariance: $\xi \cdot
1=\varepsilon(\xi)1$, $\xi \in U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2$).
The following relations determine a structure of $U_q
\mathfrak{sl}_2$-module algebra on ${\mathbb C}[z]_q$:
\begin{equation}\label{Czq}K^{\pm 1}z=q^{\pm 2}z,\qquad Fz=q^{1/2},\qquad
Ez=-q^{1/2}z^2.
\end{equation}
Equip $U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2$ with an involution:
$$E^*=-KF,\qquad F^*=-EK^{-1},\qquad (K^{\pm 1})^*=K^{\pm 1},$$
and let $U_q \mathfrak{su}_{1,1}$ stand for the Hopf $*$-algebra produced
this way. An involutive algebra $F$ is said to be $U_q
\mathfrak{su}_{1,1}$-module algebra if it is $U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2$-module
algebra, and the involutions in $F$ and $U_q \mathfrak{su}_{1,1}$ agree as
follows:
\begin{equation}\label{inv}(\xi f)^*=(S(\xi))^*f^*,\qquad \xi \in U_q
\mathfrak{su}_{1,1},\;f \in F.
\end{equation}
(\ref{Czq}) determines a structure of $U_q \mathfrak{su}_{1,1}$-module
algebra in ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$. Thus, each of the vector spaces ${\rm
Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$, ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]]$ is equipped with a
structure of $U_q \mathfrak{su}_{1,1}$-module.
\medskip
\begin{proposition} ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]]$ with the multiplication
defined above and the involution $*$ is a $U_q \mathfrak{su}_{1,1}$-module
algebra.
\end{proposition}
\smallskip
{\bf Proof.} Since ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$ is a $U_q
\mathfrak{su}_{1,1}$-module algebra, (\ref{inv}) is valid for $F={\rm
Pol}({\mathbb C})_q$. Hence it is also true for $F={\rm Pol}({\mathbb
C})_q[[t]]$. What remains is to prove that ${\rm Pol}({\mathbb C})_q[[t]]$
is a $U_q \mathfrak{sl}_2$-module algebra. For that, by a virtue of
(\ref{stpr}), (\ref{Ck}), it suffices to demonstrate that the linear maps
$m_0$ and $\widetilde{\square}$ are morphisms of $U_q
\mathfrak{sl}_2$-modules. As for $m_0$, this property has already been
mentioned. So we need only to consider $\widetilde{\square}$. Given any
polynomials $f_1(z^*)$, $f_2(z)$, it follows from
$\square(f_1(z^*)f_2(z))=\sum \limits_{jk}b_{jk}z^{*j}z^k$,
$b_{jk}\in{\mathbb C}$, that $\widetilde{\square}(f_1(z^*)\otimes
f_2(z))=\sum \limits_{jk}b_{jk}z^{*j}\otimes z^k$, and
$${\widetilde{\square}}(g_1(z)f_1(z^*)\otimes f_2(z)g_2(z^*))=(g_1(z)\otimes
1)\widetilde{\square}(f_1(z^*)\otimes f_2(z))(1 \otimes g_2(z^*)).$$
Thus, it suffices to prove that $\square$ is a morphism $U_q
\mathfrak{sl}_2$-modules. This latter result is obtained in \cite{SSV2} (It
is a consequence of $U_q \mathfrak{su}_{1,1}$-invariance of the differential
calculus in the quantum disc considered there). \hfill $\blacksquare$
\medskip
{\sc Remark 6.2.} The works \cite{SSV1, SSV2} deal with the $U_q
\mathfrak{su}_{1,1}$-module algebra $D({\mathbb U})_q$ of 'finite functions
in the quantum disc'. (The space $D({\mathbb U})_q'$ mentioned in this work
is dual to $D({\mathbb U})_q$). The relations (\ref{stpr}) -- (\ref{pk})
determine a formal deformation of $D({\mathbb U})_q$ in the class of $U_q
\mathfrak{su}_{1,1}$-module algebras, that is, it allows one to equip
$D({\mathbb U})_q[[t]]$ with a structure of $U_q \mathfrak{su}_{1,1}$-module
algebra over the ring ${\mathbb C}[[t]]$.
\bigskip
\section{Concluding notes}
We have demonstrated that the method of Berezin allows one to produce a
formal deformation for a q-analogue of the unit disc. In \cite{SV},
q-analogues for arbitrary bounded symmetric domains were constructed. We
hope in that essentially more general setting, the method of Berezin will
help remarkable results to be obtained.
\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}
One-dimensional quantum spin systems exhibit remarkable physical
properties. One of the most interesting case is the s=1
antiferromagnetic Heisenberg spin chain. Contrary to the s=1/2 case,
this system has a gap as predicted by Haldane\cite{FDM} and a finite
spin
correlation length. It is an example of a system which is disordered
at zero temperature due to quantum fluctuations. The original
conjecture has been checked experimentally\cite{exp},
numerically\cite{num}
as well as analytically\cite{schulz,AKLT,STN}. Although the ground
state is disordered in the sense that spin correlations decay
exponentially, there is a hidden topological order\cite{DNR} that is
revealed in the bulk of the chain only by nonlocal observables or by
ground state degeneracy in an open geometry. This hidden order is
most clearly seen in the VBS wavefunction which is an approximate
ground state of the spin-1 chain\cite{AKLT}. To construct this
wavefunction one has first to write each spin s=1 as a triplet of two
fictitious spins s=1/2. Then one couples nearest-neighbor spins
s=1/2 into singlets. This leads to a function which is
obviously singlet and translation invariant. It is an excellent
approximation of the true ground state\cite{nous}. The perfect
crystalline
pattern of singlets is the hidden order. K. Hida has given an
appealing picture of the Haldane gap and the VBS ground state by
considering an alternating ferro-antiferromagnetic s=1/2
chain\cite{Hida1}. The Hamiltonian is given by (see figure 1)~:
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal H}= J_{AF}\sum_{n} {\bf S}_{2n}\cdot {\bf S}_{2n+1}
+J_{F} \sum_{n} {\bf S}_{2n+1}\cdot {\bf S}_{2n+2}. \label{faf}
\end{equation}
Here ${\bf S}_{i}$ are s=1/2 spin operators, $J_{AF}$ is {\it
positive} and $J_{F}$ is {\it negative}. In what follows, we set
$J_{AF}=1$ and $J_{F}=-\gamma$. The family of systems defined by
Eq.(\ref{faf}) has simple limiting cases. For $\gamma =0$ we have a
set of decoupled pairs of spins that have a trivial ground state~:
all pairs are locked in singlets. When $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$, the
s=1/2 are coupled by pairs into s=1 states and we get a chain of
spins s=1. Hida has studied numerically the gap of the system as a
function of $\gamma$. He has used Lanczos diagonalization techniques
to evaluate the gap and he showed that there is no
phase transition as a function of $\gamma$. As a consequence, the
Haldane gap of the limit $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$ is continuously
connected to the trivial gap of the decoupled limit $\gamma =0$. The
excitation spectrum also evolves smoothly. So the alternating chain
offers a simple physical picture of both the Haldane gap and the
hidden topological order.
There is another approach to quantum spin chains which is the
continuum field theory known as the nonlinear $\sigma$ model
(NL$\sigma$M).
Introduced originally by Haldane\cite{FDM}, this field theory
includes a topological term\cite{Aff} $\theta =2\pi s$ for a spin-s
chain.
While this term can be discarded when s is integer, it is responsible
for masslessness when $\theta =\pi $ (mod $2\pi$), i.e. for
half-integer spin chain.
This approach has been recently applied \cite{Sierra,Ita,sene} to
spin ladders where there is also a parity effect which is given by
the number of legs of the ladder. Indeed, spin ladders with even
number of legs are generically gapped while odd-numbered ones are
gapless. This effect can be explained in the NL$\sigma$M framework
with a topological term which is $\theta =2\pi s\times n_{l}$ where
$n_{l}$ is the number of legs. It is also of great interest to
consider generalized spin ladders with various types of bond
alternation and/or additional exchange couplings. For example, a spin
ladder with a diagonal coupling interpolates smoothly\cite{White}
between the s=1 chain and the two-leg spin ladder. Previous
investigations\cite{Takano,Koga,Fukui1,Fukui2}
of these more general situations have
used the NL$\sigma$M but with the impossibility to treat cases
including ferro bonds as in the ferro-antiferro chain introduced by
Hida.
In this work, we present a generalized NL$\sigma$M that includes additional
massive modes and we show that this model is able to reproduce the
s=1 limit of alternating chain of Hida. We discuss the construction
of this new effective theory in the path-integral framework although
it could also be done in the hamiltonian formalism with identical
results.
In Sect. \ref{1} we treat Hida's chain case. We compute the spin-wave
spectrum, motivate the NL$\sigma$M approach and compute an approximate spin
gap formula for the whole range of $\gamma$. In sect. \ref{2}, we
apply the same formalism to White's mapping from the spin-1 chain to
the antiferromagnetic two-leg ladder. Sect. \ref{3} contains our
conclusions.
\section{Ferro-antiferromagnetic spin chain}
\label{1}
\subsection{Spin-wave spectrum}
A NL$\sigma$M for the spin chain is a non perturbative field theory which
is built on the lowest energy modes of the classical theory of
the chain.
We first study this
alternating spin chain at the classical level.
The equations of motion for the ferro-antiferromagnetic spin chain
follow from $\frac{d}{dt}{\bf n}_i=i[{\cal H},{\bf n}_i]$ and
are given by~:
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{d}{dt}{\bf n}_{2i}=-{\bf n}_{2i}\times(-\gamma {\bf n}_{2i+1}
+{\bf n}_{2i-1}), \\
\frac{d}{dt}{\bf n}_{2i+1}={\bf n}_{2i+1}\times(-\gamma {\bf n}_{2i}
+{\bf n}_{2i+2}),
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where ${\bf n}_i$ is the classical spin vector at site $i$. Then we
linearize those equations around the Neel order configuration ${\bf
n}_{2i}=(-1)^is {\bf u}+{\bf \alpha}_i$ and ${\bf n}_{2i+1}=(-1)^is
{\bf u}+{\bf \beta}_i$ where $\bf u$ is an arbitrary unitary vector
and ${\bf \alpha}_i$ and ${\bf \beta}_i$ are orthogonal planar vector
fields. Note that $\bf u$ breaks the natural O(3) symmetry of the
hamiltonian. We represent both ${\bf \alpha}_i$ and ${\bf \beta}_i$
by complex fields $\xi_i$ and $\chi_i$.
The linearized equations of motion then reads~:
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{d}{dt}{\xi}_{n}=is(-1)^n(-\gamma
\chi_n+\chi_{n-1}+(1+\gamma)\xi_n), \\
\frac{d}{dt}{\chi}_{n}=is(-1)^n(-\gamma
\xi_n+\xi_{n+1}+(1+\gamma)\chi_n). \end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
A plane wave Ansatz for those fields is~:
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\xi_n=e^{i(\omega+kn)}(a(k)+(-1)^n b(k)), \\
\chi_n=e^{i(\omega+kn)}(c(k)+(-1)^n d(k)). \end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The eigenstates $(a,b,c,d)(k)$ of energy $\omega$ and momentum $k$
are the eigenvectors of the following matrix~:
\begin{equation}
s.\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1+\gamma & 0 & -\gamma -e^{-ik} \\
1+\gamma & 0 & -\gamma+e^{-ik} & 0 \\
0 & -\gamma-e^{ik} & 0 & 1+\gamma \\
-\gamma+e^{ik} & 0 & 1+\gamma & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right] ,
\end{equation}
with eigenvalues $\omega(k)$. The energy
$\omega$ is a solution of its characteristic polynomial
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{\omega}{s}\right)^4-4\gamma(1+\gamma)
\left(\frac{\omega}{s}\right)^2+4\gamma^2 \sin^2 k=0.
\end{equation}
The dispersion relation is given by~:
\begin{equation}
\omega(k)=s\sqrt{2\gamma(1+\gamma)\pm
2\gamma\sqrt{(1+\gamma)^2-\sin^2 k}}.
\end{equation}
The two lowest positive excitations correspond to momenta $k_c=0$ and
$k_c=\pi$. Linearizing the dispersion relation around $k_c$, we
obtain for those modes the linear relation
$\omega=s\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}}|k-k_c|$. Hence the velocity
of those spin waves is $v=s\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}}$. They
stand for the two Goldstone modes of the (classically) broken $O(3)$
symmetry. We will ground our NL$\sigma$M on them, assuming they are slowing
varying modes, in an theory where the rotational symmetry is
unbroken. We also reasonably assume that the massive modes do not
interfere significantly with the Goldstone modes, their energy being
of the order of $2s\sqrt{\gamma(1+\gamma)}$.
\subsection{The NL$\sigma$M mapping}
Here we briefly recall the derivation of the NL$\sigma$M for an
antiferromagnetic
spin-s chain with $s$ even.
So consider a spin-s antiferromagnetic spin chain with s even,
characterized by the hamiltonian ${\cal H}=\sum_i J_{AF}{\bf
S}_i.{\bf S}_{i+1}$. This spin chain can be mapped onto a NL$\sigma$M . The
mapping can be performed within the lagrangian formalism if one uses
coherent states representation for the spin operators. The discrete
action is made of the exchange interaction terms and of the Berry
phases $W[{\bf n}_i]$ of the spin vector field ${\bf n}_i$.
\begin{equation}
S=\int dt \sum_i Js^2 {\bf n}_i.{\bf n}_{i+1}+ \sum_i s.W[{\bf n}_i].
\end{equation}
The coherent state vectors ${\bf n}_i$ are expanded according to
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
{\bf n}_{2i}={\bf l}_{2i}-s\Phi_{2i} \\
{\bf n}_{2i+1}={\bf l}_{2i+1}+s\Phi_{2i+1}, \\ \end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where the vector field $\Phi_i$ (local staggered magnetization) is
unitary and the field ${\bf l}_i$ satisfy ${\bf n}_i.{\bf l}_i=0$.
Those fields can be hinted at from the study of modes in the
semi-classical spin chain.
Now suppose ${\bf l}_i$ is of order of magnitude $a$, the lattice
spacing. This representation of the spin chain allows for a
continuous form for the action $S$, which depends on the fields ${\bf
l}(x,t)$ and $\Phi(x,t)$. Because we supposed ${\bf l}$ is of
magnitude $a$, the action is quadratic in ${\bf l}$ so that the field
can be integrated out.
Now recall that the spin magnitude s is even. Then the Berry phases
of the spin coherent states partially gather to form a topological
term $\theta=2\pi s$, the effect of which is null in the action. The
final effective action in the field $\Phi$ is~:
\begin{equation}
S=\int dtdx \frac{1}{2g}\left(\frac{1}{c}(\partial_t \Phi)^2
-c(\partial_x\Phi)^2\right) ,
\end{equation}
where $g$ is the coupling constant of the NL$\sigma$M : $g=2/s$ and $c$ is
the velocity $c=2J_{AF}s$.
\subsection{Effective NL$\sigma$M }
Let us consider now the alternating spin chain. The main difficulty
we encounter in trying to represent the Hida chain is the fact that
it is inhomogeneous, so that writing an adequate continuous action
out of the discrete hamiltonian is not a trivial task. Indeed, the
fundamental microscopic structure is a block of two spins (call them
$1$ and $2$, say).
It will turn out that it is better to choose pairs of spins naturally
coupled by the ferromagnetic link, preferably to the
antiferromagnetic one.
This choice corresponds anyway to Hida's idea of pairing those spins
s=1/2 to make them an effective spin-1 in the limit where $\gamma$
goes to infinity (large ferromagnetic coupling).
The most rigorous way we could imagine to handle the continuous limit
would be to introduce two coherent states vector fields, one for each
of the two sites. Unfortunately, this would yield an intricate
action, due to the appearance of several equally contributing
massive modes. In particular, the Berry phases contribution of those
coherent states would not be any more easily recognizable as a
topological invariant.
Now consider a two-block structure, made of the four spins ${\bf
S}_{2i}^1,{\bf S}_{2i}^2,{\bf S}_{2i+1}^1$, and ${\bf S}_{2i+1}^2$.
The pairs ${\bf S}_{2i}^1,{\bf S}_{2i+1}^1$ and ${\bf S}_{2i}^2,{\bf
S}_{2i+1}^2$ are appropriate candidates to generate two NL$\sigma$M models.
A first (incorrect) idea, sustained by our wish to go to the
continuous limit, is to assume that they form the same NL$\sigma$M . This
assumption would be correct in the limiting case $\gamma$ goes to
infinity, but far too crude in any other case.
To cure this, at least partially, we add one extra field $\Delta_i$
to the two semi-classical NL$\sigma$M slow modes ${\bf l}_i$ and $\Phi_i$.
It represents small quantum fluctuations, remnants of massive modes,
that may bring about effective corrections to the NL$\sigma$M action.
Accordingly, the coherent states fields are decomposed as~:
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
{\bf n}_{2i}^1={\bf l}_{2i}-s\Phi_{2i}+a\Delta_{2i} \\ {\bf
n}_{2i}^2={\bf l}_{2i}-s\Phi_{2i}-a\Delta_{2i} \\ {\bf
n}_{2i+1}^1={\bf l}_{2i+1}+s\Phi_{2i+1}-a\Delta_{2i+1} \\ {\bf
n}_{2i+1}^2={\bf l}_{2i+1}+s\Phi_{2i+1}+a\Delta_{2i+1} . \end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Here $s$ is the spin magnitude and $a$ is the lattice spacing. Note
that this lattice spacing is of the length of a two-spin block. The
amplitude of the quantum fluctuation is of the order of this lattice
spacing. This assumption make the problem a tractable one, since we
do not need to consider derivatives of the field $\Delta_i$ when
expanding the action. We enforce it by setting $a$ as a prefactor of
the fluctuating field. Note that the standard momentum field
${\bf l}$ is implicitly assumed to be of order $a$.
We intentionally chose only one fluctuation field, contrary to
Senechal's scheme \cite{sene} where the coherent state fields are
decomposed on as many possible independent fluctuation fields. We now
justify the choice of this particular field by means of a path
integral reasoning.
We suspect that some highly fluctuating paths are contributing in the
action. Indeed, exchange couplings vary on the microscopic scale by a
macroscopic amount, and do not behave smoothly with respect to the
position. As a consequence some irregular paths might be
energetically favorable. Yet a straightforward continuous limit of
the action would not retain them since they are not spatially
regular. That is why we should enforce some possible (non derivable)
contributing fluctuation in the paths.
Now let us see why we chose this particular field $\Delta_i$. The
fields ${\bf l}_i$ and $\phi_i$ parametrize the variation of the path
between the two-block pattern $(2i,2i+1)$, spatially indexed by $i$.
So we need one field to represent the variation inside the two-spin
blocks. In the block $2i$, the coherent state vectors ${\bf
n}_{2i}^1$ and ${\bf n}_{2i}^2$ differ by an amount of $2a\Delta_i$.
Since the microscopic pattern is a two-spin block, we have then no
choice than to make the coherent state vectors ${\bf n}_{2i+1}^1$ and
${\bf n}_{2i+1}^2$ differ by an amount of $-2a\Delta_i$, because the
variation on the scale of the two-spin block are already taken into
account within the NL$\sigma$M fields. And this exhausts contributing
infinitesimal fluctuations of the path.
The action of the spin chain we get through the coherent states
representation is of the form
\begin{equation}
S=\int dt \sum_i s^2 {\bf n}_{2i}.{\bf n}_{2i+1}-\gamma \sum_i
s^2{\bf n}_{2i+1}.{\bf n}_{2i+2}+ \sum_i s.W[{\bf n}_i].
\end{equation}
One can expand the coupling terms in the action, then goes to the
continuous limit, which yields
\begin{equation}
S_c=\int dt\frac{dx}{a} \left[-4a^2(1+\gamma)\Delta^2-4l^2
+4a^2s\partial_x\Phi.\Delta-a^2 s^2(\partial_x \Phi)^2 \right].
\end{equation}
We emphasize the fact that the ferromagnetic exchange terms are of
course expanded from its aligned configuration contrary to the
antiferromagnetic exchange terms which are expanded from the Neel
order. That is the reason why NL$\sigma$ models derived for
antiferromagnetic ladder or alternating spin chain
\cite{Takano,Koga,Fukui1,Fukui2} cannot be straightforwardly applied
to the present cases~: they are not built upon the same
semiclassical configurations. Note that since the measure element
$dx$ is a two-spin block, it is equal to $a$.
The Berry phases of the spins are of the form $\int dtdx \delta{\bf
n}.{\bf n}\wedge \partial_t {\bf n}$, where $\delta{\bf n}$ is the
spatial variation of the field ${\bf n}$, and give
\begin{equation}
S_b=\int dt\frac{dx}{a} s(4{\bf l}+2as\partial_x \Phi). \Phi\wedge
\partial_t \Phi.
\end{equation}
Since we sum up the contributions for a double two-spin block, we
must divide the whole sum by a factor $2$. We end up with
\begin{equation}
S=\int dx dt \left[ -2(1+\gamma) \Delta^2-2{\bf
l}^2-2s\Delta.\partial_x \Phi -\frac{1}{2}s^2(\partial_x \phi)^2
\right] +\int dx dt \left[ s^2(\partial_x \Phi).\Phi\wedge\partial_t
\Phi +2s{\bf l}.\Phi\wedge\partial_t \Phi \right], \end{equation}
where we have set $a=1$ for commodity.
We recover a spin-2s topological $\theta$-term with $\theta=4\pi s$.
This has the consequence that the topological term does not
contribute, so that the spin chain is likely to be gapped.
We next integrate over the fluctuation fields, that is to say $\bf l$ and
$\Delta$. We then obtain the NL$\sigma$M action \begin{equation}
S=\int dtdx \left[ \frac{1}{2}(\partial_t \Phi)^2 -\frac{1}{2}s^2
\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}(\partial_x \Phi)^2 \right]. \end{equation}
The standard parameters of this NL$\sigma$M are the coupling constant $g$
and the velocity $c$ given by
\begin{equation}
g=\frac{1}{s}\sqrt{\frac{1+\gamma}{\gamma}} \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
c=s \sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}}. \end{equation}
Note that $c$ perfectly matches the velocity $v$ we found for the
classical spin waves.
When we make $\gamma$ goes to infinity the coupling constant $g$ goes
to $1/s$ and the velocity goes to $s$.
These are the expected parameters for the 2s-NL$\sigma$M . The Hida's chain is
build up of spin one half so that for $s=1/2$ $g$ goes to $2$ and $c$
to $1/2$ in
units of the antiferromagnetic exchange coupling. Those are the
parameters of a spin-1 chain of exchange $J_{AF}/4$. This is the
limit found by Hida for the alternating chain. Let us recall why the
magnitude of the exchange coupling should be so. Indeed in this limit
the ferromagnetic pairs are in a triplet state. Because of rotation
invariance, the limiting hamiltonian can be written as an effective
spin-1 chain. The coupling can only be quadratic ${\bf S}_i.{\bf S}_j$
or quartic $({\bf S}_i.{\bf S}_j)^2$. The quartic term is excluded in
this limit because it corresponds to second order perturbation theory
in $\gamma^{-1}$. The prefactor in front of the spin-1 coupling can
be determined with the help of the calculation of a single matrix
element, which is easily done on the all-spin-up configuration and
yields $J_{\tiny \mbox{eff}}=J_{AF}/4$. So that in this limit, our
NL$\sigma$M is consistent with Hida's argument.
\subsection{Energy gap evaluation in the large-$N$ limit}
To evaluate the spin gap, we compute the mass generated by the NL$\sigma$M
in the limiting case of a large number of components for the field
$\Phi$($N\rightarrow \infty$).
In that limit a closed expression can be obtained for it, thanks to
the large N saddle-point approximation. So we made $\Phi$ a
N-component field and rescaled it by a factor $\sqrt{N}$.
We then enforce the unitary constraint on $\Phi$ by means of a
conjugate field $\lambda$, so that
the unconstrained partition function is
\begin{equation}
Z=\int D\Phi D \lambda e^{-S+i\int dxdt \lambda(\Phi^2-N)}.
\end{equation}
The saddle point equation for the complete action can now be safely
derived, and we may look for a constant solution for $\lambda$ that
we will call $im^2$. In the limit of large $N$, $m^2$ is the mass
generated by the NL$\sigma$M .
\begin{equation}
\int \frac{dk}{2\pi}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}
\frac{1}{\frac{c}{g}k^2+\frac{1}{gc}\omega^2+m^2}=1. \end{equation}
In the limit $\gamma$ goes to $0$, the chain is totally dimerized and
the velocity $c$ goes to $0$. Because of this unusual feature, and
also because we wish to derive results valid for a large range of
$\gamma$, we will not resort to a radial cut-off in the euclidean
space-time of the NL$\sigma$M .
Rather we will first integrate on frequencies, then integrate on the
momenta, with a large-momenta cut-off $\Lambda$. So that instead of
the usual radial cut-off, we integrate over a strip in the plane
$(k,\omega)$ along the $\omega$-axis. The reason for this is that
when $\gamma$ goes to 0, the prefactor $cg^{-1}$ of $k^2$ goes also
to zero whereas the prefactor $(cg)^{-1}$ of $\omega^2$ remains
constant so that large frequencies are more and more relevant and
must not be cut off. In the process (which actually corresponds to
the decoupling of dimers), we lost the space dimension of space-time.
The first integration is over $\omega$ and gives \begin{equation}
g\int_{-\Lambda}^\Lambda \frac{dk}{4\pi}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k^2+\frac{g}{c}m^2}}=1.
\end{equation}
Then integrating over $k$ we can extract the mass of the NL$\sigma$M
\begin{equation}
m=\sqrt{\frac{c}{g}}
\frac{\Lambda}{\sinh(2\pi s \sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}})}.
\end{equation}
In the standard derivation of the mass generated by the NL$\sigma$M (see for
example \cite{Auerbach}) one would exchange the function hyperbolic
sine for the function exponential.
Indeed, in order for this computation to make sense we must have
$\sqrt{gc^{-1}}m << \Lambda$.
Since in the NL$\sigma$M related to the spin-2s chain, $\sqrt{gc^{-1}}$ is
finite, the (then meaningless) hyperbolic sine function can be
replaced with the exponential function. Yet for our alternating
chain, it can't be done since in the limit $\gamma$ goes to $0$ the
argument of the function vanishes. Hence to encompass the full range
of $\gamma$ we must retain the hyperbolic sine function.
Now we can evaluate the energy gap~:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_s=\sqrt{gc}.m=\Lambda \frac{s \sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}}}
{\sinh(2\pi s \sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma})}}.
\end{equation}
Whatever the spin magnitude $s$,
the gap of an antiferromagnetic pair of spins is equal to the gap
between the triplet state and the singlet, i.e. $J_{AF}$. Hence when
$\gamma \rightarrow 0$, we can determine that $\Delta$ goes to
$\Lambda/(2\pi)$.
This statement allows us to determine the cut-off which appears to be
$2\pi$ (actually $2\pi/a$ but we set $a=1$). We can then write~:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_s=\frac{2\pi s \sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}}} {\sinh(2\pi s
\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma})}}.
\end{equation}
We have obtained a {\em self-contained}, estimate of the chain gap
for the spin magnitude $s$ . For the spin-1 chain we obtain
$\Delta_1=\frac{4\pi}{\sinh \pi}$, which is $1.08$ far from the
numerically \cite{Golinelli} known $0.41$. We expect a better result
for the spin-2 chain, closer to the "large spin limit". We obtain
$\Delta_2=\frac{8\pi}{\sinh 2\pi}$, which is $0.094$ fairly close to
the numerically \cite{Jolicoeur} known value of $0.085$.
As for the correlation lengths, we obtain $\xi_1\sim 2$ to compare
with the numerically known $\xi_1\sim 6$ whereas we obtained
$\xi_2\sim 43$ to compare with the numerical value $\xi_2\sim 49$ .
The figures labeled 3 and 4 are drawings of the curves of the spin
gap w.r.t. $-\gamma$ in the range $\gamma \in [0,1]$ and $-1/\gamma$
in the range $\gamma \in [1,\infty[$. We did so in order to compare
our results to Hida's presentation of his numerical computation
\cite{Hida1}. Our result agrees qualitatively on the whole range of
$\gamma$ including the limiting case $\gamma$ goes to zero.
To check that our NL$\sigma$M approach is still valid in the limit $\gamma$
goes to zero, we can also compute the correlation length. It can be
read on the saddle point equation~:
$\xi=\sqrt{\frac{c}{g}}\frac{1}{m}$.
Then we get~:
\begin{equation}
\xi=\frac{1}{2\pi}\sinh\left( 2\pi s \sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}}
\right).
\end{equation}
We check that the correlation length goes to zero like $s\sqrt
\gamma$ when $\gamma \rightarrow 0$, which is expected since at this
point the chain is made of decoupled dimers.
\section{An alternating spin ladder}
\label{2}
In Ref.~(\cite{White}), S.~R. White introduced several mappings that
interpolate smoothly between spin ladders and a spin-1 chain within
the Haldane'spin gap phase.
Here we treat one of these mappings.
It consists in an antiferromagnetic spin ladder with an additional
diagonal bond in every plaquette formed by legs and rungs (see figure 2).
The exchange coupling associated to this bond is ferromagnetic (we
will denote it as $D$) and does not introduce any frustration in the
ladder.
The hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}=J\sum_{n;a=1,2} {\bf S}^a_{n} {\bf S}^a_{n+1} +K \sum_{n}
{\bf S}^1_{n} {\bf S}^2_{n}
+D \sum_{n} {\bf S}^1_{n} {\bf S}^2_{n+1} \end{equation}
where all exchange couplings are chosen positive. When $D$ goes to
$0$ we recover the usual antiferromagnetic spin ladder. Whereas in
the limit $-D$ goes to infinity, the pairs of ferromagnetically
bounded spin are in a triplet state.
The effective hamiltonian can then be expanded by rotational
invariance in terms of spin-1 couplings. The effective
antiferromagnetic coupling constant is then evaluated on any matrix
element of the hamiltonian and gives $J_{\tiny \mbox{eff}}=(2J+K)/4$.
So this limit corresponds to an antiferromagnetic spin-1 chain.
Since in the process, we remain in the Haldane gapped phase, we may
apply our scheme to obtain an estimate of the gap as a function
of the diagonal coupling $D$.
\subsection{Effective NL$\sigma$M }
The microscopic pattern of the ladder is composed of the four spins
${\bf S}_{2i}^1,{\bf S}_{2i}^2, {\bf S}_{2i+1}^1$, and ${\bf
S}_{2i+1}^2$ forming a square and, apart from the diagonal bond,
three bonds: one on each leg, and the last one on one of the two
rungs closing the square (see figure 2). As for the Hida's chain case
calculations are done on a doubled cell.
Possible candidates to spin pairs forming a NL$\sigma$M are the
nearest neighbours on the same leg. Pairs of site linked by a rung
contribute to the same NL$\sigma$M . Then, we will need only one extra
fluctuation field to describe of fluctuating paths inside the
elementary cell, {\em before} going to the continuous limit.
Accordingly the coherent states fields are decomposed as~:
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
{\bf n}_{2i}^1={\bf l}_{2i}-s\Phi_{2i}+a\Delta_{2i} \\ {\bf
n}_{2i}^2={\bf l}_{2i}-s\Phi_{2i}+a\Delta_{2i} \\ {\bf
n}_{2i+1}^1={\bf l}_{2i+1}+s\Phi_{2i+1}-a\Delta_{2i+1} \\ {\bf
n}_{2i+1}^2={\bf l}_{2i+1}+s\Phi_{2i+1}-a\Delta_{2i+1} \end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
In the following we set $J=1$, $K=\rho$ and $D=-\delta$ so that the
coupling constants are expressed in units of the longitudinal
antiferromagnetic coupling $J$.
One can then expand the coupling terms in the action, which yields~:
\begin{equation}
S_c=\int dt\frac{dx}{a}
\left[-4a^2(\rho+\delta)\Delta^2-4(2+\rho){\bf l}^2 +4a^2\delta
s\partial_x\Phi.\Delta-a^2 (\rho+\delta) s^2(\partial_x \Phi)^2
\right]
\end{equation}
with the same care for the ferromagnetic bonds as was done
previously. Like for the Hida's chain the measure element $dx$ is a
two-spin block and is equal to $a$. The Berry phases of the spins are
of the form $\int dtdx \delta{\bf n}.{\bf n}\wedge \partial_t {\bf
n}$ and give
\begin{equation}
S_b=\int dt\frac{dx}{a} 2 s {\bf l}.\Phi\wedge \partial_t \Phi.
\end{equation}
Since we sum up the contributions for a double two-spin block, we
must divide the whole sum by $2$. We end up with~:
\begin{equation}
S=\int dx dt \left[ -2(2+\rho){\bf
l}^2-2(\rho+\delta)\Delta^2-2s\Delta. \partial_x
\Phi-\frac{1}{2}s^2(2+\delta)(\partial_x \Phi)^2 \right] +\int dxdt
\left[ 2{\bf l}s\Phi\wedge\partial_t \Phi \right]
\end{equation}
where we have set $a=1$.
We next integrate over the fluctuation fields, that is to ${\bf l}$
and $\Delta$. So that we finally obtain the NL$\sigma$M action
\begin{equation}
S=\int dtdx \left[ \frac{1}{2+\rho}(\partial_t \Phi)^2
-\frac{1}{2}s^2(2+\frac{\delta\rho}{\delta+\rho})(\partial_x \Phi)^2
\right]. \end{equation}
The standard parameter of this NL$\sigma$M are
\begin{equation}
g=\frac{1}{s}\sqrt{\frac{2+\rho}{2+\frac{\delta\rho}{\delta+\rho}}}
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
c=s \sqrt{(2+\rho)\left(2+\frac{\delta \rho}{\delta+\rho}\right)}.
\end{equation}
Now in order to stick to White's notations, we set $\rho=1$ to get~:
\begin{equation}
g=\frac{1}{s}\sqrt{\frac{3(1+\delta)}{2+3\delta}} \qquad
c=\frac{s}{2}\sqrt{\frac{3(2+3\delta)}{1+\delta}} .
\end{equation}
These are the coupling and the velocity of the effective NL$\sigma$M .
\subsection{Energy gap evaluation in the large $N$-limit}
A line of reasoning similar to Hida's chain treatment can be applied
to this NL$\sigma$M . In the large N-component limit, we can derive a saddle
point equation and obtain the generated mass. The energy gap is then
given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta_L^s=\Lambda.c.\exp(-\frac{2\pi}{g}).
\end{equation}
Note that contrary to the Hida's chain case, it is not meaningful to
stick to the hyperbolic sine function, since
it is not more precise than the function exponential. With the
previously computed coupling constant $g$ and velocity $c$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\Delta_L^s=\Lambda.\frac{s}{2}\sqrt{\frac{3(2+3\delta)}{1+\delta}}
\exp\left(-2\pi s \sqrt{\frac{2+3\delta}{3(1+\delta)}} \right).
\end{equation}
Since when $\delta \rightarrow \infty$, we should recover 3/4 of the
gap $\Delta_C$ of the spin-1 chain, we can rewrite it as~:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta_L^s}{\frac{3}{4}.\Delta_C^s}=
\sqrt{\frac{2+3\delta}{3(1+\delta)}}
\exp \left[ 2\pi s\left(1-
\sqrt{\frac{2+3\delta}{3(1+\delta)}}\right) \right] .
\end{equation}
Hence we can relate the spin gap of the antiferromagnetic spin-1
chain to the spin gap of the antiferromagnetic two-leg spin $1/2$
ladder by the formula~:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta_L}{\Delta_C}=
\sqrt{\frac{3}{8}}
\exp \left[ \pi\left( 1-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\right) \right].
\end{equation}
With the value $\Delta_C \simeq 0.41$, we obtain the estimate
$\Delta_L \simeq 0.45$, close to the known\cite{Barnes} value $0.50$.
In figure 5, we have drawn the curve of the normalized spin gap
$\Delta_L/(3/4.\Delta_C)$ w.r.t. $1-2/\pi.\arctan \delta$. We can
compare the curve with data from White\cite{White}. Not only does
our result agree qualitatively, but it is also quantitatively quite
good.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{3}
We have constructed non-linear sigma models appropriate to the
description
of the properties of some generalized spin chains including
ferromagnetic exchanges. In the case of the alternating
ferro-antiferromagnetic spin chain, our treatment reproduces
correctly
the smooth crossover from decoupled dimers to the Haldane phase.
This approach may be of relevance to the study of the compound
CuNb$_{2}$O$_{6}$ which is such an alternating chain and has a spin
gap\cite{Kodama}.
We have also treated a ladder including ferro bonds so that
the Haldane phase can be reached. Here again there is good
agreement with numerical data.
\acknowledgments
We thank A. V. Chubukov for useful
discussions and collaboration at an early stage of this work.
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent times the decoherence of a coherent superposition state has acquired a
new dimension \cite{{one},{two},{three},{four},{five}} because of the requirement of
the stability of such a superposition. The stability has been investigated for
certain systems. The decoherence rates have been calculated and even measured
\cite{six} in the context of Cat like states \cite{seven} for the radiation
field in a cavity. The decoherence issues are also very significant in the context of quantum
computation \cite{{eight},{nine},{ten}}. Clearly the stability of coherent
superpositions requires methods for slowing down the decoherence. Several
proposals exist in the literature \cite{{eleven},{twelve},{thirteen}}. These involve
for example use of a sequence of pulses\cite{twelve} or engineering of the density
of states associated with the reservoir or even changing the reservoir
interaction from a single photon to multiphoton (or more generally multiboson)
interaction \cite{{eleven},{fourteen}}. Other proposals
involve feedback methods \cite{thirteen}.
It may be added that spontaneous emission in many systems is also a cause of
decoherence. We now understand reasonably well, how to inhibit spontaneous
emission either by manipulating the density of states \cite{fifteen} or by using external
fields \cite{{sixteen},{seventeen}}. The methods based on external
fields could be especially useful for slowing down decoherence.
In this letter, we discuss a method based on the frequency modulation
\cite{{nineteen},{twenty},{twenty one}} of the system-heat bath (environment) coupling. We specifically
assume large frequency modulation and take the modulation index $m$
to have a value given by $J_0 (m) = 0$. Under these conditions, we demonstrate
considerable slowing down of the decay and decoherence rates. We present a physical basis
for this slowing down. We present several examples including the heating of a
trapped ion. Our method is useful only if the correlation time $\kappa^{-1}$
of the heat bath is larger than the rate of frequency modulation i.e.
$\nu^{-1}$. It must be noted that a recent experimental proposal to control
decoherence [6(b)] also depends on a coherent coupling with a bath (second
single mode cavity) and works under similar conditions \cite{note}.
In order to appreciate the basic idea of using frequency modulation we consider
a two state system, where the states $|a\rangle$ and $|b\rangle$ are coupled by some field. We also assume that the
state $|b\rangle$ decays at the rate $2\kappa$. This simple model [Fig.1] can describe many
physical situations. For example, it can represent an excited atom in a cavity
\cite{twenty two} in which the photon leaks out at the rate $2\kappa.$ In this case the states
$|a\rangle$ and $|b\rangle$ will correspond to $|e,o\rangle$, $|g,1\rangle,$ where
$|o\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ represent vacuum and one photon state respectively and where
$|e\rangle$ and $|g\rangle$ represent the excited and ground states of the atom. It can also describe a situation where the state $|b\rangle$ could be an
excited state coupled to ionization continuum. The
probability amplitudes $C_a$ and $C_b$ for the states $|a\rangle$ and
$|b\rangle$ obey the equations
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{C}_a&=& - igC_b,\nonumber\\
\dot{C}_b&=& - \kappa C_b - ig^*C_a.
\end{eqnarray}
We have removed any fast time dependence by working in an appropriate frame. If
$\kappa$ is large, then as is well known
\begin{eqnarray}
|C_a|^2 &\cong& \exp\{-2\Gamma t\}, \nonumber \\
\Gamma &=& |g|^2/\kappa ;~ \kappa\gg g.
\end{eqnarray}
The decay of the state $|a\rangle$ arises from the decay of the state
$|b\rangle$. In the opposite limit $(\kappa\rightarrow 0)$ one gets oscillatory behavior, which in the cavity context
is known as the vacuum field Rabi oscillation. We now consider the effect of a
phase modulation $m\sin\nu t$ on the decay of the state $|a\rangle:$ we assume a
modulation of the coupling constant
\begin{equation}
g\rightarrow g\exp\{- im\sin\nu t\}.
\end{equation}
Here $m$ and $\nu$ give respectively, the amplitude and the frequency of the
modulation. Equation (1) is no longer amenable to analytical solutions. In
Fig. 2, we display the excited state population for different values of $\nu$
and $m$ chosen to be a zero of the Bessel function of order zero
\begin{equation}
J_o (m) = 0.
\end{equation}
This choice of $m$ will become clear in the analysis to follow. In Fig. 2
we also show the behavior in the absence of modulation. We observe that under the
condition(4) the decay of the excited state population is considerably slowed as
the modulation frequency increases. This clearly demonstrates {\it how a frequency
modulation can slow down the effects of decay.} We thus have a {\it method of
controlling relaxation / decay} by frequency modulation.
We now explain the observed numerical behavior for large $\nu$. Using (1), we
can easily derive the following integro-differential equation for the amplitude
of the excited state
\begin{equation}
\dot{C_a}\equiv -|g|^2 e^{-i\Phi(t)}\int_0^t e^{-\kappa(t-\tau)+i\Phi(\tau)}C_a
(\tau)d\tau.
\end{equation}
We use
\begin{equation}
e^{-i\Phi(t)} = \sum_{l=-\infty}^{+\infty} J_l(m)e^{-il\nu t},
\end{equation}
and we assume that (i)~ $\nu$ is large (ii)~$ C_a (\tau)$ varies slowly with~
$\tau$~and carry out a long time average denoted by over bar to get
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\rm(lnC_a)}\equiv -|g|^2 \int_0^t e^{-\kappa\tau}
\overline{e^{-i\Phi(t)}e^{i\Phi(t-\tau)}}~ d\tau,\nonumber \\
\equiv -|g|^2\sum_{p}J_p^2 (m)(\kappa+ip\nu)^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
In order to slow down the decoherence, we need to remove the $\nu=0$ term in
(7). This can be achieved by imposing the condition (4) whence (7) reduces to
\begin{equation}
\frac {\partial}{\partial t}{\rm(ln C_{a})}
\approx -2|g|^2 J_1^2(m)(\kappa^2 +\nu^2)^{-1}\kappa.
\end{equation}
Therefore the decay of the excited state
occurs at a modified rate $2\tilde\Gamma$ with
\begin{equation}
\frac{\tilde\Gamma}{\Gamma}\cong J_1^2
(m)\left(\frac{2\kappa^2}{\kappa^2+\nu^2}\right).
\end{equation}
The decay factor (9) agrees very well with the behavior shown in the Fig. 2 for
$20\pi$ as then $\nu \gg \kappa$. The very fast oscillations do not show up on the scale
of the Fig. 2. The result (9) can be understood by noting that - (i) the factor
in the parenthesis in (9) is just the factor that one would have obtained with
a detuned interaction between the states $|a\rangle$ and $|b\rangle$; (ii)
the Bessel function represents the strength of the first side band.
We next demonstrate that the above idea applies rather generally. We consider
the usual microscopic treatment of the heat bath \cite{twenty
three}
with the {\it modulation of the system heat bath coupling}. For the purpose of
illustration, we consider a spin system [raising and lowering operators $S^+$ and
$S^-$] interacting say with a dc and ac magnetic field in Z direction so that
the unperturbed Hamiltonian is $(\omega_0 - m\nu \cos \nu t)S^z$. The energy
separation gets modulated - such modulations are routinely used (see e.g.
Noel {\it et al} \cite{nineteen}). In the interaction picture the interaction
with the heat bath can be written as
\begin{equation}
H_I(t)=(S^+e^{+i\omega_0 t-i\Phi(t)} R^-(t)+{\rm H.c.}),
\end{equation}
where $R^-(t)$ is the appropriate operator for the heat bath. As usual
\cite{twenty three} we will assume that the coupling of the bath to the
system is weak. The heat bath is characterized in terms of the correlation
functions:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle R^-(t)\rangle &=& 0,\nonumber\\
\langle R^+(t+\tau) R^-(t)\rangle &=& C^{+-} (\tau),\nonumber\\
\langle R^-(t+\tau) R^+(t)\rangle &=& C^{-+} (\tau),\nonumber\\
\langle R^-(t+\tau) R^-(t)\rangle &=& 0.
\end{eqnarray}
The Fourier transforms of~$C^{+-}$~ and~$ C^{-+}$~ are related via the fluctuation
dissipation theorem. We can now do the standard calculation \cite{twenty three} to derive a master
equation for the reduced density matrix $\rho$ of the system alone. We quote the
result of this calculation.
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = -(S^+S^-~\rho -S^-~\rho S^+)
\int_0^t d\tau ~C^{-+}(\tau)e^{+i\omega_0\tau}e^{-i\Phi(t)}e^{i\Phi
(t-\tau)},\nonumber\\
-(\rho~S^-S^+ - S^+~\rho~ S^-)\int_0^t d\tau~C^{+-} (-\tau)e^{+i\omega_0\tau}
e^{i\Phi(t-\tau)-i\Phi(t)},\nonumber\\
{\rm +~terms~with~subscripts}~\pm~\rightarrow~\mp, ~\omega_0 ~\rightarrow
-~\omega_0,~\Phi~\rightarrow -\Phi.
\end{eqnarray}
First of all we note, that if the bath correlations were like delta
correlations ~$C^{-+}(\tau) = 2\delta (\tau)C^{-+}$,~ then the master equation (12)
does {\it not depend on the modulation~$\Phi$}. Clearly, the {\it bath correlation
time $\tau_c$ has to be at least of the order of the time} associated with the
modulation. Under the fundamental condition (4), the time average in (12) can be
{\it approximated by}
\begin{equation}
\overline{e^{-i\Phi(t)+i\Phi(t-\tau)}} \cong 2J_1^2 (m)~\cos~\nu~\tau
\end{equation}
and then (12) reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}\equiv -2(S^+S^- \rho - S^-\rho~ S^+)
\int_0^\infty d\tau C^{-+}(\tau)e^{+ i\omega_0\tau}~\cos~\nu~\tau~ J_1^2
(m),\nonumber\\
-2~(~\rho~ S^-S^+ - S^+ \rho~S^-)\int_0^\infty d\tau C^{+-}
(-\tau)e^{+i\omega_0\tau}~\cos~\nu~\tau~ J_1^2(m),\nonumber\\
{\rm +~terms~ with}~\pm~\rightarrow~\mp,~\omega_0~\rightarrow~-\omega_0.
\end{eqnarray}
The standard master equation corresponds to the limits $\nu\rightarrow 0, J_1^2
\rightarrow 1$. It is clear that if $\nu$ is large enough compared to frequency
scale of $C^{-+}(\tau)e^{i\omega_0\tau}$ then the real part of the integral in
(14) will be approximately zero and {\it decoherence effectively does not
exist}. In particular, if~ $C^{-+}(\tau) ~= ~C_0^{-+}~ e^{-\kappa\tau-i\omega\tau},
~C^{+-}(-\tau)~=~ C_0^{-+}~e^{-\kappa\tau - i\omega\tau},$~ then
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t} &=& -\frac{2(\kappa-i\Delta)J_1^2(m)}{(\kappa -
i\Delta)^2+\nu^2} \{C_0^{-+}(S^+S^-~\rho - S^-~\rho~ S^+) \nonumber \\
&+& C_0^{+-}(\rho~S^-S^+ - S^+\rho~S^-)\}{\rm + c.c.}.,\Delta = (\omega_0 -
\omega).
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly, the relaxation coefficients in the master equation are modified by
factors like (9). Hence the relaxation is much slower. In particular, the
relaxation of the coherence~$\langle S^\pm\rangle$~ will be on a much longer time
scale. For large $\nu$ compared to $\kappa$ and $\Delta$, the relaxation time is very
large.
We next consider the application of the above ideas to the decoherence of an ion
in a trap. This is important in many applications of ion traps such as in
connection with the production of Cat states and in quantum computation. In
particular, we consider the possibility of {\it reducing} the {\it heating} of the {\it ground state of trapped
ions}. In a recent letter, James \cite{ten} has considered a model for heating
produced by a stochastic field {\rm E(t)}. In terms of the annihilation and
creation operators $a, a^{\dagger}$ associated with the ionic motion the heating
is described by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H_1 = i\hbar[u(t)a^\dagger - u^*(t)a],
\end{equation}
where $u(t) = iZE(t)e^{i\omega_0 t}/\sqrt{2M\hbar\omega_0}$. The field $E(t)$ is
a Gaussian stochastic process. The time scale of the stochastic field is taken
to be comparable to the time scale of the ionic motion. Hence this model is
{\it outside} the usual {\it markovian limit}. We now consider the effect of an
external modulation so that effectively,
$u(t)\rightarrow u(t)e^{-i\Phi(t)}$. Following James' work the fidelity
${\rm F(t)}$ of the ground state is given by
\begin{equation}
F(t)=[1+2\langle|v(t)|^2\rangle + \langle|v(t)|^2\rangle^2 - |\langle
v^2(t)\rangle|^2]^{-1/2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
v(t) = \frac{iZ}{\sqrt{2M\hbar\omega_0}}\int_0^t E(t^\prime)e^{-i\Phi(t^\prime)+i\omega_0
t^\prime}dt^\prime.
\end{equation}
The mean values in (17) can be obtained from (18) by assuming exponential
correlation for $E(t):$
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle u(t)u^*(t^\prime)\rangle &=&\frac{\Omega^2}{2}
e^{-\kappa|t-t^{\prime}|}\nonumber\\
\langle |v|^2 \rangle &=&\frac{\Omega^2}{2}\sum_{- \infty}^{+\infty}\sum J_n (m)
J_p (m) I (\omega_0-n\nu ~; ~-\omega_0+p\nu) \nonumber \\
\langle v^2\rangle &=& - \frac{\Omega^2}{2}\sum_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\sum J_n (m) J_p
(m)I(\omega_0 - n\nu ~;~ \omega_0 - p\nu)
\end{eqnarray}
where the integral $I(\omega_\alpha, \omega_\beta)$ is found to be
\begin{eqnarray}
I(\omega_\alpha,\omega_\beta) &=& (i\omega_\alpha + i\omega_\beta)^{-1}
\left[(\kappa + i\omega_\beta)^{-1}e^{i(\omega_\alpha+\omega_\beta)t}
-(\kappa - i\omega_\alpha)^{-1} \right]\nonumber \\
&+& (i\omega_\alpha - \kappa)^{-1}(-i\omega_\beta -\kappa)^{-1}
e ^{i\omega_\alpha t- \kappa t}\nonumber \\
&+& ~{\rm terms~ with}~ \alpha\Leftrightarrow\beta.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\omega_\alpha + \omega_\beta$ can vanish in which case, a limiting procedure leads
to
\begin{equation}
I (\omega_\alpha, -\omega_\alpha) =
(\kappa - i\omega_\alpha)^{-1}~ t + (i\omega_\alpha - \kappa)^{-2}
\left(e^{i\omega_\alpha t-\kappa t}-1\right) + {\rm c.c.}
\end{equation}
We show the fidelity factor $F$ in Fig. 3, both in the absence and presence of
the modulation. We choose a parameter domain in which {\it fidelity}
was being {\it degraded} rather fast. Clearly, if we assume large frequency
modulation and condition (4), then as the figure shows, there is considerable
{\it improvement in the fidelity} under frequency modulation of the stochastic field
{\rm E(t)} responsible for heating the trapped ion.
In conclusion, we have shown how the appropriate modulation of the system-heat
bath interaction can slow down the decay as well as the decoherence to a very
large extent. This happens
as generally, the decoherence is determined by the spectral components of
the bath correlation functions. If system-bath interaction is modulated, then
the decoherence is determined by the spectral components, which are shifted by
the multiples of the modulation frequency. If the modulation frequency is large
compared to the width of the bath correlations, then we would get much smaller
decoherence rate. Finally, note that we have a method to control the effects of
decoherence since the modulation depth and frequency can be
varied.
The author thanks Sunish Menon for the plots.
|
\section{introduction}
It is widely accepted that (co-)quasitriangular Hopf algebra
is a good algebraic notion which expresses ``quantum groups.''
For, example, each lattice model $w$ of vertex type (and of
face type) without spectral parameter naturally generates
a coquasitriangular (CQT) Hopf (face) algebra,
thanks to the FRT construction and the Hopf closure (or Hopf
envelope) construction.
The former construction assigns $w$ to the CQT bialgebra (or face algebra)
${\frak A}(w)$ (cf. \cite{RTF}, \cite{LarsonTowber}, \cite{Schauenburg}, \cite{gd}),
while the latter construction assigns some CQT bialgebra (or face algebra) $\frak H$
to the CQT Hopf (face) algebra $\mathrm{Hc} (\frak H)$ (\cite{Phung}, \cite{gsg}).
However, to give applications of CQT Hopf (face) algebras $\frak H$ to
low-dimensional topology, we need one additional structure on these,
which is called the {\it ribbon functional} on $\frak H$, a dual notion of
the ribbon element.
It is known that there exists a Drinfeld's double of a finite-dimensional
Hopf algebra, which has no ribbon element (cf. \cite{KauffmanRadford}
Proposition 7).
Also, it is known that the ribbon functional of a CQT Hopf
algebra is not necessarily unique even if it exists.
Hence it is natural to investigate sufficient conditions
for the existence of the ribbon functional
on CQT Hopf (face) algebras, and to develop the classification theory
of the ribbon functionals.
One of the purpose of this paper is to prove the existence
of the ribbon functionals on
CQT Hopf face algebras of the form $\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))$
(cf. Theorem \ref{existrib}).
This result implies that each $w$ produces a ribbon category,
and therefore, it implies that $w$ generates a family of link invariants.
We note that when $w = \Check{R}$ is a vertex model,
this family contains the link invariant constructed by
Reshetikhin \cite{Reshetikhin} (see Remark at the end of Section 6).
As byproducts, we also obtain several useful results on
the ribbon functionals on CQT Hopf face algebras.
The other purpose of this paper is to
give the classification of the braidings and
the ribbon functionals on the function algebras
$\mathrm{Fun} (G_q)$ of the quantized classical groups
$G_q = GL_q(N)$, $SL_q(N)$, $SO_q(N)$,
$O_q(N)$ and $Sp_q(N)$,
and also, on some Hopf face algebras ${\frak S}(A_{N-1};t)_{\epsilon}$
which are closely related to the $SU(N)_L$-topological
quantum field theories.
The braiding of these Hopf (face) algebras is not unique.
However, the non-uniqueness is explained using certain
gradings of these algebras via cyclic groups $\Gamma$.
The ribbon functionals of these algebras always exist
and the number of those is at most two.
We note that the proof of the former is very similar to
that of the classification of the braidings of
$\mathrm{Fun} (\mathrm{Mat}_q (N))$ due to Takeuchi
\cite{Takeuchicocycle},
while the proof of the latter essentially depends on
our general theory for $\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))$.
The paper is organized as follows.
In Section 2, we recall basic concepts of the face algebra.
The notion of the face algebra generalizes that of
the bialgebra, and is necessary to study lattice models of
face type and the corresponding link invariants
in the framework of the quantum group theory.
In Section 3, we recall the relation between lattice models
and face algebras.
In Section 4, we recall the Hopf closure construction
which is the the main tool of this paper.
In Section 5, we give a study of group-like elements of
the dual algebras ${\frak A}(w)^{\circ}$ and $\mathrm{Hc} (\frak H)^{\circ}$.
It plays a crucial role for our study of the ribbon functionals.
In Section 6, we give several results on the ribbon functionals
of $\mathrm{Hc} (\frak H)$ and its quotients.
In Section 7 and Section 8, we give the results for
quantized classical groups and the algebras ${\frak S}(A_{N-1};t)_{\epsilon}$ stated above.
The author is grateful to Dr. S. Suzuki for his useful informations.
\begin{equation*}
\end{equation*}
\par\noindent
{\it Notation}.
Throughout this paper, we use Sweedler's sigma notation for
coalgebras $C$ and their right comodules $U$, such as
$(\Delta \otimes \mathrm{id}) (\Delta (a)) =
\sum_{(a)} a_{(1)} \otimes a_{(2)} \otimes a_{(3)}$
(cf. \cite{Montgomery}).
Also, we denote by
$\rho_U$ the coaction $U \to U \otimes C;$
$u \mapsto \sum_{(u)} u_{(0)} \otimes u_{(1)}$,
and by $\pi_U$
the left action of $C^*$ on $U$ given by
$\pi_U (X) u = \sum_{(u)} u_{(0)} X(u_{(1)})$
$(u \in U, X \in C^*)$.
For a linear operator $A$ on a vector space $W$ with basis
$\{ \bold p \}$, we define its matrix $[A^{\bold p}_{\bold q}]_{\bold p \bold q}$ by
$A \bold q = \sum_{\bold p} \bold p A^{\bold p}_{\bold q}$.
\section{face algebras}
Let $\frak H$ be an algebra over a field $\Bbb K$ equipped
with a coalgebra structure $(\frak H,\Delta,\varepsilon)$.
Let ${\EuScript V}$ be a finite nonempty set and
let $e_{\frak H,i} = e_i$ and ${{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}}_{\frak H,i} = {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i}}$
$(i \in {\EuScript V})$ be elements of ${\frak H}$.
We say that $({\frak H}, \{ e_i,{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} \})$ is a {\em ${\EuScript V}$-face algebra}
if the following relations are satisfied:
\begin{equation}
\Delta (ab) = \Delta(a) \Delta(b),
\label{D(ab)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
e_ie_j = \delta_{ij}e_i,
\quad {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_j} = \delta_{ij} {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i},
\quad e_i {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_j} = {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_j} e_i,
\label{ee}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k \in \EuScript V} \, e_k = 1 = \sum_{k \in {\EuScript V}} {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k},
\label{sume}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Delta({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j) = \sum_{k \in {\EuScript V}} {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_k \otimes {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} e_j,
\quad
\varepsilon ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j) = \delta _{ij} ,
\label{D(ee)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon (ab) = \sum_{k \in {\EuScript V}} \varepsilon (ae_k) \varepsilon ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} b)
\label{e(ab)}
\end{equation}
for each $a,b \in \frak H$ and $i,j \in \EuScript V$.
We call elements $e_i$ and ${\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i}$ {\it face idempotents}
of $\frak H$.
We denote by $\frak{E} = \frak{E}_{\frak H}$
the subalgebra of $\frak H$ generated by face idempotents.
It is known that bialgebra is an equivalent notion of
$\EuScript V$-face algebra with $\#(\EuScript V) = 1$.
For a $\EuScript V$-face algebra, we have the following formulas:
\begin{equation}
\label{e(eae)}
\varepsilon ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} a) = \varepsilon (e_i a),
\quad \varepsilon (a {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i}) = \varepsilon (a e_i),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{ae(eae)}
\sum_{(a)} a_{(1)} \varepsilon (e_i a_{(2)} e_j) = e_i a e_j,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{e(eae)a}
\sum_{(a)} \varepsilon (e_i a_{(1)} e_j)a_{(2)} = {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} a {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_j},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{D(a)}
\Delta (a) = \sum_{k,l \in \V} \sum_{(a)}
e_k a_{(1)} e_l \otimes {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} a_{(2)} {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_l},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eae*a}
\sum_{(a)} e_i a_{(1)} e_j \otimes a_{(2)} =
\sum_{(a)} a_{(1)} \otimes {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} a_{(2)} {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_j},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{D(eeaee)}
\Delta ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j a {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}}_{i'} e_{j'}) =
\sum_{(a)} {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} a_{(1)} {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}}_{i'} \otimes e_j a_{(2)} e_{j'}
\end{equation}
for each $a \in \frak H$ and $i,j,i',j' \in \EuScript V$.
For a ${\EuScript V}$-face algebra $\frak H$,
its {\it dual face algebra} ${\frak H}^{\circ}$
\cite{fdd} is defined to be the dual coalgebra of $\frak H$
equipped with product and face idempotents
given by $\langle XY,\, a \rangle$ $=$
$\sum_{(a)} \langle X,\, a_{(1)} \rangle \langle Y,\, a_{(2)} \rangle$
$(X, Y \in \frak H^{\circ}, a \in \frak H)$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{eHoi}
\langle e_{{\frak H}^{\circ},i},\, a \rangle
= \varepsilon (a e_{\frak H,i}),
\quad
\langle {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}}_{{\frak H}^{\circ},i},\, a \rangle
= \varepsilon (e_{\frak H,i} a)
\quad (a \in \frak H, i \in \EuScript V).
\end{equation}
Let $x^+$, $x^-$, $e^+$ and $e^-$ be elements of an arbitrary algebra $A$.
We say that $x^-$ is an {\em $(e^+,e^-)$-generalized inverse} of $x^+$
if the following four relations are satisfied:
\begin{equation}
x^{\mp} x^{\pm} = e^{\pm},
\quad x^{\pm} x^{\mp} x^{\pm} = x^{\pm}.
\label{gen.inv.def}
\end{equation}
We note that the $(e^+,e^-)$-generalized inverse of $x^+$
is unique if it exists.
We say that a linear map $S\!: {\frak H} \to {\frak H}$ is an {\em antipode} of ${\frak H}$,
or ${\frak H}$ is a {\em Hopf} ${\EuScript V}$-{\em face algebra} if
$S$ is the $(E^+, E^-)$-generalized inverse of $\mathrm{id}_{\frak H}$
with respect to the convolution product of $\mathrm{End}_{\Bbb K} (\frak H)$, where
\begin{equation}
\label{E+adef}
E^+ (a) = \sum_{k \in \V} \varepsilon (ae_k) e_k,
\quad
E^- (a) = \sum_{k \in \V} \varepsilon (e_k a) {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k}
\quad (a \in \frak H).
\end{equation}
An antipode of a $\EuScript V$-face algebra is
an antialgebra-anticoalgebra map, which satisfies
\begin{equation}
S({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j) = {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_j} e_i
\quad (i,j \in {\EuScript V}).
\label{S(ee)}
\end{equation}
Let ${\frak H}$ be a ${\EuScript V}$-face algebra and
let ${\cal R}^+ = {\cal R}^+_{\frak H}$ be an element of $({\frak H} \otimes{\frak H})^*$ with
$(m^* (1), (m^{\text{op}})^* (1))$-generalized inverse ${\cal R}^- = {\cal R}^-_{\frak H}$,
where $m\!: {\frak H} \otimes {\frak H} \to {\frak H}$ denotes the product of ${\frak H}$.
We say that
${\cal R}^+$ is a {\em braiding} of $\frak H$ or
$(\frak H,{\cal R}^{\pm})$ is a {\em coquasitriangular}
(or {\em CQT}) ${\EuScript V}$-face algebra
if the following relations are satisfied:
\begin{equation}
\label{RmXR}
\quad
{\cal R}^+ m^*(X) {\cal R}^- = (m^{\text{op}})^*(X)
\quad (X \in \frak H^*),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{mid(R)}
(m {\otimes}\text{id})^* ({\cal R}^+) = {\cal R}^+_{13} {\cal R}^+_{23},
\quad
(\text{id}{\otimes}m)^* ({\cal R}^+) = {\cal R}^+_{13} {\cal R}^+_{12}.
\end{equation}
Here for $Z \in (\frak H \otimes \frak H)^*$ and
$\{ i,j,k \} = \{1,2,3 \}$, we define
$Z_{ij} \in (\frak H^{\otimes 3})^*$ by
$Z_{ij} (a_1, a_2, a_3) = Z(a_i, a_j) \varepsilon (a_k)$
$(a_1, a_2, a_3 \in \frak H)$.
The braiding ${\cal R}^+$ satisfies
the following relations:
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}^{\pm}_{12} {\cal R}^{\pm}_{13} {\cal R}^{\pm}_{23} = {\cal R}^{\pm}_{23} {\cal R}^{\pm}_{13} {\cal R}^{\pm}_{12},
\label{RRR}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\cal{R}^{\mp}_{23} {\cal R}^{\pm}_{12} {\cal R}^{\pm}_{13}
= {\cal R}^{\pm}_{13} {\cal R}^{\pm}_{12} \cal{R}^{\mp}_{23},
\quad
\cal{R}^{\mp}_{13} \cal{R}^{\mp}_{23} {\cal R}^{\pm}_{12}
= {\cal R}^{\pm}_{12} \cal{R}^{\mp}_{23} \cal{R}^{\mp}_{13},
\label{RmpRR}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}^+ ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j a {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} e_l,\, b) = {\cal R}^+ (a,\, {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_j} e_l b {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_k),
\label{Rpeeee}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}^- ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j a {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} e_l,\, b) = {\cal R}^- (a,\, {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} e_i b {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_l} e_j),
\label{Rmeeee}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}^+ ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j,\, a) = \varepsilon (e_j a e_i),
\quad
{\cal R}^+ (a,\, {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j) = \varepsilon (e_i a e_j),
\label{Rpeea}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}^- ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j,\, a) = \varepsilon(e_i a e_j),
\quad
{\cal R}^- (a,\, {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j) = \varepsilon(e_j a e_i)
\label{Rmeea}
\end{equation}
for each $a,b \in \frak H$ and $i,j,k,l \in \EuScript V$.
If $\frak H$ is a Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra, then we have:
\begin{equation}
(S{\otimes}\text{id})^* ({\cal R}^+) = {\cal R}^-,
\quad
(\text{id}{\otimes}S)^* ({\cal R}^-) = {\cal R}^+.
\label{Sid(R)}
\end{equation}
\begin{prop}
\label{altbraiding}
Let $(\frak H, {\cal R}^{\pm})$ be a CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebra.\\
\rom{(1)}
Then, ${\cal R}^-_{21}\!: a \otimes b \mapsto {\cal R}^-(b, a)$ gives
another braiding of $\frak H$.\\
%
\rom{(2)}
Let $\Gamma$ be a semigroup and
$\frak H = \bigoplus_{\gamma \in \Gamma} \frak H_{\gamma}$
a decomposition of $\frak H$ such that
$\frak H_{\gamma} \frak H_{\delta} \subset \frak H_{\gamma \delta}$
and that
$\Delta ( \frak H_{\gamma} ) \subset \frak H_{\gamma} \otimes \frak H_{\gamma}$.
Let $\chi\!: \Gamma \times \Gamma \to \Bbb K^{\times}$
be a map such that
$\chi (\gamma_1 \gamma_2, \delta)$ $=$
$\chi (\gamma_1, \delta) \chi (\gamma_2, \delta)$,
$\chi (\gamma, \delta_1 \delta_2)$ $=$
$\chi (\gamma, \delta_1) \chi (\gamma, \delta_2)$.
Then, there exists a new braiding ${\cal R}^+_{\chi}$ of $\frak H$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Rchidef}
{\cal R}^{\pm}_{\chi} (a, b) =
\chi (\gamma, \delta)^{\pm 1}
{\cal R}^{\pm} (a, b)
\quad (a \in \frak H_{\gamma}, b \in \frak H_{\delta}).
\end{equation}
%
If $(\frak H, {\cal R}^{\pm})$ is closable, then so is $(\frak H, {\cal R}^{\pm}_{\chi})$.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
This is straightforward.
\end{pf}
Let $({\frak H},{\cal R}^{\pm})$ be a CQT Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra
and $\cal{V}$ an invertible central element of
${\frak H}^*$.
We say that $\cal{V}$ is a {\em ribbon functional} of $\frak H$,
or $(\frak H,\cal{V})$ is a
{\em coribbon Hopf} $\EuScript V$-{\em face algebra}
if
\begin{equation}
\label{m(V)}
m^*({\cal V}) = {\cal R}^- {\cal R}^-_{21} ({\cal V} \otimes {\cal V}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{S(V)}
S^* (\cal{V}) = \cal{V}.
\end{equation}
A map $f\!: \frak H \to \frak K$ between $\EuScript V$-face algebras is called a
{\em map of $\EuScript V$-face algebras} if it is both an algebra and
a coalgebra map such that $f(e_i) = e_i$, $f({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i}) = {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i}$
for each $i \in \EuScript V$.
If both $\frak H$ and $\frak K$ have antipode, then we have
\begin{equation}
f(S(a)) = S(f(a))
\quad (a \in \frak H).
\label{f(S(a))}
\end{equation}
A map $f\!: \frak H \to \frak K$ of $\EuScript V$-face algebras
between CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebras is called a
{\em map of CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebras} if
\begin{equation}
\label{mapCQTdef}
(f \otimes f)^* ({\cal R}^+_{\frak K}) = {\cal R}^+_{\frak H}.
\end{equation}
An ideal $\frak{I}$ of a $\EuScript V$-face algebra $\frak H$ is called
a {\it biideal} if it is a coideal of the underlying
coalgebra of $\frak H$.
If in addition, $\frak H$ is a CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebra and
$\frak{I}$ satisfies
${\cal R}^{\pm}(\frak{I},\frak H) = {\cal R}^{\pm}(\frak H, \frak{I}) = 0$,
then $\frak{I}$ is called a {\it CQT biideal} of $\frak H$.
For each $\EuScript V$-face algebra (resp. CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebra)
$\frak H$ and its biideal (resp. CQT biideal)
$\frak{I}$, the quotient $\frak H / \frak{I}$ becomes a
$\EuScript V$-face algebra (resp. CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebra)
in an obvious manner.
\section{lattice models and comodules}
Let $\EuScript G$ be a finite oriented graph
with set of vertices ${\EuScript V}$ = ${{\EuScript G}^0}$.
For an edge ${\bold p}$, we denote by ${\frak {s} (\bold p)}$ and ${\frak {r} (\bold p)}$
its {\em source} ({\em start}) and its {\em range} ({\em end}) respectively.
For each $m \geq 1$, we denote by
${{\EuScript G}^m = {\coprod}_{i,j \in \EuScript V}{\EuScript G}_{ij}^m}$
the set of {\em paths} of $\EuScript G$ of {\em length} $m$, that is,
$\bold p \in {\EuScript G}_{ij}^m$ if $\bold p$ is a sequence
$(\bold p_1, \ldots, \bold p_m)$ of edges of $\EuScript G$ such that
$\frak {s} (\bold p):= \frak {s} (\bold p_1) = i$,
$\frak {r} (\bold p_n) = \frak {s}(\bold p_{n+1})\,$ $(1 \leq n < m)$
and $\frak {r} (\bold p):= \frak {r}(\bold p_m) = j$.
Also, we set $\frak {s} (i) = i = \frak {r} (i)$, $\EuScript G_{ii}^0 = \{ i\}$
and $\EuScript G_{ij}^0 = \emptyset$
for each $i \in \EuScript V$ and $j \ne i$.
Let ${\frak H (\EuScript G)}$ be the linear span of
the symbols ${e{\bold p \choose \bold q}}$
\( ( \bold p,\bold q \in {\EuScript G}^m, m \geq 0) \).
Then ${\frak H (\EuScript G)}$ becomes a $\EuScript V$-face algebra by setting
\begin{equation}
{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} = \sum_{j \in \EuScript V}e{i \choose j},
\quad e_j = \sum_{i \in \EuScript V}e{i \choose j},
\label{eHGi}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
e{\bold p \choose \bold q} e{\bold r \choose \bold s} =
{\delta}_{\frak {r}(\bold p) \frak {s}(\bold r)} \, {\delta}_{\frak {r}(\bold q) \frak {s}(\bold s)}
\: e{\bold p\cdot\bold r \choose \bold q\cdot\bold s},
\label{epqers}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Delta \left( e{\bold p \choose \bold q} \right) =
\sum_{{\bold t} \in {\EuScript G}^m}
e{\bold p \choose {\bold t}} \otimes e{{\bold t} \choose \bold q},
\quad
\varepsilon \left( e{\bold p \choose \bold q} \right) = {\delta}_{\bold p \bold q}
\label{D(epq)}
\end{equation}
for each $\bold p,\bold q \in {\EuScript G}^m$
and $ \bold r,\bold s \in {\EuScript G}^n$ $( m,n \geq 0)$.
Here for paths $\bold p = (\bold p_1,\ldots,\bold p_m)$ and
$\bold r = (\bold r_1,\ldots,\bold r_n)$, we set
$\bold p \cdot \bold r = (\bold p_1,\ldots,\bold p_m,\bold r_1,\ldots,\bold r_n)$
if $\frak {r}(\bold p) = \frak {s}(\bold r)$ and $m, n \geq 1$,
and also, we set
$\frak {s} (\bold p) \cdot \bold p = \bold p = \bold p \cdot \frak {r} (\bold p)$
for each $\bold p \in \EuScript G^m$ $(m \geq 0)$.
We say that a quadruple
$\left( \bold r \frac[0pt]{\bold p}{\bold q} \bold s \right)$
is a {\it face} if
$\bold p,\bold q, \bold r, \bold s \in {\EuScript G}^1$ and
\begin{equation}
\frak {s} (\bold p) = \frak {s} (\bold r),
\quad \frak {r} (\bold p) = \frak {s} (\bold s),
\quad \frak {r} (\bold r) = \frak {s} (\bold q),
\quad \frak {r} (\bold q) = \frak {r} (\bold s).
\label{facecond}
\end{equation}
We say that $(\EuScript G, w)$ is a {\it face model}
(or $\EuScript V$-{\it face model} ) over ${\Bbb K}$ if
$w$ is a map which assigns a scalar
$w \!\! \left[ \bold r \frac[0pt]{\bold p}{\bold q} \bold s \right] \in {\Bbb K}$
to each face
$\left( \bold r \frac[0pt]{\bold p}{\bold q} \bold s \right)$
of $\EuScript G$.
A face model $(\EuScript G, w)$ is called a {\em vertex model} if
$\#(\EuScript V) = 1$.
For convenience, we set
$w \!\! \left[ \bold r \frac[0pt]{\bold p}{\bold q} \bold s \right] = 0$
unless
$\bold p, \bold q, \bold r, \bold s \in \EuScript G^1$ satisfy \eqref{facecond}.
For a face model $(\EuScript G,w)$, we identify $w$
with the linear operator on
$\Bbb K \EuScript G^2 := \bigoplus_{\bold p \in \EuScript G^2} \Bbb K \bold p$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{w(pq)}
w(\bold p, \bold q) =
\sum_{(\bold r, \bold s) \in {\EuScript G}^2}
w \!\! \left[ \bold r \frac[0pt]{\bold p}{\bold s} \bold q \right]
(\bold r, \bold s)
\quad ( (\bold p, \bold q) \in \EuScript G^2).
\end{equation}
A face model is called {\it invertible}
if $w$ is invertible as an operator on
$\Bbb K \EuScript G^2$.
For an invertible face model $(\EuScript G, w)$,
we define another face model $(\EuScript G, w^{-1})$,
using the identification \eqref{w(pq)}.
An invertible face model is called {\it star-triangular}
(or {\it Yang-Baxter}) if $w$ satisfies
the braid relation $w_1 w_2 w_1 = w_2 w_1 w_2$,
where $w_1$ and $w_2$ denote linear operators on
$\Bbb K \EuScript G^3$ defined by
$w_1(\bold p, \bold q, \bold r) = w(\bold p, \bold q) \otimes \bold r$
and
$w_2(\bold p, \bold q, \bold r) = \bold p \otimes w(\bold q, \bold r)$.
Here we identify $(\bold p, \bold q, \bold r) \in \EuScript G^3$
with
$\bold p \otimes \bold q \otimes \bold r \in
(\Bbb K \EuScript G^1)^{\otimes 3}$.
For a face model $(\EuScript G, w)$, we define the algebra
$\frak A (\EuScript G, w)= {\frak A}(w)$
to be the quotient of $\frak H (\EuScript G)$ modulo the following relations:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{(\bold c, \bold d) \in {\EuScript G}^2}
w \!\! \left[ \bold a \frac[0pt]{\bold c}{\bold b} \bold d \right]
e{\bold c \cdot \bold d \choose \bold p \cdot \bold q} =
\sum_{(\bold r, \bold s) \in {\EuScript G}^2}
w \!\! \left[ \bold r \frac[0pt]{\bold p}{\bold s} \bold q \right]
e{\bold a \cdot \bold b \choose \bold r \cdot \bold s}
\quad ( (\bold p, \bold q),\, (\bold a, \bold b) \in {\EuScript G}^2).
\label{relAw}
\end{equation}
Then ${\frak A}(w)$ has a unique structure of
$\EuScript V$-face algebra such that the projection
$\frak H (\EuScript G) \to {\frak A}(w)$ is a map of $\EuScript V$-face algebras.
For each $n \geq 0$,
$\Bbb K \EuScript G^n$ becomes a comodule of
$\frak{A}_n (w)$
via $\rho (\bold q) = \sum_{\bold p \in \EuScript G^n} \bold p \otimes e\!\binom{\bold p}{\bold q}$,
where the subcoalgebra $\frak{A}_n (w)$ of ${\frak A}(w)$ is defined as
the linear span of the elements of the form
$e\!\binom{\bold p}{\bold q}$ $(\bold p, \bold q \in \EuScript G^n)$.
If $(\EuScript G,w)$ is star-triangular, then there exist unique
bilinear pairings ${\cal R}^{\pm}$ on ${\frak A}(w)$
such that $({\frak A}(w), {\cal R}^{\pm})$ is a CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebra
and that
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}^+ \left( e{\bold p \choose \bold q},\; e{\bold r \choose \bold s} \right)
= w \!\! \left[ \bold r \frac[0pt]{\bold q}{\bold p} \bold s \right]
\label{UnivR=W}
\end{equation}
for each $\bold p,\bold q, \bold r, \bold s \in {\EuScript G}^1$
(cf. \cite{LarsonTowber}, \cite{gd}, \cite{Schauenburg}, \cite{fb}).
We call ${\cal R}^+$ the {\it canonical braiding} of ${\frak A}(w)$.
For a vertex model $w = \Check{R}$, ${\frak A}(w)$ coincides with
FRT bialgebra $A_R$, where $R = P \Check{R}$
and $P(\bold p, \bold q) = (\bold q, \bold p)$.
Let $\tilde{\EuScript G}$ be the orientation-reversed graph of $\EuScript G$
and let $\tilde{}: \EuScript G^m \to \tilde{\EuScript G}^m \, ;\; \bold p \mapsto \tilde{\bold p}$
$(m \geq 0)$ be the canonical bijection which satisfies
$\widetilde{\bold p \cdot \bold q} = \tilde{\bold q} \cdot \tilde{\bold p}$,
$\frak {s}(\tilde{\bold p}) = \frak {r}({\bold p})$ and
$\frak {r}(\tilde{\bold p}) = \frak {s}({\bold p})$.
We also define a new graph $\G_{\mathrm{LD}}$
by setting $\G_{\mathrm{LD}}^0 = \EuScript V$ and
$\G_{\mathrm{LD}}^1 = \EuScript G^1 \coprod \tilde{\EuScript G}^1$.
Let $\EuScript G \bar{\times} \tilde{\EuScript G}$
and $\tilde{\EuScript G} \bar{\times} \EuScript G$
denote subsets of $\G_{\mathrm{LD}}^2$
consisting of elements of the form
$\bold p \cdot \tilde{\bold q}$
and $\tilde{\bold p} \cdot \bold q$
$(\bold p,\bold q \in \EuScript G^1)$
respectively.
We define linear operators
$w_{\mathrm{LD}}, w_{\mathrm{LD}}^-\!:
\Bbb K (\tilde{\EuScript G} \bar{\times} \EuScript G)
\to \Bbb K (\EuScript G \bar{\times} \tilde{\EuScript G})$
by
\begin{equation}
w_{\mathrm{LD}} (\tilde{\bold p} \cdot \bold q) =
\sum_{\bold r,\bold s} w_{\mathrm{LD}} \!\! \left[ \bold r \frac[0pt]{\tilde{\bold p}}{\tilde{\bold s}} \bold q \right]
\bold r \cdot \tilde{\bold s}\, ;
\quad
w_{\mathrm{LD}} \!\! \left[ \bold r \frac[0pt]{\tilde{\bold p}}{\tilde{\bold s}} \bold q \right]
=:
w^{-1} \!\! \left[ \bold p \frac[0pt]{\bold q}{\bold r} \bold s \right],
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
w_{\mathrm{LD}}^- (\tilde{\bold p} \cdot \bold q) =
\sum_{\bold r,\bold s} w_{\mathrm{LD}}^- \!\! \left[ \bold r \frac[0pt]{\tilde{\bold p}}{\tilde{\bold s}} \bold q \right]
\bold r \cdot \tilde{\bold s} \, ;
\quad
w_{\mathrm{LD}}^- \!\! \left[ \bold r \frac[0pt]{\tilde{\bold p}}{\tilde{\bold s}} \bold q \right]
=:
w \!\! \left[ \bold p \frac[0pt]{\bold q}{\bold r} \bold s \right].
\end{equation}
We say that a star-triangular $\EuScript V$-face model $(\EuScript G,w)$
is {\it closable}
if both $w_{\mathrm{LD}}$ and $w_{\mathrm{LD}}^-$ are invertible.
In this case, we define a new $\EuScript V$-face model $(\G_{\mathrm{LD}},w_{\mathrm{LD}})$
by extending $w_{\mathrm{LD}}$ on $\Bbb K \G_{\mathrm{LD}}^2$ via
$w_{\mathrm{LD}} |_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^2} = w$,
$w_{\mathrm{LD}} |_{\Bbb K (\EuScript G \bar{\times} \tilde{\EuScript G})}
= (w_{\mathrm{LD}}^-)^{-1}$
and
\begin{equation}
w_{\mathrm{LD}} \!\! \left[ \tilde{\bold r} \frac[0pt]{\tilde{\bold p}}{\tilde{\bold q}} \tilde{\bold s} \right]
=
w \!\! \left[ \bold s \frac[0pt]{\bold q}{\bold p} \bold r \right]
\quad (\bold p, \bold q, \bold r, \bold s \in \EuScript G^1).
\end{equation}
We call $w_{\mathrm{LD}}$ the {\it Lyubashenko double} of $w$.
As in case $(\EuScript G,w)$ is a vertex model,
$(\G_{\mathrm{LD}},w_{\mathrm{LD}})$ is a star-triangular face model.
Let $\frak H$ be a $\EuScript V$-face algebra and $U$ its (right) comodule.
We define its {\it face space decomposition}
$U = \bigoplus_{i,j \in {\EuScript V}}U(i,j)$ by
$U(i,j) = \pi_U ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}}_i e_j) (U)$.
Let $V$ be another $\frak H$-comodule. We define the
{\it truncated tensor product}
$U \overline{\otimes} V$ to be the vector space
\begin{equation}
U \overline{\otimes} V = {\bigoplus}_{i,j,k \in {\EuScript V}}U(i,k) \otimes V(k,j)
\end{equation}
equipped with the $\frak H$-comodule structure given by
\begin{equation}
\rho_{U \bar{\otimes} V} (\overline{u \otimes v} )
= \sum_{(u),(v)}
\left( u_{(0)} \otimes v_{(0)} \right)
\otimes u_{(1)}v_{(1)},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{}\!: U \otimes V \to U \bar{\otimes} V$
denotes the projection
$\sum_k \pi_U (e_k) \otimes \pi_V ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k}) $.
For $\frak H$-comodules $U, U^{\prime},$ $V, V^{\prime}$ and
maps
$f \in \mathrm{End}_{\pi (\frak{E})} (U, U^{\prime})$,
$g \in \mathrm{End}_{\pi (\frak{E})} (V, V^{\prime})$,
we set
\begin{equation}
f \bar{\otimes} g =
(f \otimes g) |_{U \overline{\otimes} V},
\end{equation}
where $\frak{E} = \frak{E}_{\frak H^{\circ}}$.
If both $f$ and $g$ are comodule maps, then
so is $f \bar{\otimes} g$.
The category $\bold{Com}_{\frak H}$ of all
$\frak H$-comodules becomes a monoidal category via
$\bar{\otimes}$ and
the category $\bold{Com}^f_{\frak H}$ of all finite-dimensional
$\frak H$-comodules becomes its sub monoidal category.
The category $\bold{Com}^f_{\frak H}$ is rigid
if and only if
$\frak H$ has a bijective antipode.
Next, suppose $\frak H$ has a braiding ${\cal R}^{\pm}$.
Then $\bold{Com}_{\frak H}$ and $\bold{Com}^f_{\frak H}$
become braided categories
via the functorial isomorphism
$c_{UV}\!: U \overline{\otimes} V$
$\cong V \overline{\otimes} U$ given by
\begin{equation}
c_{UV} (\overline{u \otimes v})
= \sum_{(u),(v)} v_{(0)} \otimes u_{(0)}
{\cal R}^+(u_{(1)},v_{(1)}).
\end{equation}
If, in addition, $\frak H$ has a ribbon functional $\cal{V}$,
then $\bold{Com}^f_{\frak H}$ becomes a ribbon category
(see e.g. \cite{Kassel})
via twist
$\theta_{U}\!: U \cong U$ given by
$\theta_{U} = \pi_U (\cal{V}^{-1})$.
Conversely, we have the following.
\begin{prop}[\cite{LarsonTowber}, \cite{Kassel}]
\label{correspalgcom}
Let $\frak H$ be a $\EuScript V$-face algebra such that
either $\bold{Com}_{\frak H}$ or
$\bold{Com}^f_{\frak H}$ is a braided monoidal category
with braiding $\{ c_{UV} \}$.
Then, $\frak H$ becomes a CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebra via
%
\begin{gather}
\label{Rp=eec}
{\cal R}^+ (a, b) =
\sum_{k,l \in \V} ( \varepsilon \otimes \varepsilon ) \circ
c_{LM} ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} a e_l \otimes e_l b {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} ), \\
\label{Rm=eec}
{\cal R}^- (b, a) =
\sum_{k,l \in \V} ( \varepsilon \otimes \varepsilon ) \circ
(c_{ML})^{-1} ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} a e_l \otimes e_l b {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} ),
\end{gather}
%
where $L$ and $M$ denote arbitrary finite-dimensional
sub $\frak H$-comodules of $\frak H$ such that
${\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} a e_j \in \L$, $e_j b {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} \in M$
$(i, j \in \EuScript V)$.
%
If, in addition, $\frak H$ has an antipode and
$\bold{Com}^f_{\frak H}$ is a ribbon category
with twist $\{ \theta_{U} \}$, then $\frak H$ becomes a
coribbon Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra via
%
\begin{equation}
\label{V=etheta-}
\cal{V}^{\pm 1} (a) =
\varepsilon ( \theta_L^{\mp 1} (a) ).
\end{equation}
%
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
To begin with, we note that the existence of such
$L$ and $M$ follows from
the fundamental theorem of coalgebras,
and that \eqref{Rp=eec}-\eqref{V=etheta-}
do not depend on the choice of
$L$ and $M$ because of the naturality of $c$ and $\theta$.
Here, we will give a proof of the last assertion.
Let $\cal{V}^{\pm} \in \frak H^*$ be as in \eqref{V=etheta-}
and let $U$ be a finite-dimensional $\frak H$-comodule.
For each $u^* \in U^*$, we define the
$\frak H$-comodule map $F_{u^*}\!:U \to \frak H$ by
$F_{u^*}(u)$ $=$ $\sum_{(u)} \langle u^*, u_{(0)}
\rangle u_{(1)}$ $(u \in U)$.
Then, we have
%
\begin{align}
\label{u*thetam}
\langle u^*,\, \theta_U^{\mp 1} (u) \rangle
= &
\varepsilon \circ F_{u^*} \circ \theta_U^{\mp 1} (u)
=
\varepsilon \circ \theta_{\mathrm{Im} (F_{u^*})}^{\mp 1} \circ F_{u^*} (u) \\
= &
\langle u^*,\, \pi_U (\cal{V}^{\pm 1}) u \rangle,
\nonumber
\end{align}
%
or equivalently,
\begin{equation}
\label{theta=piV-}
\theta_U^{\mp 1} (u) =
\pi_U (\cal{V}^{\pm 1}) u.
\end{equation}
%
Rewriting
$\langle u^*,\, \theta_U (u) \rangle$ $=$
$\langle \theta_{U^{\lor}} (u^*), u \rangle$
via this equality, we obtain
$S (\cal{V}) = \cal{V}$.
Let $a$ and $b$ elements of $\frak H$ and let $L$
and $M$ be as above.
Since $\overline{a \otimes b} =
\sum_k a e_k \otimes e_k b$
by \eqref{e(ab)}-\eqref{ae(eae)}, we have
%
\begin{equation}
\pi_{L \bar{\otimes} M } (\cal{V}) (\overline{a \otimes b})
=
\sum_{(a), (b)} a_{(1)} \otimes b_{(1)}
\langle \cal{V}, a_{(2)} b_{(2)}
\rangle
\end{equation}
%
by \eqref{D(eeaee)}.
Using \eqref{theta=piV-} and the equality
$\theta_{L \overline{\otimes} M}^{-1}$ $=$
$c_{L \overline{\otimes} M}^{-1} \circ
c_{M \overline{\otimes} L}^{-1} \circ
(\theta_{L}^{-1} \bar{\otimes} \theta_{M}^{-1})$,
we see that the left-hand side of the above equality is
%
\begin{align}
\label{cc(ab)VaVb}
&\sum_{(a), (b)}
c_{L \overline{\otimes} M}^{-1} \circ
c_{M \overline{\otimes} L}^{-1}
(\overline{a_{(1)} \otimes b_{(1)}})
\cal{V} (a_{(2)}) \cal{V} (b_{(2)}) \\
= &
\sum_{(a), (b)} a_{(1)} \otimes b_{(1)}
{\cal R}^- (a_{(2)}, b_{(2)}) {\cal R}^- (b_{(3)}, a_{(3)})
\cal{V} (a_{(4)}) \cal{V} (b_{(4)}),
\end{align}
where \eqref{cc(ab)VaVb} follows from the fact that
$\theta_L$ and $\theta_M$ commute with the action of
the face idempotents of $\frak H^{\circ}$.
Taking the image via $\varepsilon \otimes \varepsilon$, we get
\eqref{m(V)}.
\end{pf}
Let $U$ be a finite-dimensional comodule of a CQT
$\EuScript V$-face algebra $\frak H$.
For each $i,j \in \EuScript V$, choose a basis $\EuScript G^1_{ij}$ of $U (i,j)$.
Let $\EuScript G$ be the oriented graph with set of vertexes $\EuScript V$
and the set of edges $\EuScript G^1: = \coprod_{ij} \EuScript G^1_{ij}$.
Then we obtain a star-triangular
$\EuScript V$-face model $(\EuScript G, w_U)$ be setting
\begin{equation}
\label{wUdef}
c_{UU} \left( \bold p \otimes \bold q \right)
= \sum_{(\bold r,\bold s) \in \EuScript G^2}
w_U \!\! \left[ \bold r \frac[0pt]{\bold p}{\bold s} \bold q \right]
\bold r \otimes \bold s.
\quad ((\bold p, \bold q ) \in \EuScript G^2).
\end{equation}
\section{Drinfeld functionals and the Hopf closure}
Let $(\frak H,{\cal R}^{\pm})$ be a CQT ${\EuScript V}$-face algebra.
We say that ${\frak H}$ is {\em closable}
(or ${\frak H}$ is a {\em CCQT} ${\EuScript V}$-face algebra)
if there exist both
$(\cal{F}^+, \cal{F}^-)$-generalized inverse ${\cal Q}^-$ of ${\cal R}^+$ and
$(\cal{F}^-, \cal{F}^+)$-generalized inverse ${\cal Q}^+$ of ${\cal R}^-$
in the algebra $({\frak H}\otimes{\frak H}^{\mathrm{cop}})^*$,
where $\cal{F}^{\pm}$ denote bilinear forms on $\frak H$
defined by
\begin{equation}
\cal{F}^+ (a,\, b) = \sum_{k \in \V} \varepsilon (e_k a) \varepsilon(e_k b),
\quad
\cal{F}^- (a,\, b) = \sum_{k \in \V} \varepsilon (a e_k) \varepsilon(b e_k)
\quad (a,b \in \frak H).
\end{equation}
We call ${\cal Q}^{\pm}$ {\em Lyubashenko forms} of $\frak H$.
The Lyubashenko forms of a CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebra
are unique if they exist.
If $\frak H$ has an antipode, then $\frak H$ is closable with
Lyubashenko forms given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Qp=Rm}
{\cal Q}^+(a,b) = {\cal R}^- (S(a), b),
\quad {\cal Q}^-(a,b) = {\cal R}^+ (a, S(b))
\quad (a,b \in \frak H).
\end{equation}
For a star-triangular face model $(\EuScript G,w)$,
${\frak A}(w)$ is closable if and only if
$(\EuScript G,w)$ is closable.
In this case, Lyubashenko forms
${\cal Q}^{\pm}$ of ${\frak A}(w)$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
{\cal Q}^+ \left( e{\bold p \choose \bold q},\; e{\bold r \choose \bold s} \right)
= w_{\mathrm{LD}}^{-1} \!\! \left[ \tilde{\bold q} \, \frac[0pt]{\bold s}{\bold r} \, \tilde{\bold p} \right],
\quad
{\cal Q}^- \left( e{\bold p \choose \bold q},\; e{\bold r \choose \bold s} \right)
= w_{\mathrm{LD}} \!\! \left[ \tilde{\bold s} \, \frac[0pt]{\bold q}{\bold p} \, \tilde{\bold r} \right]
\label{Qp=W}
\end{equation}
for each $\bold p,\bold q, \bold r,\bold s \in {\EuScript G}^1$.
For a CCQT ${\EuScript V}$-face algebra ${\frak H}$,
we define linear functionals ${\cal U}_{\nu}$
$(\nu = 1,2)$ on ${\frak H}$ via
\begin{equation}
{\cal U}_1 (a) = \sum_{(a)} {\cal Q}^- (a_{(2)},a_{(1)}),
\quad
{\cal U}_2 (a) = \sum_{(a)} {\cal Q}^+ (a_{(1)},a_{(2)})
\quad (a \in \frak H)
\label{Udef}
\end{equation}
and call them {\em Drinfeld functionals} of ${\frak H}$.
The Drinfeld functionals of a
CCQT $\EuScript V$-face algebra $\frak H$ are invertible
in ${\frak H}^*$ and satisfy the following relations\rom{:}
\begin{equation}
\label{U-}
{\cal U}_1^{-1}(a) = \sum_{(a)} {\cal Q}^+ (a_{(2)},a_{(1)}),
\quad
{\cal U}_2^{-1}(a) = \sum_{(a)} {\cal Q}^- (a_{(1)},a_{(2)}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{UURp}
({\cal U}_{\nu} \otimes {\cal U}_{\nu}) {\cal R}^{\pm} =
{\cal R}^{\pm} ({\cal U}_{\nu} \otimes {\cal U}_{\nu}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{U(ee)}
{\cal U}_{\nu}^{\pm 1}({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j) = {\delta}_{ij},
\quad
{\cal U}_{\nu}^{\pm}({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} a {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_j}) = {\cal U}_{\nu}^{\pm}(e_i a e_j),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{U1U2}
{\cal U}_1 {\cal U}_2 = {\cal U}_2 {\cal U}_1,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{m(U)}
m^*({\cal U}) = {\cal R}^- {\cal R}^-_{21} ({\cal U} \otimes {\cal U})
= ({\cal U} \otimes {\cal U}) {\cal R}^- {\cal R}^-_{21},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
m^*({\cal U}^{-1})
= {\cal R}^+_{21} {\cal R}^+ ({\cal U} \otimes {\cal U} )^{-1}
= ({\cal U} \otimes {\cal U} )^{-1} {\cal R}^+_{21} {\cal R}^+
\label{m(Um)}
\end{equation}
for each $\nu = 1,2$, $a \in \frak H$
and $i,j \in \EuScript V$, where $\cal{U}$ stands for
$\cal{U}_1$ or $\cal{U}_2^{-1}$.
%
%
%
%
%
Let $f\!: \frak H \to \frak K$
be a map of CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebras.
If $\frak K$ is closable with Lyubashenko forms ${\cal Q}^{\pm}_{\frak K}$
and Drinfeld functionals
${\cal{U}_{\nu}}_{\frak K}$,
then $\frak H$ is also closable with Lyubashenko forms and
Drinfeld functionals given by
\begin{equation}
\label{f(U)=U}
{\cal Q}^{\pm}_{\frak H} = (f \otimes f)^* ({\cal Q}^{\pm}_{\frak K}),
\quad
{\cal{U}_{\nu}}_{\frak H} =
f^* ({\cal{U}_{\nu}}_{\frak K}).
\end{equation}
Next, we recall the {\it Hopf closure}
(or {\it Hopf envelope}) construction
of CQT Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebras.
It is introduced by Phung Ho Hai \cite{Phung} for
bialgebras, and independently, by \cite{gsg} for face algebras.
Let $\frak H$ be a CCQT $\EuScript V$-face algebra.
We denote by ${\frak H}^{\mathrm{bop}}$ its biopposite
$\EuScript V$-face algebra, that is, ${\frak H}^{\mathrm{bop}}$
is a $\EuScript V$-face algebra equipped with
the opposite product and the opposite coproduct
of $\frak H$ together with the face idempotents
\begin{equation}
{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}}_{\frak H^{\mathrm{bop}},i} = e_{\frak H,i},
\quad
e_{{\frak H}^{\mathrm{bop}},i} =
{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}}_{{\frak H},i}.
\end{equation}
Let $\sigma\! : \frak H \to {\frak H}^{\mathrm{bop}}$ be
the canonical anti-isomorphism, which satisfies
\begin{equation}
\sigma(e_{\frak H,i}) =
{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}}_{{\frak H}^{\mathrm{bop}},i},
\quad
\sigma(\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_{\frak H,i}) =
e_{{\frak H}^{\mathrm{bop}},i}
\quad (i \in \EuScript V).
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}
\hat{\frak H} :=
\frak H \otimes_{\frak{E}} \frak H^{\mathrm{bop}} =
\bigoplus_{k,l \in \EuScript V}
\frak H {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}}_k e_l \otimes \sigma (\frak H {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_l} e_k)
\end{equation}
becomes a $\EuScript V$-face algebra by setting
\begin{equation}
(a {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(b))(c {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(d)) =
\sum_{(b),(c)} {\cal R}^- (b_{(1)},c_{(3)})
{\cal Q}^+ (b_{(3)},c_{(1)}) a c_{(2)} {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(d b_{(2)}),
\label{asbcsd}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Delta (a {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(b)) =
\sum_{(a),(b)} (a_{(1)} {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(b_{(2)}))
\otimes (a_{(2)} {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(b_{(1)})),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon (a {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(b)) =
\sum_{k \in \V} {\varepsilon (a e_k) \varepsilon (b e_k)},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
e_{\hat{\frak H},i} = e_{\frak H,i} {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(1_{\frak H}),
\quad
\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_{\hat{\frak H},i} = \stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_{\frak H,i} {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(1_{\frak H})
\end{equation}
for each $a,b,c,d \in \frak H$ and $i \in \EuScript V$,
Let ${\frak J}$ be the ideal of $\hat{\frak H}$ generated by
all elements of the form:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{(a)} (1 {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(a_{(1)}))(a_{(2)} {\otimes}_{\frak E} 1)
- \sum_{k \in \V} \varepsilon (a e_k) e_k,
\label{Idef1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\sum_{(a)} a_{(1)} {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(a_{(2)}) - \sum_{k \in \V} \varepsilon (e_k a) {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k}
\quad (a \in \frak H).
\label{Idef2}
\end{equation}
It is easy to verify that $\frak{J}$ becomes a biideal.
We denote the quotient $\EuScript V$-face algebra $\hat{\frak H} / {\frak J}$
by $\mathrm{Hc}({\frak H})$ and call it the {\em Hopf closure} of $\frak H$.
For simplicity, we denote an element $a {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(b) + \frak{J}$
of $\mathrm{Hc}({\frak H})$ by $a \sigma(b)$ for each
$a,b \in \frak H$.
The Hopf closure $\mathrm{Hc}({\frak H})$ has a unique structure of CQT Hopf
$\EuScript V$-face algebra such that the canonical map
$\iota\!: \frak H \to \mathrm{Hc}({\frak H});$
$a \mapsto a {\otimes}_{\frak E} 1 + \frak{J}$ $(a \in \frak H)$
is a map of CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebras.
Explicitly, the antipode of $\mathrm{Hc}({\frak H})$ is given by
\begin{align}
\label{SHcH}
S(a \sigma(b))
= \sum_{(b)} \cal{U}_{\nu} (b_{(1)})
b_{(2)} \sigma (a) \cal{U}_{\nu}^{-1} (b_{(3)})
\quad (\nu = 1,2).
\end{align}
When $\frak H$ is a bialgebra, the underlying Hopf algebra of
$\mathrm{Hc}({\frak H})$ agrees with the Hopf envelope of $\frak H$ in the sense of
Manin \cite{Manin}.
The Hopf closure has the following universal mapping property.
\begin{thm}
\label{UMP}
Let $\frak H$ be a CCQT $\EuScript V$-face algebra and $\frak K$
a CQT Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra.
Let $f\!: \frak H \to \frak K$ be a map of CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebras.
Then there exists a unique map
$\bar{f}\!:\mathrm{Hc}({\frak H}) \to \frak K$
of CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebras
such that $f = \bar{f} \circ \iota$,
where $\iota\!: \frak H \to \mathrm{Hc}({\frak H})$
is given by
$\iota (a) = a {\otimes}_{\frak E} 1 + \frak{J}$ $(a \in \frak H)$.
Explicitly, we have
%
\begin{equation}
\label{barf(asb)}
\bar{f} (a \sigma (b)) =
f (a) S(f (b)).
\end{equation}
%
\end{thm}
\begin{prop}
\label{univA}
Let $\frak H$ be a CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebra
\rom{(}resp. CQT Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra\rom{)}
and $U$ its finite-dimensional comodule.
Let $(\EuScript G, w_U)$ be a face model given by \eqref{wUdef}.
Then there exists a unique map $f\!: \frak{A}(w_U) \to \frak H$
\rom{(}resp. $f\!: \mathrm{Hc}(\frak{A}(w_U)) \to \frak H$\rom{)}
of CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebras such that
$(\mathrm{id}_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1} \otimes f) \circ \rho_{\frak H}$
$=$ $\rho_{\frak{A}(w_U)}$ \rom{(}resp.
$(\mathrm{id}_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1} \otimes f) \circ \rho_{\frak H}$
$=$ $\rho_{\mathrm{Hc}(\frak{A}(w_U))}$\rom{)}.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
See \cite{fb} for a proof of
the assertion for $\frak{A}(w_U)$.
The assertion for $\mathrm{Hc}( \frak{A}(w_U) )$ follows from that of
$\frak{A}(w_U)$ and the universal mapping property of $\mathrm{Hc}$.
\end{pf}
%
\begin{prop}
For each CQT Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra ${\frak H}$, we have\rom{:}
%
\begin{equation}
\label{S(U)}
S^*({\cal U}_1^{\pm 1}) = {\cal U}_2^{\mp 1},
\quad
S^*({\cal U}_2^{\pm 1}) = {\cal U}_1^{\mp 1},
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
\label{UXU-}
{\cal U}_{\nu} X {\cal U}_{\nu}^{-1} =(S^2)^*(X)
\quad (X \in {\frak H}^*,\, \nu = 1, 2).
\end{equation}
%
In particular, $S$ is bijective and
${\cal U}_1{\cal U}_2^{-1}$ is a central element of ${\frak H}^*$.
%
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
(cf. Drinfeld \cite{Drinfeld}).
The relation \eqref{S(U)} follows from \eqref{Qp=Rm}, \eqref{Sid(R)}
and \eqref{U-}.
Substituting $\sum_{(c)} c_{(2)}$ $\otimes$ $S(c_{(1)})$ into
${\cal R}^+ m^* (X) = (m^{\mathrm{op}})^* (X) {\cal R}^+$,
we obtain
%
\begin{align*}
\sum_{(c)} \cal{U}_1 (c_{(2)}) c_{(3)} S(c_{(1)})
= & \sum_{(c)} S(c_{(2)}) c_{(3)} {\cal Q}^- (c_{(4)},c_{(1)}) \\
= & \sum_{(c)} \sum_{k \in \V} e_k {\cal Q}^- (c_{(2)} {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k},c_{(1)}) \\
= & \sum_{k \in \V} \cal{U}_1 ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k}c) e_k,
\end{align*}
%
where the second equality follows from \eqref{e(eae)a}
and the third equality follows from \eqref{Rmeeee} and \eqref{D(eeaee)}.
Using this relation, we compute
%
\begin{align*}
\sum_{(c)} S^2 (c_{(1)}) \cal{U}_1 (c_{(2)})
= & \sum_{(c)} \sum_{k \in \V} \cal{U}_1 ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k}c_{(2)}) e_k S^2(c_{(1)}) \\
= & \sum_{(c)} \cal{U}_1 (c_{(3)}) c_{(4)} S(S(c_{(1)}) c_{(2)}) \\
= & \sum_{(c)} \sum_{k \in \V} \cal{U}_1 (c_{(1)}{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k}) c_{(2)}{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} \\
= & \sum_{(c)} \cal{U}_1 (c_{(1)}) c_{(2)},
\end{align*}
%
where the first equality follows from \eqref{D(a)} and \eqref{S(ee)}
and the last equality follows from \eqref{U(ee)} and \eqref{D(a)}.
Substituting this into $X \in {\frak H}^*$, we get
$((S^2)^*(X) \cal{U}_1)(c) = (\cal{U}_1 X)(c)$,
which proves \eqref{UXU-} for $\nu = 1$.
\end{pf}
\section{Group-like functionals}
Let $g$ be an element of a
$\EuScript V$-face algebra $\frak H$.
We say that $g$ is {\it group-like}
if
\begin{equation}
\label{D(g)}
\Delta (g) = \sum_{k \in \V} g e_k \otimes g {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{gee}
g {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j = {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j g,
\quad
\varepsilon (g {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j) = \delta_{ij}
\end{equation}
for each $i,j \in \EuScript V$.
We say that a linear functional
${\cal G}$ on $\frak H$ is
{\it group-like}
if it is group-like as an element of the dual
face algebra $\frak H^{\circ}$.
Explicitly, ${\cal G}$ is group-like
if and only if it satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{Gab}
{\cal G}(ab) = \sum_{k \in \V}
{\cal G} (ae_k) {\cal G}({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} b),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Geae}
{\cal G}({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i}a{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_j}) = {\cal G}(e_i a e_j),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Gee}
{\cal G}({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i}e_j) = \delta _{ij}
\end{equation}
for each $a,b \in \frak H$ and $i,j \in {\EuScript V}$.
We say that $\cal{G}$ is {\it invertible} if it is
invertible as an element of the dual algebra $\frak H^*$.
We denote by $\mathrm{GLF} (\frak H)$
the set of all group-like functionals
of $\frak H$, and by $\mathrm{GLF} (\frak H)^{\times}$
the set of all invertible group-like functionals.
Note that
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{GLF} (\frak H) = \mathrm{Hom}_{\, \Bbb{K}\! - \! Alg} (\frak H, \Bbb{K})
\end{equation}
if $\frak H$ is a bialgebra.
\begin{lem}
\label{GLFisfunc}
\rom{(1)}
The correspondence $\frak H \mapsto \mathrm{GLF} (\frak H)$ defines
a contravariant functor from the category of
$\EuScript V$-face algebras to the category of semigroups. \\
\rom{(2)}
Let $\frak H$ be a $\EuScript V$-face algebra and $\frak{I}$ its biideal.
Then the projection $p\!: \frak H \to \frak K = \frak H / \frak{I}$
gives
%
\begin{equation}
p^*\!: \mathrm{GLF}( \frak K ) \cong
\{ \cal{G} \in \mathrm{GLF}( \frak H )\, |\, \cal{G} (\frak{I}) = 0 \}.
\end{equation}
\rom{(3)}
If $\frak H$ has an antipode, then
$\mathrm{GLF} (\frak H) = \mathrm{GLF} (\frak H)^{\times}$
and
%
\begin{equation}
\label{S(G)}
S^*({\cal G}) = {\cal G}^{-1}.
\end{equation}
%
for each ${\cal G} \in \mathrm{GLF} (\frak H)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
The proof of Part (1) is straightforward.
Taking the dual of $0 \to \frak{I} \to \frak H \to \frak K \to 0$,
we obtain
%
\begin{equation}
p^*\!: \frak K^* \cong
\{ X \in \frak H^*\, |\, X (\frak{I}) = 0 \}.
\end{equation}
It is straightforward to verify that
$\cal{M} \in \mathrm{GLF} (\frak K)$ if and only if
$p^* (\cal{M}) \in \mathrm{GLF} (\frak H)$ for each
$\cal{M} \in \frak K^*$.
This proves Part (2).
See \cite{cpt} Proposition 7.1 for a proof of Part (3).
\end{pf}
\begin{lem}
\label{cqtglf}
Let $\frak H$ be a CQT $\EuScript V$-face algebra. \\
\rom{(1)}
For each group-like functional $\cal{G}$ on $\frak H$,
we have
%
\begin{equation}
\label{GGRpm}
(\cal{G} \otimes \cal{G}) {\cal R}^{\pm} =
{\cal R}^{\pm} (\cal{G} \otimes \cal{G}).
\end{equation}
%
Hence, for each $\frak H$-comodules $U$ and $V$, we have
%
\begin{equation}
\label{GGcMN}
(\pi_{V} (\cal{G}) \bar{\otimes} \pi_{U} (\cal{G})) c_{UV} =
c_{UV} (\pi_{U} (\cal{G}) \bar{\otimes} \pi_{V} (\cal{G})).
\end{equation}
%
\rom{(2)} If $\frak H$ is closable, then
%
\begin{equation}
\label{U1U2isglf}
\cal{U}_1 \cal{U}_2 \in
\mathrm{GLF} (\frak H).
\end{equation}
%
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
Since ${\cal R}^+ = (m^{\mathrm{op}})^* (1) {\cal R}^+$,
we have
$(\cal{G} \otimes \cal{G}) {\cal R}^+$ $=$
$(m^{\mathrm{op}})^* (\cal{G}) {\cal R}^+$.
Hence the first assertion of Part (1) follows from
\eqref{RmXR}.
The second assertion follows from the first assertion.
Part (2) follows from \eqref{U(ee)} and \eqref{m(U)}-\eqref{m(Um)}.
%
\end{pf}
Let $\frak H$ be a $\EuScript V$-face algebra and $\cal{G}$ its group-like functional.
We define $\mathrm{coad}(\cal{G})\!: \frak H \to \frak H$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{coaddef}
\mathrm{coad}(\cal{G}) (a) =
\sum_{(a)} \cal{G}^{-1} (a_{(1)}) a_{(2)} \cal{G} (a_{(3)})
\quad (a \in \frak H).
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{Gab}-\eqref{Gee} and \eqref{eae*a},
we see that $\mathrm{coad}(\cal{G})$ is
an automorphism of $\frak H$.
\begin{prop}
\label{GLFAwiso}
For $\frak H =$ $\frak{H} (\EuScript G)$ or ${\frak A}(w)$, the map
$\frak H^* \to \mathrm{End} (\Bbb K \EuScript G^1);$
$X \mapsto \pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1} (X)$
gives the following semigroup isomorphisms\rom{:}
\begin{equation}
\label{GLFHG}
\mathrm{GLF} (\frak{H} (\EuScript G)) \cong
\mathrm{End}_{\pi (\frak{E})} (\Bbb K \EuScript G^1),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{GLFAw}
\mathrm{GLF} ({\frak A}(w)) \cong \bigl\{ G \in \mathrm{End}_{\pi (\frak{E})} (\Bbb K \EuScript G^1) \bigm|
(G \bar{\otimes} G) w =
w (G \bar{\otimes} G)
\bigr\},
\end{equation}
where $\frak{E} = \frak{E}_{\frak H^{\circ}}$ is as in Sect. 2.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
For each element $G$ of the right-hand side of \eqref{GLFHG},
we define a linear functional $\cal{G}$ $=$ $\cal{G}^{\frak H}_G$
on $\frak{H} (\EuScript G)$ by setting
\begin{equation}
\label{Gepq}
\cal{G} \left( e \binom{i}{j} \right) = \delta_{ij},
\quad
\cal{G} \left( e \binom{\bold p}{\bold q} \right) =
G^{\bold p_1}_{\bold q_1}
\cdots G^{\bold p_m}_{\bold q_m}
\end{equation}
for each paths $\bold p = (\bold p_1, \ldots, \bold p_m)$ and
$\bold q = (\bold q_1, \ldots, \bold q_m)$ of length $m > 0$ and
$i, j \in \EuScript V$.
It is straightforward to verify that $\cal{G}$ is
a group-like functional of $\frak{H} (\EuScript G)$.
Hence $\pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1}$ gives a surjection
$\mathrm{GLF} (\frak{H} (\EuScript G)) \to \mathrm{End}_{\pi (\frak{E})} (\Bbb K \EuScript G^1)$.
Conversely, for $\cal{G} \in \mathrm{GLF} (\frak{H} (\EuScript G))$,
set $G = \pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1} (\cal{G})$.
Then by \eqref{Gab}-\eqref{Gee}, we have
\eqref{Gepq}.
Thus we get the isomorphism \eqref{GLFHG}.
Next we show \eqref{GLFAw}.
By \eqref{GGcMN}, $\pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1}$ defines a
well-defined map from $\mathrm{GLF} ({\frak A}(w))$ to the right-hand side of
\eqref{GLFAw}.
Hence it suffices to construct the inverse of this map.
Let $G$ be an element of the right-hand side of
\eqref{GLFAw} and let $\cal{G}^{\frak H}_G \in \mathrm{GLF} (\frak{H} (\EuScript G))$ be as above.
By \eqref{GGcMN}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{GrelAw}
\cal{G}^{\frak H}_G \left(
\sum_{(\bold c, \bold d) \in {\EuScript G}^2}
w \!\! \left[ \bold a \frac[0pt]{\bold c}{\bold b} \bold d \right]
e{\bold c \cdot \bold d \choose \bold p \cdot \bold q} -
\sum_{(\bold r, \bold s) \in {\EuScript G}^2}
w \!\! \left[ \bold r \frac[0pt]{\bold p}{\bold s} \bold q \right]
e{\bold a \cdot \bold b \choose \bold r \cdot \bold s}
\right) = 0
\end{equation}
for each $(\bold p, \bold q),\, (\bold a, \bold b) \in {\EuScript G}^2$.
By \eqref{Gab}, this shows that
$\cal{G}^{\frak H}_G$ vanishes on
the biideal $\mathrm{Ker} (\frak{H} (\EuScript G) \to {\frak A}(w))$ and that
it induces an element of $\mathrm{GLF} ({\frak A}(w))$.
This completes the proof of \eqref{GLFAw}.
\end{pf}
\begin{prop}
\label{GLFHcHHiso}
For each CCQT $\EuScript V$-face algebra,
the canonical map
$\iota\!: \frak H \to \mathrm{Hc}({\frak H})$ induces the isomorphism
%
\begin{equation}
\iota^*\!: \mathrm{GLF} (\mathrm{Hc} (\frak H)) \cong
\mathrm{GLF}^{\times} (\frak H),
\end{equation}
whose inverse $\cal{G} \mapsto \cal{G}_{\mathrm{Hc}}$ is given by
%
\begin{equation}
\label{Gasb}
\cal{G}_{\mathrm{Hc}} (a \sigma (b)) =
\sum_{k \in \V} \cal{G}(a e_k) \cal{G}^{-1} (b e_k).
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}%
By Lemma \ref{GLFisfunc} (1), it suffices to show that \eqref{Gasb}
gives the inverse of the correspondence $\iota^*$.
It is easy to verify that there exists a linear functional
$\hat{\cal{G}} \in \hat{\frak H}^*$ which sends
$a {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma (b)$ to the right-hand side of \eqref{Gasb}
and that $\hat{\cal{G}}$ satisfies \eqref{Geae} and \eqref{Gee}.
Using \eqref{Gab} for $\cal{G}^{\pm 1}$, we obtain
%
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal{G}} ((a {\otimes}_{\frak E} 1) x
(1 {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma (d))) =
\sum_{i,j \in \EuScript V} \cal{G} (a e_i)
\hat{\cal{G}} ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} x e_j)
\cal{G}^{-1} (d e_j)
\quad (a, d \in \frak H, x \in \hat{\frak H}).
\end{equation}
%
By replacing $x$ with
$(1 {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma (b))(c {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(1))$, we obtain
%
\begin{multline}
\label{Gasbcsd}
\hat{\cal{G}} ( (a {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma (b))(c {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(d)) )
= \sum_{i,j \in \EuScript V} \cal{G} (a e_i)
\hat{\cal{G}} ( (1 {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma (b e_i))(c e_j {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(1)) )
\cal{G}^{-1} (d e_j).
\end{multline}
On the other hand, using \eqref{Geae},
\eqref{eae*a} and \eqref{Rmeeee},
we obtain
%
\begin{multline}
\hat{\cal{G}} ( (1 {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma (b))(c {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma(1))) =
\sum_{k \in \V} \sum_{(b),(c)} {\cal R}^- (b_{(1)} e_k , c_{(3)} {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k})
{\cal Q}^+ (b_{(3)}, c_{(1)})
\cal{G}^{-1} (b_{(2)}) \cal{G} (c_{(2)}) \\
= \sum_{(b),(c)}
\langle (1 \otimes \cal{G}) {\cal R}^- (\cal{G}^{-1} \otimes 1),\,
b_{(1)} \otimes c_{(2)} \rangle
{\cal Q}^+ (b_{(2)}, c_{(1)}).
\end{multline}
By \eqref{GGRpm},
the right-hand side of the above equality is
%
\begin{multline}
\sum_{(b),(c)}
\cal{G}^{-1} (b_{(1)})
{\cal R}^- ( b_{(2)}, c_{(2)}) {\cal Q}^+ (b_{(3)}, c_{(1)})
\cal{G} (c_{(3)})
= \sum_{k \in \V} \cal{G}^{-1} (e_k b) \cal{G} (e_k c).
\end{multline}
Hence the right-hand side of \eqref{Gasbcsd} is
%
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i,j,k \in \EuScript V}
\cal{G} (a e_i) \cal{G}^{-1} (e_k a e_i)
\cal{G} (e_k c e_j) \cal{G}^{-1} (d e_j)
= \sum_{k \in \V}
\hat{\cal{G}} ((a {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma (b)) e_k)
\hat{\cal{G}} (e_k (c {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma (d))).
\end{equation}
%
Thus $\hat{\cal{G}}$ is a group-like functional of $\hat{\frak H}$.
Using \eqref{Gab} for $\hat{\cal{G}}$, we compute
\begin{multline}
\hat{\cal{G}} \left( {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j \left(
\sum_{(a)} (1 {\otimes}_{\frak E} \sigma (a_{(1)})) (a_{(2)} {\otimes}_{\frak E} 1)
\right) {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} e_l \right) \\
=
\sum_{m \in \EuScript V} \sum_{(a)} \cal{G}^{-1} ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}}_m
a_{(1)} {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_j} e_i )
\cal{G} ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}}_m a_{(2)} {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} e_l)
=
\sum_{(a)} \delta_{ij} \delta_{kl}
\cal{G}^{-1} (a_{(1)} {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_j})
\cal{G} (a_{(2)} e_l) \\
=
\delta_{ij} \delta_{kl} \delta_{jl}
\varepsilon (a e_l)
=
\hat{\cal{G}} \left( {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j \left(
\sum_{m \in \EuScript V} \varepsilon (a e_m) e_m
\right) {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} e_l \right)
\qquad\qquad\qquad
\end{multline}
%
for each $i,j,k,l \in \EuScript V$ and $a \in \frak H$,
where the second equality follows from
\eqref{Geae} and \eqref{D(a)} and
the third equality follows from
\eqref{D(eeaee)}.
By repeating similar calculation, we see that
$\hat{\cal{G}}$ induces a group-like functional
$\cal{G}_{\mathrm{Hc}}$ on $\mathrm{Hc}({\frak H})$.
Now it is straightforward to verify that
$\cal{G} \mapsto \cal{G}_{\mathrm{Hc}}$ gives the inverse of $\iota^*$.
\end{pf}
Combining Proposition \ref{GLFAwiso} and
Proposition \ref{GLFHcHHiso},
we obtain the group isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{Phidef}
\Phi\!:
\bigl\{ G \in \mathrm{Aut}_{\pi (\frak{E})} (\Bbb K \EuScript G^1) \bigm|
(G \bar{\otimes} G) w =
w (G \bar{\otimes} G)\, \bigr\}
\cong
\mathrm{GLF} (\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w)))
\end{equation}
for each star-triangular face model $(\EuScript G, w)$.
\section{A classification theory of ribbon functionals}
%
%
%
%
%
\begin{lem}
For a coribbon Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra ${\frak H}$,
we have
%
\begin{equation}
\label{V(eae)}
\cal{V}^{\pm 1} ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} a {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_j}) =
\cal{V}^{\pm 1} (e_i a e_j),
\quad
\cal{V}^{\pm 1} ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j) = \delta_{ij},
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
\label{V2}
\cal{V}^2 = \cal{U}_1 \cal{U}_2^{-1},
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
\label{m(V-)}
m^* (\cal{V}^{-1}) =
(\cal{V} \otimes \cal{V})^{-1}
{\cal R}^+_{21} {\cal R}^+.
\end{equation}
%
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
The first equality of \eqref{V(eae)} follows from the fact that
$\cal{V}$ commutes with the face idempotents of $\frak H^{\circ}$.
Using \eqref{m(V)} and \eqref{Rmeea}, we obtain
%
\begin{align}
\cal{V} (a) & =
\sum_{j,k \in \EuScript V} \sum_{(a)} {\cal R}^- (e_j, a_{(1)}) {\cal R}^- (a_{(2)}, {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_j} e_k)
\cal{V} ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k}) \cal{V} (a_{(3)})\\
& = \sum_{k \in \V} \cal{V} ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k}) \cal{V} ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} a) \nonumber\\
& = \langle
\sum_{k \in \V} \cal{V} ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k}) {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} \cal{V},
a \rangle, \nonumber
\end{align}
%
which implies
$\sum_k \cal{V} ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k}) {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} = 1$.
Since $\{ {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} \}$ is linearly independent by
the second equality of \eqref{D(ee)},
this proves $\cal{V} ({\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k}) = 1$,
or the second equality of \eqref{V(eae)}.
By a similar discussion to \cite{Kassel} page 351,
we obtain $\pi_M (\cal{V}^2) =$
$\pi_M (\cal{U}_1 \cal{U}_2^{-1})$ for
every $\frak H$-comodule $M$.
Hence \eqref{V2} follows from the fundamental theorem
of coalgebras (cf. \cite{Sweedler} page 46).
Using the fact that ${\cal R}^-$ is the
$(m^* (1), (m^{\mathrm{op}})^* (1))$-generalized inverse of ${\cal R}^+$,
we obtain
%
\begin{equation}
\label{RRRR}
{\cal R}^- {\cal R}^-_{21} {\cal R}^+_{21} {\cal R}^+
= m^* (1) = {\cal R}^+_{21} {\cal R}^+ {\cal R}^- {\cal R}^-_{21}.
\end{equation}
%
Hence the right-hand side of \eqref{m(V-)} is
the inverse of $m^* (\cal{V})$ in the algebra
$m^* (1) (\frak H^{\otimes 2})^*$ $m^* (1)$.
This proves \eqref{m(V-)}.
\end{pf}
\begin{prop}
Let ${\frak H}$ be a CQT Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra and
${\cal V}$ an invertible element of $\frak H^*$.
Then $(\frak H,\cal{V})$ is a coribbon Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra
if and only if $\cal{M} = \cal{U}_1 \cal{V}^{-1}$
is group-like and satisfies the following relations\rom:
%
\begin{equation}
\label{MXM-}
\qquad
{\cal M} X {\cal M}^{-1} =
(S^2)^* (X)
\quad (X \in \frak H^*),
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
\label{M2=U1U2}
\cal{M}^2 = \cal{U}_1 \cal{U}_2. \qquad
\end{equation}
%
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
To begin with, we note that the equivalence of
$\cal{V} \in Z(\frak H^*)$ and \eqref{MXM-} follows from \eqref{UXU-},
and that that of
\eqref{m(V)} and \eqref{D(g)} for $g = \cal{M}$ follows from
\eqref{m(U)}, \eqref{m(V-)} and \eqref{RRRR}.
Suppose $\cal{V}$ is a ribbon functional.
Then the relation \eqref{M2=U1U2} follows from \eqref{V2}
and \eqref{U1U2},
while the first (resp. second) relation of \eqref{gee}
for $g = \cal{M}$ follows from \eqref{UXU-}
and \eqref{S(ee)} (resp. \eqref{U(ee)}
and the second relation of \eqref{V(eae)}).
Conversely, if $\cal{M}$ satisfies the above conditions,
\eqref{S(V)} follows from \eqref{V2}, \eqref{U1U2} and \eqref{S(G)}.
\end{pf}
For a coribbon Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra $(\frak H, \cal{V})$,
we call $\cal{M} = \cal{U}_1 \cal{V}^{-1}$ the
{\it modified ribbon functional} on $\frak H$
corresponding to $\cal{V}$.
For each CQT Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra $\frak H$, we denote by
$\mathrm{Rib}(\frak H)$ the set of all ribbon functionals on $\frak H$
and by $\mathrm{MRib}(\frak H)$ the set of all
modified ribbon functionals on $\frak H$.
\begin{prop}
\label{MRibaltbraiding}
Let $(\frak H, {\cal R}^{\pm})$ be a CQT Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra.
\rom{(1)}
We have
%
\begin{equation}
\label{MRibR-21}
\mathrm{MRib}((\frak H, {\cal R}^{\mp}_{21})) =
\mathrm{MRib}((\frak H, {\cal R}^{\pm})).
\end{equation}
%
\rom{(2)}
Let $\frak H_{\gamma}$ $(\gamma \in \Gamma)$
and $\chi$ be as in Proposition \ref{altbraiding}.
Then we have
%
\begin{equation}
\label{MRibRchi}
\mathrm{MRib}((\frak H, {\cal R}^{\pm}_{\chi})) =
\mathrm{MRib}((\frak H, {\cal R}^{\pm})).
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
Let $\cal{U}_i$, $\cal{U}_i^{\prime}$
and $\cal{U}_{i, \chi}$ $(i = 1,2)$ be
the Drinfeld functionals of $(\frak H, {\cal R}^{\pm})$,
$(\frak H, {\cal R}^{\mp}_{21})$ and
$(\frak H, {\cal R}^{\pm}_{\chi})$ respectively.
Then we have $\cal{U}_1^{\prime}$ $=$ $\cal{U}_2$,
$\cal{U}_2^{\prime}$ $=$ $\cal{U}_1$ and
%
\begin{equation}
\cal{U}_{1, \chi} (a) = \chi (\gamma, \gamma)^{-1} \cal{U}_1 (a),
\quad
\cal{U}_{2, \chi} (a) = \chi (\gamma, \gamma) \cal{U}_2 (a)
\quad (a \in \frak H_{\gamma}).
\end{equation}
%
Hence the assertions follows from the definition of
the modified ribbon functional and \eqref{U1U2}.
\end{pf}
\begin{thm}
\label{clasRibHcAw}
For each closable star-triangular face model $(\EuScript G, w)$,
the map $\pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1}$ gives the following bijection\rom{:}
%
\begin{equation}
\label{Ribiso}
\mathrm{Rib}(\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))) \cong
\{ V \in \mathrm{Aut}_{\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))} (\Bbb K \EuScript G^1)\, |\,
V^2 = \pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1} (\cal{U}_1 \cal{U}_2^{-1}) \}.
\end{equation}
%
Equivalently, $\pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1}$ gives
%
\begin{equation}
\label{MRibiso}
\mathrm{MRib}(\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))) \cong
\{ M\, |\, M \pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1} (\cal{U}_1)^{-1}
\in \mathrm{Aut}_{\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))} (\Bbb K \EuScript G^1),\,
M^2 = \pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1} (\cal{U}_1 \cal{U}_2) \}.
\end{equation}
%
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
Let $M$ be an element of the right-hand side of \eqref{MRibiso}.
By \eqref{UURp},
$\pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1} (\cal{U}_{\nu}) \bar{\otimes}$
$\pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1} (\cal{U}_{\nu})$
commutes with $w$ for each $\nu = 1, 2$.
Hence $M$ belongs to
the right-hand side of \eqref{GLFAw}.
Set $\cal{M} = \Phi (M)$, where $\Phi$ is as in \eqref{Phidef}.
Since $\pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1} (\cal{M}^2)$ $=$
$\pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1} (\cal{U}_1 \cal{U}_2)$, we have
$\cal{M}^2$ $=$ $\cal{U}_1 \cal{U}_2$ by
Lemma \ref{cqtglf} (3).
By \eqref{UXU-}, we have
$\mathrm{coad}(\cal{M}) (e \binom{\bold p}{\bold q})$
$=$ $S^{-2} (e \binom{\bold p}{\bold q})$,
for each $\bold p, \bold q \in \EuScript G^1$.
Since $\mathrm{coad}(\cal{M})$ is an automorphism and
$e \binom{\bold p}{\bold q}$, $S(e \binom{\bold p}{\bold q})$
$(\bold p, \bold q \in \EuScript G^1)$ and
$e \binom{i}{j}$ $(i,j \in \EuScript V)$ generate $\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))$,
this shows that $\mathrm{coad}(\cal{M}) = S^{-2}$.
Thus $\cal{M}$ is a modified ribbon functional of
$\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))$. Conversely, it is clear that
$\pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1}$ maps
the left-hand side of \eqref{MRibiso}
into the right-hand side of \eqref{MRibiso}.
Thus we get the theorem.
\end{pf}
\begin{thm}[\cite{Reshetikhin}]
\label{existrib}
For each closable star-triangular face model $(\EuScript G, w)$
over an algebraically closed field $\Bbb K$ of $\mathrm{ch} \Bbb K \ne 2$,
$\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))$ has a ribbon functional.
%
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
It suffices to construct a linear operator $V$
which belongs to the right-hand side of \eqref{Ribiso}.
Let $A$ be the operator $\pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1} (\cal{U}_1 \cal{U}_2^{-1})$
and $A = S + N$ its Jordan decomposition, that is,
$S$ is a diagonalizable operator and $N$ is a nilpotent operator
such that $SN = NS$.
Let $\lambda_i$ $(1 \leq i \leq k)$ be (mutually distinct)
eigenvalues of $S$ and $P_i$ the projection corresponding to
$\lambda_i$.
It is known that $P_i = f_i (A)$ and
$N = g(A)$ for some polynomials $f_i, g \in \Bbb K [X]$.
Let $ \sqrt{\lambda_i}$ be a square root of $\lambda_i$
and define a operator $V$ by
$V = \sum_i \sqrt{\lambda_i} P_i h( S^{-1} N)$,
where $h \in \Bbb K [X]$ is defined by
%
\begin{equation}
h(X) = 1 + \sum_{n = 0}^{\sharp \EuScript G^1} (-1)^n 2^{-2n - 1}
\frac{1}{n + 1} \binom{2n}{n} X^{n + 1}.
\end{equation}
Then, we have $V^2 = A$.
Since $\cal{U}_1 \cal{U}_2^{-1}$ is a central element of
$\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))^*$ and $V$ is a polynomial of $A$, we have
$V \in \mathrm{Aut}_{\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))} (\Bbb K \EuScript G^1)$.
By the theorem above, this proves the existence of a
ribbon functional on $\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))$.
\end{pf}
Let $(\EuScript G, w)$ be a closable star-triangular face model.
We say that $(\EuScript G, w)$ is ({\it absolutely})
{\it irreducible} if
$\Bbb K \EuScript G^1$ is (absolutely) irreducible as an $\mathrm{Hc}({\frak H})$-comodule.
As an immediate consequence of the Theorem \ref{clasRibHcAw} and
Schur's Lemma, we have the following.
\begin{thm}
\label{cardRib}
Let $(\EuScript G, w)$ be an irreducible
closable star-triangular face model
over an algebraically closed field.
Then we have
$\sharp \mathrm{Rib}(\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))) = 2$ if $\mathrm{ch} \Bbb K \ne 2$
and
$\sharp \mathrm{Rib}(\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))) = 1$ if $\mathrm{ch} \Bbb K = 2$.
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
\label{Mcrit}
Let $(\EuScript G,w)$ be an absolutely irreducible closable
star-triangular face model.
Suppose $M \in GL (\Bbb K \EuScript G^1)$ satisfies
$\sum_{\bold r \bold s} M^{\bold p}_{\,\bold r} e \binom{\bold r}{\bold s}
(M^{-1})^{\bold s}_{\bold q}$ $=$ $S^2 (e \binom{\bold p}{\bold q})$ and
$\mathrm{Tr} (M) = \mathrm{Tr} (M^{-1}) \ne 0$.
Then we have
%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{MRib} (\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))) = \{ \Phi (\pm M) \}.
\end{equation}
%
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
By Schur's lemma, we have
$\pi (\cal{U}_{\nu})$ $=$ $c_{\nu} M$
for some nonzero constant $c_{\nu}$ $(\nu = 1,2)$.
Since
$\mathrm{Tr} \pi (\cal{U}_1)$ $=$
$\mathrm{Tr} \pi (\cal{U}_2^{-1})$
by \eqref{Udef} and \eqref{U-},
we obtain
$c_1 \mathrm{Tr} (M)$ $=$
$c_2^{-1} \mathrm{Tr} (M^{-1})$.
Therefore $M$ belongs to the right-hand side of \eqref{MRibiso}.
\end{pf}
\begin{prop}
\label{clasquotient}
Let $(\EuScript G, w)$ be a closable star-triangular face model
and let $\frak K = \mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w)) / \frak{I}$ be a quotient CQT
Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra of $\frak H:= \mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))$ such that
$\Bbb K \EuScript G^1$ is absolutely irreducible as a $\frak K$-comodule.
Then the projection $p\!: \frak H \to \frak K$ gives the isomorphism
%
\begin{equation}
\label{RibH}
p^*\!: \mathrm{MRib} (\frak K) \cong
\{ \cal{M} \in \mathrm{MRib} (\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w)))\, |\, \cal{M}(\frak{I}) = 0 \}.
\end{equation}
%
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
%
We prove the assertion by using
Lemma \ref{GLFisfunc} (2).
Let $\cal{M}$ be a group-like functional on $\frak K$.
It suffices to verify that
$\mathrm{coad}(\cal{M})$ $=$ $S^{-2}$ if and only if
$\mathrm{coad}(p^* (\cal{M}))$ $=$ $S^{-2}$.
Since $\mathrm{coad}(\cal{M})(p (a))$ $=$
$p (\mathrm{coad}(p^* (\cal{M}))(a))$
for each $a \in \frak H$, the ``if''-part is
obvious.
Suppose $\mathrm{coad}(\cal{M})$ $=$ $S^{-2}$ and
set $M: = \pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1} (\cal{M})$.
Since $\pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1}^{\frak H} (p^* (\cal{M})) = M$,
we have $\Phi (M) = p^* (\cal{M})$.
On the other hand, using \eqref{f(U)=U} and Schur's Lemma,
we see that $M \pi_{\Bbb K \EuScript G^1}^{\frak H} (\cal{U}_1)^{-1}$
is a scalar multiple of the identity operator.
Hence $M$ belongs to the right-hand side of \eqref{MRibiso}.
By Theorem \ref{clasRibHcAw}, this proves the proposition.
\end{pf}
Let $\frak H$ be a CQT Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra.
We say that $\frak H$ is {\em monogenerated}
if there exists an absolutely irreducible
$\frak H$-comodule $U$ such that $\frak H$ is generated by
${\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_i} e_j$ $(i,j \in \EuScript V)$, the image $C$ of the
corepresentation $\mathrm{End}(U)^* \to \frak H$ and $S(C)$,
as an algebra.
\begin{lem}
Let $\frak H$ be a CQT Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra over $\Bbb K$ and
$\Bbb{F}$ a field extension of $\Bbb K$.
Then $\frak H \otimes \Bbb{F}$ naturally
becomes a CQT Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra over $\Bbb{F}$ and
there exists an injection
$\mathrm{Rib} (\frak H) \to \mathrm{Rib} (\frak H \otimes \Bbb{F});$
$\cal{V} \mapsto \cal{V}_{\Bbb{F}}$
given by
$\cal{V}_{\Bbb{F}} (a \otimes 1_{\Bbb{F}})$
$=$ $\cal{V} (a)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
This is straightforward.
\end{pf}
\begin{prop}
\label{ribestimate}
For each monogenerated CQT Hopf $\EuScript V$-face algebra $\frak H$,
we have
$\sharp \mathrm{Rib}(\frak H) \leq 2$ if $\mathrm{ch} \Bbb K \ne 2$
and
$\sharp \mathrm{Rib}(\frak H) \leq 1$ if $\mathrm{ch} \Bbb K = 2$
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
Let $(\EuScript G, w_U)$ and
$f\!: \mathrm{Hc} (\frak{A}(w_U)) \to \frak H$ be as in Proposition \ref{univA}.
Since $\frak H$ is monogenerated, $f$ is surjective
for a suitable absolutely irreducible comodule $U$.
Now the assertion is an immediate consequence of
\eqref{RibH}, Theorem \ref{cardRib}
and the lemma above.
\end{pf}
\noindent
{\it Remark.}
(1)
To construct a link invariant via a lattice model $(\EuScript G, w)$,
it is usual to assume that $(\EuScript G, w)$ is ``enhanced'' in the sense
of \cite{TuraevYB} (cf. \cite{ADW}, \cite{Jones}, \cite{TuraevYB}).
Theorem \ref{existrib} says that the assumption is superfluous
provided that $(\EuScript G, w)$ is closable.
For vertex models, this was first proved by
Reshetikhin \cite{Reshetikhin}. \\
(2)
Combining Theorem \ref{existrib} with the categorical framework
of the link invariant \cite{Turaev3mfd}, we obtain an invariant of
framed links colored by comodules of $\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))$,
for each closable star-triangular face model $(\EuScript G, w)$.
Choosing the $\mathrm{Hc} ({\frak A}(w))$-comodule $\Bbb K \EuScript G^1$ as a color,
we obtain an invariant $I_w (L)$ of framed links $L$
which agrees with the known one.
However, if $(\EuScript G, w)$ is constructed
from a (four-weight) spin model $(W_i)$ (\cite{Jones}, \cite{Bannai^2}),
$I_w (L)$ does not agree with the known invariant $Z_{(W_i)} (L)$.
In fact we have $I_w (L) = Z_{(W_i)} (L) Z_{(W_i)}^* (L)$, where
$Z_{(W_i)}^* (L)$ is the ``dual invariant'' of $Z_{(W_i)} (L)$.
\section{Quantized classical groups}
Let $X_l$ be one of the Dynkin diagram of type $A_l$,
$B_l$, $C_l$ or $D_l$, where $l \geq 1$ if $X = A$ and
$l \geq 2$ if $X = B, C$ or $D$.
We define integers $N$ and
$\nu$ by
\begin{equation}
N =
\begin{cases}
l + 1 & (X = A) \\
2l + 1 & (X = B) \\
2l & (X = C, D), \\
\end{cases}
\quad
\nu =
\begin{cases}
0 & (X = A) \\
- 1 & (X = B, D) \\
1 & (X = C).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
For $X = B, C, D$ and $1 \leq i \leq N$,
we set $i^{\prime} = N + 1 - i$ and
$\bar{i} = i - \sigma_i \nu / 2$, where
\begin{equation}
\sigma_i =
\begin{cases}
1 & (1 \leq i < (N+1)/2) \\
0 & (i = (N+1)/2) \\
- 1 &((N+1)/2 < i \leq N),
\end{cases}
\quad
\epsilon_i =
\begin{cases}
1 & (1 \leq i \leq (N+1)/2) \\
- \nu & ((N+1)/2 \leq i \leq N).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Also we set $\sigma_i \equiv 1$ for $X = A$.
Let $\Check{R} = \Check{R}_q (X_l)$
be Jimbo's solution of
the Yang-Baxter equation of type $X_{l}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{RAdef}
\Check{R}_q (A_l) =
q^{-1} \sum_{r = 1}^{N}
E_{rr} \otimes E_{rr} +
\sum_{r \ne s}
E_{rs} \otimes E_{sr} -
(q - q^{-1}) \sum_{r > s}
E_{rr} \otimes E_{ss},
\end{equation}
\begin{multline}
\label{RBCDdef}
\Check{R}_q (X_l) =
\sum_{r;\, r \not= r'}
(q^{-1} E_{rr} \otimes E_{rr} +
q E_{rr'} \otimes E_{r'r}) +
\sum_{r;\, r = r'}
E_{rr} \otimes E_{rr} + \\
\sum_{r,s;\, r \ne s,s'}
E_{rs} \otimes E_{sr} +
(q - q^{-1}) \sum_{r > s}
(- E_{rr} \otimes E_{ss}
+ \epsilon_r \epsilon_s q^{\overline{r} - \overline{s}}
E_{rs'} \otimes E_{r's})
\quad (X = B, C, D),
\end{multline}
where for $X =$ $A, C, D$ (resp. $X= B)$, $q$
(resp. $q^{1/2}$) denotes
a non-zero number such that $q^2 \not= 1$,
and
$E_{rs} \in \mathrm{Mat} (N, \Bbb{K})$
denote the matrix units.
For $X =$ $B, C, D$, we also set $\lambda = - \nu q^{-N - \nu}$.
For $1 \leq i, j \leq N$, we denote by
$t_{ij}$ the element
$e {i \choose j}$ of $\frak{A} (\Check{R})$, or its image by an arbitrary
bialgebra map.
For each $\eta \in \Bbb K^{\times}$, we denote by ${\cal R}^+_{\eta}$
the canonical braiding of the FRT bialgebra
$\frak{A} (\eta \Check{R})$ or its Hopf closure
$\mathrm{Hc} (\frak{A} (\eta \Check{R}))$.
Since $\frak{A} (\Check{R})$
(resp. $\mathrm{Hc} (\frak{A} (\Check{R}))$)
is isomorphic to
$\frak{A} (\eta \Check{R})$
(resp. $\mathrm{Hc} (\frak{A} (\eta \Check{R}))$)
as a bialgebra,
we regard $\{ {\cal R}^+_{\eta} \}$ as a one-parameter family of
braidings of $\frak{A} (\Check{R})$
(resp. $\mathrm{Hc} (\frak{A} (\Check{R}))$).
\begin{thm}[Takeuchi \cite{Takeuchicocycle}]
\label{clasbrFRT}
Any braidings of $\frak{A} (\Check{R}_q (X_{l}))$
are either of the form ${\cal R}^+_{\eta}$
or of the form $({\cal R}^-_{\eta})_{21}$,
where $\eta \in \Bbb K^{\times}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
For $X = A$, this theorem has been proved by
M. Takeuchi \cite{Takeuchicocycle}.
Here we give a proof for $X = B, C, D$
by imitating his arguments.
It is well known that the operators
$g\!:= \Check{R}$ and
$e\!:= (g - g^{-1}) / \mu + 1$
give a representation of the Birman-Murakami-Wenzl algebra on
$(\Bbb K^N)^{\otimes 3}$ (cf. \cite{BirmanWenzl}, \cite{Murakami}),
where $\mu = q - q ^{-1}$.
That is, we have the following formulas:
%
\begin{equation}
\label{minpolyR}
(g_i - \lambda^{-1})(g_i + q )(g_i - q^{-1}) = 0
\quad (i = 1, 2),
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
g_1 g_2 g_1 = g_2 g_1 g_2,
\quad
e_1 g_2 e_1 = \lambda e_1,
\quad
e_2 g_1 e_2 = \lambda e_2,
\end{equation}
%
where, as usual, we set
$f_1$ $=$ $f \otimes \mathrm{id}_{\Bbb K^N}$ and
$f_2 = \mathrm{id}_{\Bbb K^N} \otimes f$
for $f \in \mathrm{End}_{\Bbb K} ((\Bbb K^N)^{\otimes 2})$.
As consequences of these relations, we also obtain
the following formulas:
%
\begin{equation}
\label{gi2}
g_i^2 = - \mu g_i + \lambda^{-1} \mu e_i + 1,
\quad
e_i^2 = \zeta e_i,
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eigi}
e_i g_i = g_i e_i = \lambda^{-1} e_i,
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
e_i e_j e_i = e_i,
\quad
e_i g_j e_i = \lambda e_i,
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
e_i e_j g_i = e_i g_j - \mu e_i e_j + \mu e_i,
\quad
g_i e_j e_i = g_j e_i - \mu e_j e_i + \mu e_i,
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
e_i g_j g_i = e_i e_j,
\quad
g_i g_j e_i = e_j e_i,
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
g_i e_j g_i -
g_j e_i g_j =
\mu (e_i g_j + g_j e_i - e_j g_i - g_i e_j) +
\mu^2 (e_i - e_j)
\end{equation}
%
for $(i,j)$ $=$ $(1,2)$, $(2,1)$,
where $\zeta = $ $- (\lambda - \lambda^{-1}) \mu^{-1} + 1$.
By \eqref{gi2} and \eqref{eigi}, we see that
$\{ g, e, 1 \}$ is a linear basis of the algebra
$\langle g \rangle$.
Let $\cal{B}$ be a braiding of $\frak{A} (\Check{R}))$
and $\Check{B} \in \mathrm{End} ((\Bbb K^N)^{\otimes 2})$
the corresponding solution of the Yang-Baxter equation.
Since $\frak{A}_2 (\Check{R})^*$ is the commutant of the algebra
$\langle g \rangle$
in $\mathrm{End}_{\Bbb K} ((\Bbb K^N)^{\otimes 2})$,
$\Check{B}$ belongs to the double commutant of
$\langle g \rangle$.
By \cite{Jacobson} page 202, this implies $\Check{B}$
$\in \langle g \rangle$.
Hence $\Check{B}$ is of the form $a g + b e + c$
for some $a, b, c \in \Bbb K$.
Rewriting the Yang-Baxter equation for $\Check{B}$
via the formulas above,
we obtain
%
\begin{multline}
( \mu a^2 b + a b^2 ) X +
( - \mu a^2 c + a c^2 ) Y \\
+ \{ b^3 + \mu^2 a^2 b + (\lambda + 2 \mu) a b^2 + \lambda^{-1} \mu a^2 c
+ \zeta b^2 c + b c^2 + 2 \lambda^{-1} a b c \} Z
= 0,
\end{multline}
%
where
%
\begin{equation}
X = e_1 g_2 + g_2 e_1 - e_2 g_1 - g_1 e_2,
\quad
Y = g_1 - g_2,
\quad
Z = e_1 - e_2.
\end{equation}
%
Since $X, Y, Z$ are linearly independent, we obtain
three algebraic equations for $a$, $b$ and $c$.
Solving these, we see that $\Check{B}$ is proportional to either
$g$, $g^{-1} = g - \mu e + \mu$, $1 + \alpha e$ or $1$, where
$\alpha$ denotes a solution of
$x^2 + \zeta x + 1 = 0$.
Suppose $\Check{B} = \eta$ or $\eta (1 + \alpha e)$
for some $\eta \in \Bbb K^{\times}$.
Then using \eqref{mid(R)}, we obtain
%
\begin{equation}
\cal{B} (t_{12} t_{21},\, t_{22}) = \eta^2,
\quad
\cal{B} (t_{21} t_{12},\, t_{22}) = 0.
\end{equation}
%
On the other hand, substituting $t_{21} \otimes t_{12}$
into \eqref{RmXR}, we obtain
$t_{21} t_{12} = t_{12} t_{21}$, a contradiction.
Therefore $\Check{B}$ is proportional to either
$g$ or $g^{-1}$.
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{pf}
The following lemma allows us to apply our general
results developed in Sect. 6 to the Hopf closures.
\begin{lem}
For each $q$ and $\eta$, $\Bbb K^N = \Bbb K \EuScript G^1$ is
absolutely irreducible as
a comodule of $\mathrm{Hc} ( \frak{A} ( \eta \Check{R}_q (X_l) ))$.
In particular, $\mathrm{Hc} ( \frak{A} ( \eta \Check{R}_q (X_l) ))$
is monogenerated.\\
\end{lem}
Since the proof of this lemma is quite similar to
that of Lemma \ref{irrforqcg} below, we omit it.
Next, we determine the ribbon functionals of
the Hopf closure of
$\frak{A} (\eta \Check{R}_q (X_l))$.
We note that the following result immediately follows from
Theorem \ref{Mcrit} and the formula \eqref{S2tij}
given below,
except for the case
$\sum_i q^{2i - N - 1 - \sigma_i \nu} = 0$.
\begin{prop}
\label{clasribHc}
For each $\eta \in \Bbb K^{\times}$,
$\mathrm{Hc} (\frak{A} ( \eta \Check{R}_q (X_l) ))$
has exactly two \rom{(}resp. one\rom{)} modified ribbon functionals
$\cal{M}_{\pm}$ given by
%
\begin{equation}
\label{M+-def}
\cal{M}_{\pm} (t_{ij}) =
\pm \delta_{ij}
q^{2i - N - 1 - \sigma_i \nu}
\end{equation}
if $\mathrm{ch} \Bbb K \ne 2$
\rom{(}resp. $\mathrm{ch} \Bbb K = 2$\rom{)}.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
We will prove this result using Proposition \ref{ribestimate}
and Theorem \ref{clasRibHcAw}.
Using \eqref{S2tij} and \eqref{UXU-}, we obtain
%
\begin{gather}
(\pi (\cal{U}_1) \otimes \mathrm{id})
\circ \rho \circ \pi (\cal{U}_1)^{-1} (u_j) =
\sum_i u_i \otimes
q^{2(i -j) - (\sigma_i - \sigma_j) \nu}\,
t_{ij} \\
=
(M \otimes \mathrm{id})
\circ \rho \circ M^{-1} (u_j),
\end{gather}
%
where $M:= \mathrm{diag}
(q^{2i - N - 1 - \sigma_i \nu})_i$.
This shows that $M \pi (\cal{U}_1)^{-1}$ commutes with
the coaction of $\mathrm{Hc} (\frak{A} ( \eta \Check{R}_q (X_l) ))$
on $\Bbb K \EuScript G^1$.
Hence, it suffices to verify that
\begin{equation}
\label{piU1U2=M2}
\pi (\cal{U}_1 \cal{U}_2) = M^2.
\end{equation}
%
By Schur's lemma, we have
$\pi (\cal{U}_{\nu}) = c_{\nu} M$ for some constant
$c_{\nu} \in\Bbb K^{\times}$.
Suppose $X = B, C$ or $D$. Using \eqref{SBCD},
we compute
%
\begin{equation}
\cal{U}_1 (t_{11}) =
\sum_{k=1}^{N} \epsilon_1 \epsilon_k
q^{\overline{1} - \overline{k}} \eta \Check{R}
\left( k^{\prime} \frac[0pt]{1}{k} 1^{\prime} \right)
= \eta \Check{R} \left( N \frac[0pt]{1}{1} N \right)
= \eta q.
\end{equation}
%
Using \eqref{S(U)} and \eqref{SBCD},
we also obtain
%
\begin{equation}
\cal{U}_2^{-1} (t_{NN}) = \cal{U}_1 (t_{11})
= \eta q.
\end{equation}
This proves $c_1 = \eta q^{N + \nu} = c_2^{-1}$,
or \eqref{piU1U2=M2} for $X = B, C$, $D$.
When $X = A$, \eqref{piU1U2=M2} is proved by computing
the Lyubashenko double of $\Check{R}_q (A_l)$
explicitly.
\end{pf}
Hereafter, we assume that $q^2 \ne -1$ and that
$\lambda^{-1} \ne q^{-1}, -q$ if $X = B, C$ or $D$.
By \eqref{minpolyR}, this implies
\begin{equation}
\Bbb K^N \otimes \Bbb K^N =
\begin{cases}
\mathrm{Ker} (\Check{R} - q^{-1}) \oplus
\mathrm{Ker} (\Check{R} + q)
& (X = A)\\
\mathrm{Ker} (\Check{R} - q^{-1}) \oplus
\mathrm{Ker} (\Check{R} + q) \oplus
\mathrm{Ker} (\Check{R} - \lambda^{-1})
& (X = B, C, D)\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
as $\frak{A} (\Check{R})$-comodules.
To give the definition of the quantized classical groups,
we recall the definition of
the (quantum) determinant of
$\frak{A} ( \Check{R})$.
Let $\Omega = \Omega (X_{l})$ be the following q-analogue of
the exterior algebra:
\begin{equation}
\Omega (X_{l}) =
\begin{cases}
T( \Bbb K^N ) / (\mathrm{Ker} (\Check{R} - q^{-1}))
& (X = A, C) \\
T( \Bbb K^N ) / (\mathrm{Im} (\Check{R} + q))
& (X = B, D).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
More explicitly, we have
\begin{equation}
\Omega (A_{l}) =
\bigl\langle
u_i \; (1 \leq i \leq N) \,
\bigm\vert \,
u_i^2 = 0,\, q u_i u_j + u_j u_i = 0 \;
(i < j)
\bigr\rangle,
\end{equation}
\begin{multline}
\Omega (X_{l}) =
\bigl\langle
u_i \; (1 \leq i \leq N) \,
\bigm\vert \,
u_i^2 = 0 \; (i \not= (N+1)/2), \\
q u_i u_j + u_j u_i = 0 \;
(i < j, i \not= j'), \;
\eta_i = 0 \;
(1 \leq i \leq (N+1)/2)
\bigr\rangle \\
(X = B, C, D).
\end{multline}
Here for $X =$ $B$, $C$, $D$ and
$1 \leq i \leq (N+1)/2$, we set
\begin{equation}
\eta_i =
\begin{cases}
u_{i'} u_i + u_i u_{i'} -
(q - q^{-1}) \sum_{j = 1}^{i-1}
q^{j - i + 1} u_j u_{j'} &
(X = B, D,\, i \leq l) \\
u_{l+1} u_{l+1} -
(q^{1/2} - q^{- 1/2}) \sum_{j = 1}^{l}
q^{j - l} u_j u_{j'} &
(X = B, \, i = l+1) \\
u_{i'} u_i + q^2 u_i u_{i'} +
(q - q^{-1}) \sum_{j = i+1}^{l}
q^{j - i + 1} u_j u_{j'} &
(X = C,\, i \leq l).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Then $\Omega (X_{l})$ becomes an
$\frak{A} (\Check{R}_q (X_l))$-comodule algebra
via $u_j \mapsto \sum_i u_i \otimes t_{ij}$.
For $0 \leq r \leq N$,
$\Omega_r := \sum_{i_1, \ldots, i_r} \Bbb K u_{i_1} \cdots u_{i_r}$
is a $\binom{N}{r}$-dimensional subcomodule of $\Omega$.
In particular, $\Omega_N$ $=$ $\Bbb K u_1 u_2 \ldots u_N$
is one-dimensional and determines the group-like element
$\det \in \frak{A} (\Check{R})$ via the coaction
$u_1 \ldots u_N \mapsto
u_1 \ldots u_N \otimes \det$.
For $X = B, C, D$,
$\frak{A} (\Check{R})$ has another
group-like element $\mathrm{quad}$ which is determined by
its coaction on the one-dimensional comodule
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Ker} (\Check{R} - \lambda^{-1}) =
\Bbb K \sum_i \epsilon_i q^{\overline{i} + 1 / 2}
u_i \otimes u_{i'}.
\end{equation}
By \cite{qcg} Proposition 5.4-5.5 and the universal
mapping property of the Hopf closure and the localization
construction, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{HcA}
\mathrm{Hc} ( \frak{A} ( \eta \Check{R}_q (A_l) )) \cong
\frak{A} ( \eta \Check{R}_q (A_l) )
[\mathrm{det}^{-1}]
=:
\mathrm{Fun} \left( GL_{q} (N) \right)_{\eta},
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\label{HcBCD}
\mathrm{Hc} ( \frak{A} ( \eta \Check{R}_q (X_l) ))
& \cong
\frak{A} ( \eta \Check{R}_q (X_l) )
[\mathrm{quad}^{-1}] \\
& \cong
\frak{A} ( \eta \Check{R}_q (X_l) )
[\mathrm{det}^{-1}]
\quad (X = B, C, D).
\end{align}
The biideal $(\det - 1)$ becomes a CQT biideal of
$\frak{A} (\eta \Check{R})$ if and only if
\begin{equation}
\eta^N =
%
\begin{cases}
q & (X = A) \\
1 & (X = B, C, D),
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
while $(\mathrm{quad} - 1)$
becomes a CQT biideal if and only if
$\eta = \pm 1$ (cf. \cite{gd}).
Now we define the
{\it function algebra of
the quantized classical groups}
(cf. \cite{TakeuchiMat}, \cite{qcg}, \cite{gd})
to be the CQT bialgebras given by
\begin{equation}
\label{SLdef}
\mathrm{Fun} \left( SL_{q} (N) \right)_{\eta} =
\frak{A} (\eta \Check{R}_q (A_l)) /
(\mathrm{det} -1 )
\quad (\eta^N = q),
\end{equation}
\begin{multline}
\label{SOdef}
\mathrm{Fun} \left( SO_{q} (N) \right)_{\eta} =
\frak{A} (\eta \Check{R}_q (X_{l})) /
(\mathrm{det} - 1, \mathrm{quad} - 1) \\
(\eta = 1\, \mathrm{if}\, X = B\, \mathrm{and}\,
\eta = \pm 1\, \mathrm{if}\, X = D),
\end{multline}
\begin{equation}
\label{Odef}
\mathrm{Fun} \left( O_{q} (N) \right)_{\eta} =
\frak{A} (\eta \Check{R}_q (X_{l})) /
(\mathrm{quad} - 1)
\quad (\eta = \pm 1, X = B, D)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Spdef}
\mathrm{Fun} \left( Sp_{q} (N) \right)_{\eta} =
\frak{A} (\eta \Check{R}_q (C_{l})) /
(\mathrm{quad} - 1)
\quad (\eta = \pm 1).
\end{equation}
See \cite{qcg} for a justification of these definitions
in case $\Bbb K = \Bbb C$ and $q$ is transcendental over $\Bbb{Q}$.
For $G_q = SL_q (N), SO_q (N)$, etc.,
we denote by $\mathrm{Fun} (G_q)$
the underlying bialgebra of $\mathrm{Fun} (G_q)_{\eta}$,
and by ${\cal R}^+_{\eta, G_q}$ the braiding of
$\mathrm{Fun} (G_q)_{\eta}$.
Each of these algebras has an antipode.
For example, the antipode of the algebras given in
\eqref{SOdef}-\eqref{Spdef}
is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{SBCD}
S(t_{ij}) =
\epsilon_i \epsilon_j\,
q^{\overline{i} - \overline{j}}\,
t_{j'i'}.
\end{equation}
The square of the antipode of the algebras given in
\eqref{HcA}, \eqref{HcBCD}, \eqref{SLdef}-\eqref{Spdef}
is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{S2tij}
S^2 (t_{ij}) =
q^{2(i -j) - (\sigma_i - \sigma_j) \nu}\,
t_{ij}.
\end{equation}
\begin{lem}
\label{irrforqcg}
Let $F$ be either $\mathrm{Hc} (\frak{A} (\Check{R}))$
or one of the algebras given in
\eqref{SLdef}-\eqref{Spdef}.
Then each of the $F$-comodules $\Bbb K^N$,
$\mathrm{Ker} (\Check{R} - q^{-1})$ and
$\mathrm{Ker} (\Check{R} + q)$
are absolutely irreducible.
In particular, $F$ is monogenerated.\\
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
Since $\Bbb K$ is arbitrary, it suffices to show the irreducibility
of these comodules. Here we give a proof for
$W := \mathrm{Ker} (\Check{R}_q (C_l) + q)$.
To simplify the computation, it is convenient to identify $W$
with its image via the projection $(\Bbb K^N)^{\otimes 2} \to \Omega_2$.
Following \cite{RTF},
we define $K_i, E_i, F_i \in F^*$ $(1 \leq i \leq l)$ by
%
\begin{equation}
\label{Kidef}
K_i = {\cal R}^-_{\eta} (t_{ii},\, -),
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
E_i =
\begin{cases}
- \eta^{-1} (q - q^{-1})^{-1}
{\cal R}^+_{\eta} (-,\, t_{i+1\,\, i}) &
(1 \leq i < l)\\
- \eta^{-1} q^{-1} (q^2 - q^{-2})^{-1}
{\cal R}^+_{\eta} (-,\, t_{l+1\,\, l}) &
(i = l), \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
F_i =
\begin{cases}
\eta (q - q^{-1})^{-1}
{\cal R}^-_{\eta} (t_{i\,\, i+1},\,-) &
(1 \leq i < l)\\
\eta q (q^2 - q^{-2})^{-1}
{\cal R}^-_{\eta} (t_{l\,\, l+1},\,-) &
(i = l). \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
%
Then these elements belong to the dual Hopf algebra
$F^{\circ}$ (cf. \cite{LarsonTowber}) and satisfy
%
\begin{equation}
\pi_{\Bbb K^N} (K_i) =
\eta^{-1} \sum_{k=1}^{N}
q^{\delta_{ki} - \delta_{ki^{\prime}}} E_{kk},
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
\pi_{\Bbb K^N} (E_i) =
E_{i\, i+1} - q E_{(i+1)^{\prime}\, i^{\prime}}
\quad (i < j),
\quad
\pi_{\Bbb K^N} (E_l) =
E_{l\,\, l+1},
\end{equation}
%
%
\begin{equation}
\pi_{\Bbb K^N} (F_i) =
E_{i+1\, i} - q^{-1} E_{i^{\prime}\, (i+1)^{\prime}}
\quad (i < j),
\quad
\pi_{\Bbb K^N} (F_l) =
E_{l+1\,\, l},
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
\Delta (K_i) = K_i \otimes K_i,
\end{equation}
%
\begin{equation}
\Delta (E_i) = E_i \otimes K_i^{-1} + K_{i + 1}^{-1} \otimes E_i,
\quad
\Delta (F_i) = F_i \otimes K_{i + 1} + K_i \otimes F_i,
\end{equation}
%
where $K_{l+1}$ is given by \eqref{Kidef}.
As a $\langle K_i \rangle$-module, $W$
is the direct sum
of the mutually non-isomorphic, non-trivial comodules
$\Bbb K u_i u_j$ $(j \ne i, i^{\prime})$ and the trivial comodule
$T = \bigoplus_{i=1}^{l-1} \Bbb K (q u_{i} u_{i^{\prime}} -
u_{i+1} u_{(i+1)^{\prime}})$.
Hence any non-zero subcomodule $M$ of $W$ contains a vector $v \ne 0$
which belongs to one of these $\langle K_i \rangle$-modules.
By verifying $T \cap (\bigcap_i \mathrm{Ker}\pi (E_i))$ $=$ $0$,
we see that $u_1 u_2 \in \Bbb K E_{i_1} \cdots E_{i_k} v$
for some $i_1, \ldots, i_k$.
Also, by verifying
$T = \sum_{i=1}^{l-1} \Bbb K F_i (u_i u_{(i+1)^{\prime}})$,
we see that $u_1 u_2$ generates $W$ as an
$\langle F_i \rangle$-module.
Thus, $W$ is irreducible as a
$\langle K_i, E_i, F_i \rangle$-module,
and also, it is irreducible as an $F$-comodule.
%
\end{pf}
\begin{thm}
\label{clasbrqcg}
\rom{(1)}
Any braidings of $\mathrm{Hc} (\frak{A} (\Check{R}_q (X_{l})))$
are either of the form ${\cal R}^+_{\eta}$
or of the form $({\cal R}^-_{\eta})_{21}$,
where $\eta \in \Bbb K^{\times}$.\\
\rom{(2)}
Let $G_q$ be either $SL_q (N)$, $SO_q (N)$,
$O_q (N)$ or $Sp_q (N)$.
Then, any braiding of $\mathrm{Fun} (G_q)$
is either of the form ${\cal R}^+_{\eta, G_q}$
or of the form $({\cal R}^-_{\eta, G_q})_{21}$, where $\eta$ is
as in \eqref{SLdef}-\eqref{Spdef}.
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
Let $\Check{B}$ be a solution of the Yang-Baxter equation,
which corresponds to a braiding of
one of the above algebras $F$.
By Lemma \ref{irrforqcg},
$\mathrm{End}_F ((\Bbb K^N)^{\otimes 2})$ is spanned by two or three projections
onto eigenspaces of $\Check{R}$, according to $X = A$ or $X = B, C, D$.
By linear algebra, these projections are polynomials of $\Check{R}$.
Therefore, we have
$\mathrm{End}_F ((\Bbb K^N)^{\otimes 2})$ $=$
$\langle \Check{R} \rangle$.
Hence, by the discussions in the proof of Theorem \ref{clasbrFRT},
we see that $\Check{B}$ is proportional to either
$\Check{R}$ or $\Check{R}^{-1}$.
Thus this theorem follows from the result of \cite{gd} stated above.
\end{pf}
Let $F$ be one of the Hopf algebras given in \eqref{SLdef}-\eqref{Spdef}.
We define the cyclic group $\Gamma$ $=$ $\Gamma_F$
as follows:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma =
\begin{cases}
\Bbb Z / N \Bbb Z & ( G_q = SL_q(N))\\
\Bbb Z / 2 \Bbb Z & ( G_q = O_q(N),\, SO_q (2 l),\, Sp_q (N))\\
\{ 1 \} & ( G_q = SO_q (2 l + 1)).\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
For $F$ $=$ $\frak{A} (\Check{R})$ and
$\mathrm{Hc} (\frak{A} (\Check{R}))$, we also set
$\Gamma_F = \Bbb Z$.
Since $\det \in \frak{A}_N (\Check{R})$ and
$\mathrm{quad} \in \frak{A}_2 (\Check{R})$,
the grading $\frak{A} (\Check{R})$ $=$
$\bigoplus_n \frak{A}_n (\Check{R})$ naturally induces
a $\Gamma$-grading of $F$ satisfying the properties
stated in Proposition \ref{altbraiding} (2).
Now we can restate our classification theorems
for braidings as follows.
\begin{cor}
\label{clasbrviaGamma}
Let $F$ be one of the bialgebras treated in Theorem
\ref{clasbrFRT} and Theorem \ref{clasbrqcg} and let
$\Gamma$ be the cyclic group defined as above.
Then, any braiding of $F$ is either of the form
${\cal R}^+_{\chi}$ or of the form $({\cal R}^-_{\chi})_{21}$,
where $\chi$ is as in Proposition \ref{altbraiding}.
In particular, $\mathrm{MRib} (F)$ does not depend on
the choice of the braiding of $F$
\rom{(}cf. Proposition \ref{MRibaltbraiding}\rom{)}.
\end{cor}
Next, we give the classification theorem of the ribbon functionals
for the algebras given in \eqref{SLdef}-\eqref{Spdef}.
\begin{lem}
Let $\cal{M}_{\pm}$ be as in \eqref{M+-def}.
Then we have
%
\begin{equation}
\cal{M}_{\pm} (\mathrm{det}) = (\pm 1)^N,
\quad
\cal{M}_{\pm} (\mathrm{quad}) = 1.
\end{equation}
%
\end{lem}
\begin{pf}
We calculate
%
\begin{multline}
\cal{M}_{\pm} (\mathrm{det}) u_1 \cdots u_N =
\pi_{\Omega_N}
(\cal{M}_{\pm}) (u_1 \cdots u_N) =
(\cal{M}_{\pm} u_1) \cdots
(\cal{M}_{\pm} u_N) \\
= \prod_i \left( \pm q^{2i - N -1 - \sigma_i \nu} \right)
u_1 \cdots u_N
= (\pm 1)^N u_1 \cdots u_N.
\qquad
\end{multline}
%
The proof of the second formula is similar.
\end{pf}
In view of the universal mapping property of the Hopf closure,
we see that we may replace $\frak{A} (\eta \Check{R})$ in
\eqref{SLdef}-\eqref{Spdef} with
$\mathrm{Hc}( \frak{A} (\eta \Check{R}))$.
Hence, as an immediate consequence of Proposition \ref{clasquotient}
and the lemma above,
we obtain the following.
\begin{thm}
\rom{(1)}
%
Let $G_q$ be either
$SL_{q} (N)$, $SO_{q} (N)$ or $Sp_{q} (N)$,
and let
$p\!: \mathrm{Hc} (\frak{A} ( \eta \Check{R}_q (X_l) )) \to$
$\mathrm{Fun} (G_q)_{\eta}$ denote the projection.
Then we have
%
\begin{equation}
%
\mathrm{MRib} \left(\mathrm{Fun} (G_q)_{\eta} \right) =
%
\begin{cases}
\{ \cal{M}_+ \circ p,\, \cal{M}_- \circ p \} &
(N \in 2 \Bbb Z) \\
\{ \cal{M}_+ \circ p \} &
(N \in 1 + 2 \Bbb Z),
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\eta$ is as in \eqref{SLdef}-\eqref{Spdef}. \\
\rom{(2)}
We have
%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{MRib} \left(
\mathrm{Fun} \left( O_{q} (N) \right)_{\pm 1}
\right) =
\{ \cal{M}_+ \circ r,\, \cal{M}_- \circ r \},
\end{equation}
where $r\!: \mathrm{Hc}( \frak{A} ( \pm \Check{R}_q (X_l) )) \to$
$\mathrm{Fun} \left( O_{q} (N) \right)_{\pm 1}$
denotes the projection.
\end{thm}
\section{SOS algebras}
Let $N \geq 2$ and $L \geq 2$ be integers.
Let $\cal{C}$ be an $\Bbb C$-abelian semisimple rigid monoidal category
whose simple objects $L_{\lambda}$ are indexed
by the following set of partitions:
\begin{equation}
\label{Vdef}
\EuScript V = {\EuScript V}_{NL}:=
\bigl\{ \lambda = (\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_N) \in \Bbb Z^N
\bigm|
L \geq {\lambda}_1 \geq \dots \geq {\lambda}_{N} = 0
\bigr\}.
\end{equation}
We say that $\cal{C}$ is an $SU(N)_L$-{\it category} if
the structure constants of its Grothendiek ring
agree with the fusion rules $N^{\nu}_{\lambda \mu}$
of $SU(N)_L$-WZW models.
The $SU(N)_L$-categories play crucial roles to construct
$SU(N)_L$-topological quantum field theories, or corresponding
invariants of 3-manifolds (cf. \cite{Turaev3mfd}).
It is known that two $SU(N)_L$-categories are equivalent to each
other up to a ``twist'' of the associativity constraint
(cf. Kazhdan-Wenzl \cite{KazhdanWenzl}).
In \cite{fut}, we have constructed a coribbon Hopf $\EuScript V_{NL}$-face algebra
$\frak{S} = {\frak S}(A_{N-1};t)_{\epsilon}$ such that $\bold{Com}_{\frak{S}}^f$ is an $SU(N)_L$-category.
In this section, we determine the braiding and the ribbon structure of
$\bold{Com}_{\frak{S}}^f$ or equivalently, those of $\frak{S}$
(cf. Proposition \ref{correspalgcom}).
To begin with, we recall the definition of $SU(N)_L$-SOS model.
For each $1 \leq i \leq N$, we set
$\hat{i} = (\delta_{1i}, \ldots, \delta_{Ni}) \in \Bbb Z^N$.
For $m \geq 0$, we define the subset ${\EuScript G}^m$ of ${\EuScript V}^{m+1}$ by
\begin{equation}
{\EuScript G}^m =
{\EuScript V}^{m+1} \cap
\bigl\{ \bold p = (\lambda\, |\, i_1, \ldots, i_m)
\bigm| \lambda\in \EuScript V,\,
1 \leq i_1, \ldots, i_m \leq N \bigr\},
\end{equation}
where for $\lambda \in \Bbb Z^N$ and
$1 \leq i_1, \ldots, i_m \leq N$,
we set
\begin{equation}
(\lambda\, |\, i_1, \ldots, i_m) =
(\lambda, \lambda + \hat{i}_1, \ldots,
\lambda + \hat{i}_1 + \cdots + \hat{i}_m),
\end{equation}
and we identify $(\lambda_1 +1, \cdots, \lambda_N + 1) \in \Bbb Z^N$
with $\lambda \in \EuScript V$.
Then $(\EuScript V,{\EuScript G}^1)$ defines an oriented graph $\EuScript G = {\EuScript G}_{N,L}$
and ${\EuScript G}^m$ is identified with the set of paths of $\EuScript G$ of length $m$.
For $\bold p = (\lambda\, |\, i,j)$,
we set
${\bold p}^{\dag} = (\lambda\, |\, j,i)$ and
$d(\bold p) = {\lambda}_i - {\lambda}_j + j - i$.
We define subsets
${\EuScript G}^2[\to]$, ${\EuScript G}^2[\;\downarrow\;]$ and
${\EuScript G}^2[\searrow]$ of ${\EuScript G}^2$ by
\begin{gather}
{\EuScript G}^2[\to] =
\bigl\{ \bold p \in {\EuScript G}^2
\bigm| \bold p^{\dag} = \bold p \bigr\},
\quad
{\EuScript G}^2[\;\downarrow\;] =
\bigl\{ \bold p \in {\EuScript G}^2
\bigm|
\bold p^{\dag} \not\in \EuScript G^2 \bigr\},
\\
{\EuScript G}^2[\searrow] =
\bigl\{ \bold p \in {\EuScript G}^2
\bigm| \bold p \not= \bold p^{\dag} \in \EuScript G^2
\bigr\}.
\end{gather}
Let $t \in\Bbb C$ be a primitive $2(N+L)$-th root of $1$.
Let $\epsilon$ be either $1$ or $-1$
and $\zeta$ a nonzero parameter.
We define a star-triangular face model
$(\EuScript G,w_{N,t,\epsilon}) = ({\EuScript G}_{N,L},w_{N,t, \epsilon, \zeta})$
by setting
\begin{equation}
w_{N,t,\epsilon} \!
\begin{bmatrix}
\lambda & \lambda + \hat{i} \\
\lambda + \hat{i} & \lambda + \hat{i} + \hat{j}
\end{bmatrix}
= - \zeta^{-1} t^{-d(\bold p)} \frac{1}{[d(\bold p)]},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
w_{N,t,\epsilon} \!
\begin{bmatrix}
\lambda & \lambda + \hat{i} \\
\lambda + \hat{j} & \lambda + \hat{i} + \hat{j}
\end{bmatrix}
= \zeta^{-1} \epsilon \, \frac{[d(\bold p)-1]}{[d(\bold p)]},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
w_{N,t,\epsilon} \!
\begin{bmatrix}
\lambda & \lambda + \hat{k} \\
\lambda + \hat{k} & \lambda + 2 \hat{k}
\end{bmatrix}
= \zeta^{-1} t
\end{equation}
for each
$\bold p = (\lambda\, |\, i,j) \in
\EuScript G^2[\searrow] \amalg \EuScript G^2 [\,\downarrow\,]$
and
$(\lambda\, |\, k,k) \in \EuScript G^2[\to]$,
where $[n] = (t^n-t^{-n})/(t-t^{-1})$
for each $n \in \Bbb Z$.
We call $(\EuScript G,w_{N,t,\epsilon})$ {\it $SU(N)_L$-SOS model}
(without spectral parameter) \cite{JMO}.
Now the $SU(N)_L$-SOS algebra ${\frak S}(A_{N-1};t)_{\epsilon}$ is defined as the following
quotient of the FRT construction ${\frak A}(w_{N,t,\epsilon})$:
\begin{equation}
{\frak S}(A_{N-1};t)_{\epsilon}:= {\frak A}(w_{N,t,\epsilon}) / (\det - 1),
\end{equation}
where the group-like element
${\det} = \sum_{\lambda, \mu \in \EuScript V} \det \binom{\lambda}{\mu}$
of ${\frak A}(w_{N,t,\epsilon})$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{detformula}
\det \binom{\lambda}{\mu} =
\frac{D(\mu)}{D(\lambda)}
\sum_{\bold p \in \EuScript G^N_{\lambda \lambda}}
(- \epsilon)^{\EuScript{L} (\bold p) + \EuScript{L} (\bold q)}
e \binom{\bold p}{\bold q}.
\end{equation}
Here $\bold q$ denotes an arbitrary
element of $\EuScript G^N_{\mu \mu}$, and
$\EuScript{L} \!: \EuScript G^m \to \Bbb Z_{\geq 0}$
and $D( \lambda ) \in \Bbb C$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\EuScript{L}
(\lambda\, |\, i_1, \ldots, i_m)
=
\mathrm{Card} \{ (k,l) |
1 \leq k < l \leq N, i_k < i_l \},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
D(\lambda) =
\prod_{1 \leq i < j \leq N}
\frac{[d(\lambda\, |\, i,j)]}{[d(0\, |\, i,j)]}
\quad (\lambda \in \EuScript V).
\end{equation}
The canonical braiding of $\frak{A} (w_{N,t,\epsilon, \zeta})$
induces the braiding ${\cal R}^+_{\zeta}$ of ${\frak S}(A_{N-1};t)_{\epsilon}$ if and only if
$\zeta$ satisfies
$\zeta^N = \epsilon^{N-1} t$.
The face algebra ${\frak S}(A_{N-1};t)_{\epsilon}$ has an antipode whose square is given by
\begin{equation}
S^2 \left( e \binom{\bold p}{\bold q} \right) =
\frac{D(\frak {r} (\bold p)) D(\frak {s} (\bold q))}{D(\frak {s} (\bold p)) D(\frak {r} (\bold q))}
e \binom{\bold p}{\bold q}
\quad (\bold p, \bold q \in \EuScript G^m, m \geq 0).
\end{equation}
The $\frak{S}$-comodule $\Bbb K \EuScript G^1$ is irreducible, while the
$\frak{S}$-comodule $\Bbb K \EuScript G^2$ has the irreducible decomposition:
\begin{equation}
\Bbb K \EuScript G^2 = \mathrm{Ker} (w_{N,t,\epsilon, \zeta} - \zeta^{-1} t) \oplus
\mathrm{Ker} (w_{N,t,\epsilon, \zeta} + \zeta^{-1} t^{-1}).
\end{equation}
The proof of the following result is quite similar to
that of Theorem \ref{clasbrqcg} and
Takeuchi \cite{Takeuchicocycle} Lemma 2.4,
hence we omit it.
\begin{thm}
Any braiding of ${\frak S}(A_{N-1};t)_{\epsilon}$ is either of the form ${\cal R}^+_{\zeta}$ or of the form
$({\cal R}^-_{\zeta})_{21}$, where $\zeta$ denotes a solution of
$\zeta^N = \epsilon^{N-1} t$.
\end{thm}
Similarly to Corollary \ref{clasbrviaGamma}, we can rewrite
the result above in terms of the $\Bbb Z / N \Bbb Z$-grading of
${\frak S}(A_{N-1};t)_{\epsilon}$ induced by
$\frak{A} (w_{N,t,\epsilon})$
$=$ $\bigoplus_n \frak{A}_n (w_{N,t,\epsilon})$.
\begin{thm}
When $N$ is odd, ${\frak S}(A_{N-1};t)_{\epsilon}$ has exactly one ribbon functional.
The corresponding modified ribbon functional
$\cal{M}_+$ is given by
%
\begin{equation}
\label{M+SOS}
\cal{M}_+ = \sum_{k,l \in \V} \frac{D(l)}{D(k)}\, {\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}{e}_k} e_l.
\end{equation}
%
When $N$ is even, ${\frak S}(A_{N-1};t)_{\epsilon}$ has exactly two ribbon functionals.
The corresponding modified ribbon functionals $\cal{M}_{\pm}$
are given by \eqref{M+SOS} and
%
\begin{equation}
\left\langle \cal{M}_-,
e\! \binom{\bold p}{\bold q} \right\rangle
= \delta_{\bold p \bold q} (-1)^m
\frac{D(\frak {r} (\bold p))}{D(\frak {s} (\bold p))}
\quad (\bold p, \bold q \in \EuScript G^m, m \geq 0).
\end{equation}
%
%
%
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
By Theorem \ref{Mcrit}, we have
$\mathrm{MRib} (\mathrm{Hc} ( {\frak A}(w_{N,t,\epsilon})))$ $=$ $\{ \Phi (\pm M) \}$,
where $M \in GL (\Bbb K \EuScript G^1)$ is given by
$M \bold p = D(\frak {r} (\bold p)) D(\frak {s} (\bold p))^{-1} \bold p$ $(\bold p \in \EuScript G^1)$.
Since
%
\begin{align*}
\left\langle \Phi (\pm M),\, e \binom{\bold p}{\bold q} \right\rangle
= & \left( \pm \delta_{\bold p_1 \bold q_1}
\frac{D(\frak {r} (\bold p_1))}{D(\frak {s} (\bold p_1))} \right) \cdots
\left( \pm \delta_{\bold p_m \bold q_m}
\frac{D(\frak {r} (\bold p_m))}{D(\frak {s} (\bold p_m))} \right) \\
= & (\pm 1)^m \delta_{\bold p \bold q}
\frac{D(\frak {r} (\bold p))}{D(\frak {s} (\bold p))}
\end{align*}
%
for each $\bold p = (\bold p_1 \ldots \bold p_m)$,
$\bold q = (\bold q_1, \ldots \bold q_m) \in \EuScript G^m$,
we have
%
\begin{equation}
\langle \Phi (\pm M),\, \det - 1\rangle
= \mathrm{Card} (\EuScript V) ( (\pm 1)^N - 1).
\end{equation}
%
By Proposition \ref{clasquotient}, this proves the assertion.
\end{pf}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{usec1}
In 1959, Buchdahl$^{\cite{Buch}}$ first pointed out a relativistic effect
that a perfect fluid (uncharged) ball cannot have a non-singular static
configuration while its radius $R$ is not larger than 9/8 of its horizon size $R_{g}$ which is twice as large as its mass $M$ in natural units, if the energy
density is assumed not to increase outwards. For an incompressible
ball, pressure singularity will emerge at its center if $R$=(9/8)$R_{g}$.
In 1993, de Felice and Yu$^{\cite{Felice2}}$ found that if a configuration
with inner (central) singular boundary is acceptable, the shell shaped static
configuration can exist for any radius which is larger than $R_g$.
Although some theoretically favorable arguments have been discussed$^{\cite
{Felice3}\cite{Felice4}}$, the singular configuration seems exotic.
For charged balls, the pressure gradient will be partially balanced by the
electric force inside. Thus the central pressure of a dense configuration
will be weakened and the pressure singularity might be
avoided. In 1995, de Felice, Yu and Fang$^{\cite{Felice}}$ did find a series of
non-singular static configurations with $R$ arbitrarily approaching the corresponding horizon size $R_{+}=M+\sqrt{M^2-Q_0^2}$ in the case that $Q_0\to M$, where $Q_0$ is the charge of the ball.
The motivation of this work was to find the critical value of ratio $Q_{0}/M$
for the existence of series of regular static configurations with $R\to R_{+}$. Finally we find out that in case $Q_{0}/M$ is less than 1, no such
configuration exists. That is to say, $Q_{0}=M$ is the only case in which
the series of regular static configurations can contract to approach its horizon size.
In section \ref{usec2}, the general analysis of the problem is given. In section \ref{usec3}, we pose the theorem and prove it. In section \ref{usec4}, the physical meaning of the result is discussed.
\section{The Argument}
\label{usec2}
In the spherically symmetric case, the metric takes the form
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-e^\nu dt^2+e^\lambda dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2. \label{u1}
\end{equation}
Here and here after the natural units system with $G=c=1$ is used. Assuming the
source is made of charged perfect fluid, Einstein's equations
for a static configuration will have the form$^{\cite{Beken}}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{-\lambda }\left(\frac{\lambda ^{\prime }}r-\frac 1{r^2}\right)+\frac 1{r^2} &=&\frac{%
Q^2}{r^4}+8\pi \rho \label{uEin1}, \\
-e^{-\lambda }\left(\frac{\nu ^{\prime }}r+\frac 1{r^2}\right)+\frac 1{r^2} &=&\frac{Q^2%
}{r^4}-8\pi p \label{uEin2}, \\
-\frac{e^{-\lambda }}2\left(\nu ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{\nu ^{\prime }{}^2}2+
\frac{\nu ^{\prime }-\lambda ^{\prime }}r-\frac{\nu ^{\prime }\lambda
^{\prime }}2\right) &=&-\frac{Q^2}{r^4}-8\pi p, \label{uEin3}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho(r)$ and $p(r)$ are its energy density and isotropic
pressure respectively, and $Q(r)$ is the electric charge within the
radius $r$. The primes here stand for the derivatives with respect to $r$. In
general, an equation of state should be taken as input. Instead, we will
consider the energy density $\rho(r)$ as an arbitrary input. The charge distribution should depend on the
electromagnetic property of the medium. Since that property can be
arbitrarily assigned, we will consider $Q(r)$ as another arbitrary input.
Thus the set of equations (\ref{uEin1}) to (\ref{uEin3}) is a complete set for solving $\nu(r)$, $\lambda(r)$ and $p(r)$.
For convenience, we define a new variable $m(r)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
m(r) &=&\int_0^r4\pi x^2\rho (x)dx+\frac 12\int_0^r\frac{Q^2(x)}{x^2
}dx+\frac{Q^2(r)}{2r} \label{u5}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $r=R$ be the surface of the ball, the global parameters are
\begin{eqnarray}
M &=&m(R), \label{u6} \\
Q_0 &=&Q(R), \label{u7}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q_0$ is the total charge of the ball. By using the variable $m(r)$, equation (\ref{uEin1}) can be solved out as
\begin{equation}
e^{-\lambda(r)}=1-\frac{2m}r+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}.\label{u8}
\end{equation}
At the surface, it suits the Reissner-Nordstr\"om metric in standard form. Thus $M$ is called the total mass of the ball.
By eliminating pressure $p$ from equation (\ref{uEin2}) and (\ref{uEin3}), we have
\begin{equation}
\left[e^{\nu -\lambda\over 2}\frac{\nu ^{\prime }}r\right]^{\prime }=\frac{1}{r^2}e^{
\lambda +\nu\over 2}\left(\frac{8Q^2}{r^3}-\frac{6m}{r^2}+8\pi \rho r\right).
\label{u9}
\end{equation}
As mentioned, $\rho(r)$ and $Q(r)$ are considered as inputs, then (\ref{u9}) is a second order differential equation for $\nu(r)$ only. We want our interior solution suits the exterior Reissner-Nordstr\"om metric at the surface. So the boundary conditions for $\nu(r)$ are as what follow:
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{\nu(R)}&=&1-\frac{2M}{R}+\frac{Q_0^2}{R^2}, \label{u10} \\
\left[e^{\nu(R)}\right]^{\prime}&\equiv&{\left[e^{\nu(r)}\right]^{\prime}}_{r=R}={2\over R}\left({M\over R}-{Q_0^2\over R^2}\right). \label{u11}
\end{eqnarray}
We will study the cases with $Q_0<M$ only. In these cases, the exterior horizon size $R_+$ can be expressed by $Q_0$ and $M$ as
\begin{equation}
R_{+}=M+\sqrt{M^2-Q_0^2}. \label{u12}
\end{equation}
For assigned $R$, $Q_0$ and $M$, the solutions of equation (\ref{u9}) which satisfy the boundary conditions (\ref{u10}) and (\ref{u11}) will be called a Mathematical Solution Set (MSS). Each element in the set
is defined by specified inputs of $\rho(r)$ and $Q(r)$. Surely, the solution is not always physically acceptable. We assign the physically acceptable conditions (PAC) as what follow:
\begin{eqnarray}
R&>&R_+, \label{u13} \\
\rho(r)&\ge& 0, \label{u14} \\
e^{\lambda(r)}&>&0, \label{u15} \\
e^{\nu(r)}&>&0. \label{u16}
\end{eqnarray}
These are all necessary conditions. However, we will prove that while the radius $R$ approaches its corresponding horizon size $R_+$, there will be no element in MSS which satisfies PAC. By other words, for $Q_0<M$, there is a $R_0>R_+$ such that NO STATIC PHYSICAL CONFIGURATION WITH $R<R_0$ EXISTS.
Since only the cases with $Q_0<M$ will be considered and only $R>R_+$ needs to be studied, we further define
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_0&\equiv&\sqrt{1-\Delta^2}M, \label{u17} \\
R&\equiv&(1+\epsilon)R_+\ =\ (1+\epsilon)(1+\Delta)M, \label{u18}
\end{eqnarray}
where $0<\Delta\le 1$ and $\epsilon>0$. Then the boundary values of $e^\nu$ and $e^\lambda$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{\nu(R)} &=&\frac{\epsilon +(2+\epsilon )\Delta }{(1+\epsilon )^2(1+\Delta )}\epsilon, \label{u19} \\
e^{\lambda(R)}&=&e^{-\nu(R)}, \label{u20} \\
\left[e^{\nu(R)}\right]'&=&\frac{2(\epsilon +\Delta)}{(1+\epsilon)^3(1+\Delta)^2M} \label{u21}.
\end{eqnarray}
While $\Delta$ is fixed as a finite quantity and $\epsilon$ approaches zero, we see that $e^{\nu(R)}$ is infinitesimal, $[e^{\nu(R)}]'$ is finite and $e^{\lambda(R)}$ is infinite.
\section{The Proof}
\label{usec3}
The main theorem that we want to prove is as what follows:
THEOREM: For $0<\Delta\le 1$, an $\epsilon_0$ (corresponding to $R_0$) can be found so that while $\epsilon<\epsilon_0$, any Element in MSS which satisfies PAC (\ref{u13}), (\ref{u14}) and (\ref{u15}) will always violates PAC (\ref{u16}).
Some preparations are needed.
For any element in MSS, integrating both sides of (\ref{u9}) from $r$ to $R$, we get
\begin{equation}
\left[e^{\frac \nu 2}\right]^{\prime }=\frac r2e^{\frac \lambda 2}\left[\frac{2}{R^2}\left({M\over R}-
\frac{Q_0^2}{R^2}\right)+F_{(r)}\right], \label{u22}
\end{equation}
where the boundary conditions have been used and $F(r)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
F(r)=-\int_r^R\frac{1}{x^2}e^{\frac{\lambda +\nu }2}\left[\frac{8Q^2}{x^3}-
\frac{6m}{x^2}+8\pi \rho x\right]dx. \label{u23}
\end{equation}
We study the behavior of $e^{\nu(r)\over 2}$ and $F(r)$ from the boundary towards its center. At the boundary, we have $e^{\nu(R)}>0$ and $F(R)=0$. Therefore, there is an interval near $R$ in which
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{\nu(r)\over 2}&>&0, \label{u24} \\
F(r)&>&-{1\over R^2}\left({M\over R}-{Q_0^2\over R^2}\right). \label{u25}
\end{eqnarray}
LEMMA: For any element of MSS which satisfies PAC (\ref{u13}), (\ref{u14}) and (\ref{u15}), an $\epsilon_1>0$ can be found such that while $\epsilon<\epsilon_1$, if (\ref{u24}) remains valid in $[\beta R, R]$ and (\ref{u25}) is valid in $(\beta R, R]$, it is impossible to have
\begin{equation}
F(\beta R)=-{1\over R^2}\left({M\over R}-{Q_0^2\over R^2}\right), \label{u26}
\end{equation}
where $\beta<1$ is a positive number.
We prove it in the following way: Suppose that $F(r)$ reaches $-{1\over R^2}\left({M\over R}-{Q_0^2\over R^2}\right)$ at $r=\beta R$, then an $\epsilon_1>0$ can be found such that while $\epsilon<\epsilon_1$, $e^{\nu(\beta R)\over 2}$ will be negative which contradicts (\ref{u24}).
PROOF OF THE LEMMA: In view of (\ref{u25}), (\ref{u22}) shows that $[e^{\nu(r)\over 2}]'>0$ for $r\in(\beta R,R]$. Then we have
\begin{equation}
0<e^{\nu(r)\over 2}\le e^{\nu(R)\over 2}\quad{\rm for\ }r\in[\beta R,R]. \label{u301}
\end{equation}
Rewrite (\ref{u5}) as
\begin{equation}
(2rm-Q^2)'=4\pi\rho r^2-{Q^2\over 2r^2} \label{u27},
\end{equation}
then equation (\ref{u8}) leads to
\begin{equation}
\left[e^{-\frac{\lambda }2}\right]^{\prime }=e^{\frac \lambda 2}\left[\frac
m{r^2}-4\pi \rho r-\frac{Q^2}{r^3}\right]. \label{u28}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the equations (\ref{u8}) and (\ref{u14}) show
\begin{eqnarray}
e^\lambda\ge 1, \label{u29} \\
1>{2m\over r}-{Q^2\over r^2}\ge 0. \label{u30}
\end{eqnarray}
By using formula (\ref{u28}), $F(r)$ turns to be
\begin{eqnarray}
F(r) &=&\int_r^R\frac{10}{x^2}e^{\frac \nu 2}d(e^{-\frac \lambda
2})+\int_r^R\frac{1}{x^2}e^{\frac{\nu +\lambda }2}\left[32\pi \rho x-\frac{4}{x^2}\left(m-
\frac{Q^2}{2x}\right)\right]dx. \label{u31}
\end{eqnarray}
Integrating the first term of RHS by parts and using the boundary condition (\ref{u20}), we get
\begin{eqnarray}
F(r)&=&\frac{10}{R^2}e^{\nu(R)} -\frac{10}{r^2}e^{\frac{\nu(r)-\lambda(r)}2}
+20\int_r^R\frac{1}{x^3}e^{\frac{\nu -\lambda }2}dx \nonumber \\
& &-10\int_r^R\frac{1}{x^2}e^{\frac{-\lambda}2}d(e^{\frac \nu 2})+\int_r^R
\frac{1}{x^2}e^{\frac{\nu +\lambda }2}\left[32\pi \rho x-\frac{4
}{x^2}\left(m-\frac{Q^2}{2x}\right)\right]dx. \label{u32}
\end{eqnarray}
By taking away the positive terms in RHS, the equality turns to be an inequality:
\begin{equation}
F(r)>-\frac{10}{r^2}e^{\frac{\nu(r)-\lambda(r)}2}
-10\int_r^R\frac{1}{x^2}e^{\frac{-\lambda }2}d(e^{\frac \nu 2})
-\int_r^R\frac{4}{x^4}e^{\frac{\nu +\lambda }2}\left(m-\frac{Q^2}{2x}\right)dx \quad {\rm for}\ r\in[\beta R,R].\label{u33}
\end{equation}
Due to inequalities (\ref{u301}), (\ref{u29}), (\ref{u30}) and $r\ge\beta R$, we further have
\begin{equation}
F(r)>-{20\over (\beta R)^2}e^{\nu(R)\over 2}-{2\over (\beta R)^3}e^{\nu(R)\over 2}\int_r^R e^{\lambda\over 2}dx \quad {\rm for}\ r\in[\beta R,R]. \label{u34}
\end{equation}
Suppose $F(r)$ reaches $-{1\over R^2}\left({M\over R}-{Q_0^2\over R^2}\right)$ at $r=\beta R$. Using (\ref{u34}), we get
\begin{eqnarray}
{1\over R^2}({M\over R}-{Q_0^2\over R^2})=-F(\beta R)<{20\over (\beta R)^2}e^{\nu(R)\over 2}+{2\over (\beta R)^3}e^{\nu(R)\over 2}\int_{\beta R}^R e^{\lambda\over 2}dr. \label{u35}
\end{eqnarray}
Now we consider the upper limit of $e^{\nu(\beta R)\over 2}$. By integrating (\ref{u22}) from $\beta R$ to $R$ and using the condition (\ref{u25}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{\nu(\beta R)\over 2}&=&e^{\nu(R)\over 2}
-\int_{\beta R}^R\frac r2e^{\frac\lambda 2}\left\{\frac{1}{R^2}\left({M\over R}-\frac{Q_0^2}{R^2}\right)
+\left[\frac{1}{R^2}\left({M\over R}-\frac{Q_0^2}{R^2}\right)+F(r)\right]\right\}dr \nonumber \\
&<&e^{\nu(R)\over 2}-{\beta\over 2R}\left({M\over R}-\frac{Q_0^2}{R^2}\right)\int_{\beta R}^R e^{\lambda\over 2}dr, \label{u36}
\end{eqnarray}
where $r\ge\beta R$ is also used. Solving out the integral $\int_{\beta R}^R e^{\lambda\over 2}dr$ from (\ref{u35}) and substituting the result into (\ref{u36}), we find inequality (\ref{u36}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{\nu(\beta R)\over 2}
&<&e^{\nu(R)\over 2}-{\beta\over 2}\left({M\over R}-\frac{Q_0^2}{R^2}\right)\left[{{\beta}^3\over 2}e^{-\nu(R)\over 2}\left({M\over R}-\frac{Q_0^2}{R^2}\right)-10\beta\right]. \label{u37}
\end{eqnarray}
So far, the radius $R$ is arbitrary. What we want to prove is that a $\epsilon_1$ (corresponding to $R_1$) does exist such that while $\epsilon<\epsilon_1$, the RHS of (\ref{u37}) will be always negative. This result implies the invalidity of (\ref{u26}).
The negativity of the RHS of (\ref{u37}) means
\begin{equation}
4e^{\nu(R)}\left({M\over R}-{Q_0^2\over R^2}\right)^{-1}+20\beta^2e^{\nu(R)\over 2}
<\beta^4\left({M\over R}-{Q_0^2\over R^2}\right). \label{u38}
\end{equation}
Since it is a dimensionless formula, we express it by parameters $\Delta$ and $\epsilon$, that is
\begin{equation}
20\beta^2\sqrt{\epsilon(\epsilon+2\Delta+\epsilon\Delta)(1+\Delta)}(1+\epsilon)(\Delta+\epsilon)+4\epsilon(\epsilon+2\Delta+\epsilon\Delta)(1+\Delta)(1+\epsilon)^2
<\beta^4(\epsilon+\Delta)^2. \label{u39}
\end{equation}
For $\epsilon=0$, the LHS is zero and RHS is a positive finite quantity, so the inequality (\ref{u39}) is valid. Therefore, a positive $\epsilon_1$ exists such that (\ref{u39}) is valid for any $\epsilon<\epsilon_1$. That ends our proof.
COROLLARY: For $\epsilon<\epsilon_1$, if (\ref{u24}) is valid in the interval $[\beta R, R]$, then (\ref{u25}) must be valid in the same interval.
There is no need to prove the corollary. We turn to prove the main theorem.
PROOF OF THE THEOREM: For any element in MSS which satisfies PAC (\ref{u13}),(\ref{u14}) and (\ref{u15}), we want to prove that if PAC (\ref{u16}) is also assumed to be valid in some interval $[\beta R,R]$, for small enough $\epsilon$, a contrary result will emerge.
By the corollary, the validity of PAC (\ref{u16}) leads to the validity of (\ref{u25}). Then we still have the inequality (\ref{u36}). Here we use $e^\lambda\ge 1$ to evaluate the integral in (\ref{u36}) as
\begin{equation}
\int_{\beta R}^R e^{\lambda\over 2}dr\ge (1-\beta)R. \label{u41}
\end{equation}
Substituting it into (\ref{u36}), we see that if
\begin{equation}
2e^{\nu(R)\over 2}<\beta(1-\beta)\left({M\over R}-{{Q_0}^2\over R^2}\right) \label{u42}
\end{equation}
is valid, $e^{\nu(\beta R)\over 2}$ will certainly be negative. It is contrary to the validity of PAC (\ref{u16}).
We rewrite inequality (\ref{u42}) by using parameters $\Delta$ and $\epsilon$
\begin{equation}
2(1+\epsilon)\sqrt{\epsilon(\epsilon+2\Delta+\Delta\epsilon)}
<{\beta(1-\beta)(\epsilon+\Delta)\over \sqrt{1+\Delta}}. \label{u43}
\end{equation}
Evidently, it is valid for $\epsilon=0$. Then $\epsilon_2$ can be chosen as
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_2={\beta^2(1-\beta)^2\Delta^2\over 16(1+\Delta)(1+3\Delta)}. \label{u44}
\end{equation}
It is not difficult to see, (\ref{u43}) will always be valid for $\epsilon<\epsilon_2$. Finally, we have to choose $\epsilon_0$ as
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_0=\min\{\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2 \} \label{u45}
\end{equation}
to assure the validity of the lemma and its corollary. However, such a $\epsilon_0$ does exist. It ends the proof of our theorem.
\section{Discussions}
\label{usec4}
A. Pressure singularity.
As we know, for an incompressible perfect fluid (uncharged) ball, the pressure
diverges and $e^{\nu}$ reaches zero at the center while $R={9\over 8}R_g$. If $R<{9\over 8}R_g$, the pressure singularity emerges at some $r_0>0$. While $R$ is smaller, the corresponding $r_0$ will be larger. In fact, the same thing happens in the charged case.
Equation (\ref{uEin2}) can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\nu ^{\prime }=2\frac{4\pi rp+\frac m{r^2}-\frac{Q^2}{r^3}}{1-\frac{2m}r+
\frac{Q^2}{r^2}}. \label{u46}
\end{equation}
For each configuration which satisfies PAC (\ref{u13})---(\ref{u15}) and has null $e^{\nu \over 2}$ inside,
suppose
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r\to {r_0}_+}e^{\nu(r)\over 2}=0 \label{u461}
\end{equation}
and $e^{\nu(r)\over 2}$ is positive for $r\in (r_0,R]$.
If there is an upper limit for pressure $p$ in $[r_0,R]$, from equation (\ref{u46}),
we see that $\nu(R)-\nu(r)$ will be finite while $r\to {r_0}_+$.
So $e^{\nu(r)}$ approaches a positive quantity while $r\to {r_0}_+$ which contradicts (\ref{u461}).
It implies that pressure $p$ must diverge at some point in $[r_0,R]$, and equation (\ref{u46}) shows
that $\nu^{\prime }$ diverges at the same point. However, equation
(\ref{u22}) shows that $[e^{\frac \nu 2}]^{\prime }={1\over 2}e^{\nu\over 2}\nu'$ is finite in $[r_0,R]$, then we have that $e^{\nu(r)\over 2}$ approaches zero while $p$ approaches infinity. Because $e^{\nu\over 2}$ is a positive function in $(r_0,R]$, we deduce that pressure approaches infinity at the same point where $e^{\nu \over 2}$ approaches zero for the first time from the boundary inwards.
Qualitatively, pressure increases inwards from $p(R)=0$ and the electric force tends
to weaken the increasing of pressure. As we expected, this effect may avoid the emergence of the pressure singularity. Our theorem shows that while $Q_0<M$, the electric force is not strong enough to avoid the pressure singularity.
\medskip
\noindent B. The case of $Q_0=M$.
In this case, our proof fails to be valid since the $\epsilon_0>0$ cannot be found. In fact, the opposite can be proved. If the given $\rho(r)$ and $Q(r)$ satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{-\lambda }(r) &\ge &1-\frac{2r^2}{R^2}\left({M\over R}-{Q_0^2\over 2R^2}\right),
\label{u47} \\
\frac{6m}{r^2} &\le &\frac{8Q^2}{r^3}+8\pi r\rho, \label{u48}
\end{eqnarray}
elements in MSS satisfying PAC (\ref{u13})---(\ref{u16}) do exist for $R\to R_+$. The solution found by de Felice et al. offers an example. Other series of models can also be produced. However, it is worthy of noting that PAC (\ref{u13})---(\ref{u16}) are necessary conditions only. So it does not imply that static physical configurations do exist while $R\to R_+$.
\medskip
\noindent C. The involved assumptions.
We conclude that no static physical configuration exists for $R\to R_+$ if $Q_0<M$. Here only some naive assumptions are used. They are
1: the charged ball is made of perfect fluid,
2: The energy density $\rho(r)$ is non-negative everywhere.
\noindent No particular assumption for property of the medium is involved.
|
\section{Introduction}
A plasma instability theory for the prompt
emission of gamma-ray bursts is presented.\cite{brainerd4}
In this theory, a relativistic shell with $\Gamma \gg 1$
passes through the interstellar medium. Two plasma
instabilities, the filamentation instability and
the two-stream instability, generate a magnetic field
and heat the electrons to relativistic energies.
The heated electrons emit synchrotron radiation in the
radio to optical bands and synchrotron
self-Compton radiation from the optical to gamma-ray
bands.
This theory produces the observed
prompt gamma-ray emission seen in all bursts, and
the prompt optical emission seen in
GRB~990123. The magnetic field generated by the
filamentation instability is calculated from first
principals. Lower limits on $\Gamma$ and $n_{ism}$
arise from the requirement that the model efficiently
radiate gamma-rays. The limit on density requires
each gamma-ray burst to be surrounded by a medium that
is optically thick to Compton attenuation.
The limit on $\Gamma$ suggests that there exists a class
of transient that produces optical and ultraviolet emission
but no gamma-ray emission.
One of the more interesting aspects of the theory
is that the plasma instabilities cannot satisfy
the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions, so a shock is
not produced by these instabilities. As
a consequence, the interstellar medium remains
in place after passage of the relativistic shell.
This permits the interstellar medium to interact with
multiple relativistic shells to produce
the complex time structure seen
in gamma-ray burst light profiles.
\section{Plasma Instabilities}
Two instabilities arise when a plasma streams through a second
plasma at a highly relativistic velocity. The first is the
filamentation instability, while the second is the two-stream
instability.\cite{davidson1}
Of these, the former has the higher growth rate.
The growth rate of the filamentation instability as measured
in the shell rest frame is
\begin{equation}
\gamma^{\prime}_{f} \approx {1 \over 2} \sqrt{ { 4 \pi e^2 \over m } }
\, n_{ism}^{{1 \over 2}}
\, ,
\end{equation}
where $n_{ism}$ is the number density of the interstellar medium in
the ISM rest frame, and $m$ is the mass of the filamenting plasma
component of the ISM.
The filamentation occurs for wave numbers perpendicular to the
velocity vector that obey the inequality
\begin{equation}
k_{\perp} > \omega_{p,e,shell}^{\prime}/c \, .
\end{equation}
In other words, the length scale of the filamentation is set by the
electron plasma
frequency of the shell as measured in the rest frame of the shell.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{figure=06_JBrainerd1_1.ps, width=4.0in}
\caption{Fraction of energy that goes into magnetic field
and ion thermalization through the filamentation
instability. This is measured in the rest frame of the
shell. The energy available is the energy of the interstellar medium
streaming through the shell.
The curves are plotted as the ratio $n_{ism}/n_{shell}^{\prime}$.
The solid curve gives the fraction of energy in magnetic field. This
fraction is independent of $\Gamma$. The dotted curve gives the fraction
of energy that goes into ion thermal energy. The upper curve is for
$\Gamma = 10^4$, while the lower is for $\Gamma = 10^3$. The squares
mark the value of $\eta$ that one expects from the Rankine-Hugoniot
relations for $\Gamma = 10^3$, while the diamonds mark this relation
for $\Gamma = 10^4$.
}
\end{figure}
The filament is a magnetic pinch, with a toroidal magnetic field that is
formed when the particles in the filament collapse to the center of the
filament.
The filament grows until its growth rate equals the bounce frequency of a
particle across the magnetic pinch. This saturation
defines the maximum magnetic field that can be generated.\cite{davidson2,lee}
For both ions
and electrons, the maximum field strength is the same
\begin{equation}
{B^{\prime \, 2} \over 8 \pi }
= { m_e c^2 n_{ism}^2 \Gamma^2 \over n_{shell}^{\prime} }
\end{equation}
One finds that for
$n_{shell}^{\prime}/n_{ism} = \Gamma$, which is a natural value
for the efficient emission of radiation,
the magnetic field is $B^{\prime} = 0.14 \, \hbox{G}$ when $\Gamma = 10^3$ and
$n_{ism} = 1 \, \hbox{cm}^{-3}$, and $B^{\prime} = 45.4 \, \hbox{G}$
when $\Gamma = 10^3$ and $n_{ism} = 10^5 \, \hbox{cm}^{-3}$.
The energy extracted from the interstellar medium and converted
into magnetic and thermal
energy is small. This is shown in Figure~1. As a consequence, even when
the Rankine-Hugoniot condition on $n_{shell}^{\prime}$ of
$n_{shell}^{\prime}/n_{ism} = \Gamma$ is satisfied,
the fraction of kinetic energy that is converted to thermal and magnetic
energy is tiny, so that the interstellar medium continues to stream
through the shell.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{figure=06_JBrainerd1_2.ps, width=4.0in}
\caption{Characteristic observed
photon energies for $n_{ISM} = 1 \, \hbox{cm}^{-3}$.
The solid curves give characteristic energies
for single scattering synchrotron self-Compton emission.
The dotted curves are for synchrotron emission. The upper
pair are for $\Gamma = 10^4$, while the lower pair
are for $\Gamma = 10^3$. Note that each of these curves
peak at $\eta \approx \Gamma^{-1}$. Only the synchrotron
self-Compton emission is capable of producing gamma-ray
emission.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{figure=06_JBrainerd1_3.ps, width=4.0in}
\caption{Characteristic observed
photon energies for $n_{ISM} = 10^{5} \, \hbox{cm}^{-3}$. These
curves are as in Figure 3a. As in the previous case, only
the synchrotron
self-Compton emission is capable of producing gamma-ray
emission, although the synchrotron emission can produce
hard x-ray emission for case of $\Gamma = 10^4$.
}
\end{figure}
The two-stream instability acts on the electrons to bring them into
an equilibrium with the two ion streams. This instability
grows at the rate of
\begin{equation}
\gamma^{\prime}_{2s} \approx {1 \over 2} \sqrt{{ 4 \pi e^2 \over m_e}}
n_{ism}^{{1 \over 2}} \Gamma^{-1} \, .
\end{equation}
The growth rate of the electron two-stream instability is
smaller than the ion filamentation instability by the factor of
$m_{p}^{1/2}/m_e^{1/2} \Gamma \approx 0.04$. The two stream
instability will grow until the electron Lorentz factor is of order
$\Gamma$. At this point, the system becomes stable. This instability
therefore only converts $m_e/m_p$ of the total energy of the interstellar
medium into thermal energy.
\section{Radiative Mechanisms}
The two radiative mechanisms at work in this theory are synchrotron
emission and synchrotron self-Compton emission. The characteristic
energy of each process is given in Figures 2 and 3 for
$n_{ism} = 1 \, \hbox{cm}^{-3}$ and $n_{ism} = 10^5 \, \hbox{cm}^{-3}$. This
characteristic energy defines the maximum energy
of the continuum as defined by the maximum energy of the electron
distribution. The minimum energy of the synchrotron emission
is given by the cyclotron energy, which is
\begin{equation}
\nu = 2.68 \times 10^{8} \, \hbox{Hz} \,
n_{ism}^{{1 \over 2}} \Gamma_3^{{3 \over 2}} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_3 = \Gamma/10^3$.
This value is smaller than the characteristic synchrotron energy by
the factor of $\Gamma^2$.
The synchrotron self-Compton energy range is determined by a single
scattering, since more than one scattering takes the photons to the
characteristic electron energy.
The minimum energy is set by $\Gamma^2$ times the cyclotron resonance
energy, so that the low end of the synchrotron self-Compton continuum
overlaps the high end of the synchrotron continuum.
The characteristic Compton scattering
energy is a factor of $\Gamma^2$ larger than this. From the figures,
one sees that for $\Gamma > 10^3$, the energy range of the Compton scattered
radiation extends above $1 \hbox{MeV}$.
For a lower value of $\Gamma$, the cooling occurs predominately at
optical and ultraviolet wavelengths. Because gamma-ray bursts are
identified by their gamma-ray emission, bursts with $\Gamma < 10^3$ will
not be observed. This suggests that there exists a class of burst
phenomena with optical and ultraviolet emission, but no gamma-ray emission.
\section{Selection Effects}
The emission of gamma-rays defines one selection effect. In order to
produce gamma-rays, $\Gamma > 10^3$. This provides an explanation
for the absence of photon-photon pair creation in gamma-ray bursts,
as demonstrated by the absence of gamma-ray bursts with thermal
spectra.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{figure=06_JBrainerd1_4.ps, width=4.0in}
\caption{Lower limits on the interstellar medium
number density. This is as a function of the shell Lorentz
factor $\Gamma$. The solid curve is for radiative processes
radiating at a rate equal to the rate at which energy is transferred
to electrons from the streaming ions. The dotted curve is for radiative
processes radiating at 10\% of the rate at which energy is
transferred to electrons. To efficiently radiate energy, the interstellar
medium number density must be above these curves. The provides a
selection effect: only burst sources surrounded by high density material
will produce observable gamma-ray bursts.
}
\end{figure}
A second selection effect that comes into play in this theory
concerns the efficient production of gamma-rays. If the density is
too low, the rate of radiative cooling is far below the rate at which
electrons are thermalized.
Such bursts would be dim relative to their high-density
counterparts. The most observable bursts are
therefore those with a sufficiently high $n_{ism}$ to
efficiently convert electron thermal energy into gamma-rays.
This lower limit on $n_{ism}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
n_{ism} > 8.22 \times 10^{4} \hbox{cm}^{-3}
{\cal M}_{27}^{-{1 \over 2}} \Gamma_3^{-{13 \over 4}}
f_{emis}^{-{3 \over 2}} \left( { R \over R_0 } \right)^{{3 \over 4}}
\end{equation}
where $f_{emis}$ is the fraction of electrons at the characteristic energy,
where $R/R_0 \approx \left( m_p/m_e \right)^{1/3}$ is the distance traveled
when $\Gamma$ drops by a factor of 2 relative
to the distance traveled when the ISM is swept up, all under the assumption that
the heating of the electrons represent the maximum energy loss,
and where ${\cal M}_{27}$ is the mass of the shell per unit ster radian
in units of $10^{27} \, \hbox{gm}$.
The limit given by this last equation is plotted in Figure 4 as a solid
line. A similar curve that gives emission that is 10\% effective
at radiating the energy converted into thermal energy is plotted as
a dotted line. The importance of this limit is that the gamma-ray
burst mechanism requires a high density interstellar medium to operate
efficiently. When the burst radiates efficiently, the interstellar
medium is of sufficient density to attenuate the
gamma-ray spectrum through Compton scattering.\cite{brainerd1}
This provides the plasma instability theory with a mechanism that gives
the spectrum a characteristic energy of
several hundred keV, despite the broad spectral
range of the synchrotron self-Compton
continuum, and its strong dependence on $\Gamma$.
Such a mechanism is required to correctly reproduce
the observed spectra.\cite{brainerd2,brainerd3}
\section{Discussion}
The plasma instability theory discussed above is a new mechanism to
produce prompt gamma-ray burst emission. It has several unique features.
\begin{itemize}
\item The plasma instability theory produces
the prompt gamma-ray emission without creating a shock. This implies
that additional gamma-ray bursts can occur in the
interstellar medium when new relativistic shells are ejected by
the source, because the region is not cleared of material.
\item The requirement that the mechanism efficiently
produce gamma-rays introduces selection effects, so that
bursts have $\Gamma > 10^3$ and $n_{ism} > 10^5 \hbox{cm}^{-3}$.
\item There exists a class of optical transient that has no gamma-ray
emission. These bursts differ from gamma-ray bursts in having $\Gamma < 10^3$.
\item The lower limit on $n_{ism}$ ensures that gamma-ray bursts
are always in region in which Compton attenuation by the surrounding
interstellar medium occurs.
\end{itemize}
The next step in developing this theory is to undertake a numerical
study of the plasma instabilities. The goal of the study will be
to confirm the analytic results discussed above, and to provide
a precise calculation of the electron distribution produced by
the instabilities. A second aspect of the theory that will be
examined is the afterglow radiation produced in this theory;
the cooling of the region behind the relativistic shells gives
a light curve that differs from the light curve created by
the decelerating shell, adding a complexity to the afterglow
from this theory that is not present in the shock theories
of afterglow radiation. Finally, calculations of model spectra
and their comparison to observed spectra is will be undertaken.
In particular, a comparison of the optical and gamma-ray
spectrum of this model to that of GRB~990123\cite{akerlof}
is planned. This study will test whether the prompt optical
and gamma-ray emission are part of a single synchrotron
self-Compton continuum.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
Since Penzias \& Wilson published their groundbreaking report of
the existence of the CBR (1965), experimentalists have been
checking to see if the CBR is polarized. CBR polarization
experiments are challenging. Predicted polarization signals are
an order of magnitude below the levels at which CBR anisotropy
experiments have only just begun to detect signals. Typical
polarization signals are a few $\mu$K. The most significant
challenges include achieving adequate statistical sensitivity,
limiting systematic errors sufficiently to detect the small
polarization signal, and discriminating the CBR polarization
from foreground sources such as galactic synchrotron radiation.
To date, no polarization has been detected, but several
experiments which have just begun operation or plan to within the
year are designed to reach the sensitivities required to detect
polarized signals of about the size predicted by CDM models.
Figure \ref{fig-lvsnu} shows the angular resolution and frequency coverage
of
the new and recent experiments. Some details about the
experiments are listed in Table \ref{tbl-1}.
\begin{figure}[p]
\epsfxsize=2.75cm \epsfbox[70 520 170 620]{figure1.eps}
\vspace{5.0in}
\caption{ A figure schematically indicating the multipole and
frequency coverage of current and upcoming experiments. The frequency
coverage shown indicates the {\em range} of frequencies probed by
the experiments; in no case is the frequency coverage continuous.
See Table \ref{tbl-1} for more information.
The lower figure shows the E-polarization spectrum and the
absolute value of the TE correlation expected for a typical CDM
model. (The actual parameters are $\Omega_b = 0.05$, $\Lambda =
0$, $h = 0.65$, and $\Omega_{tot}=1$.) For an explanation of
``E" polarization, see, for example, Zaldarriaga \& Seljak, 1997.
The spectra were generated with CMBFAST (Seljak \& Zaldarriaga
1996).} \label{fig-lvsnu}
\end{figure}
After a brief inspection of Figure \ref{fig-lvsnu}, one sees that
the experimentalist is faced with a difficult choice. Should
s/he design an experiment to search for a CBR polarization signal
at large angles, where the spectrum codes information about
reionization and the existence of tensor fluctuations? Such an
experiment has the potential of enormous scientific payback if
the CBR exhibits the coherent oscillation anisotropy
spectrum predicted by models with adiabatic initial fluctuations
amplified by a period of inflation. Also, a horn antenna can be
used to attain beamwidths of a few degrees, without the need for
reflectors which might introduce certain systematic errors.
However, the aforementioned models
predict that the CBR polarization anisotropy will be very small,
less than $0.1$~$\mu$K, at angular scales larger than a couple of
degrees.
Extant limits at those angular scales are more than three orders of
magnitude greater than the expected signal.
The other choice for the experimentalist is to design an experiment
to probe the polarization anisotropy at smaller angular scales,
where the predicted signal from standard CDM is larger. These
experiments must contend with polarized offsets due to the use of
reflectors (or lenses).
At present, groups are pursuing both lines of attack, as
indicated in Figure \ref{fig-lvsnu}. The space-based MAP and Planck
satellites plan to collect data from large fractions of the sky
with small resolutions, which allows probing of small and large
angular scales at once. Ground-based experiments complement the
satellite missions because of their ability to probe specific
regions of sky more deeply. MAP, for example, is expected to only make a
statistical detection of the polarization anisotropy, while
ground-based experiments should be able to detect polarization
directly. Also, since no detections of polarization have yet
been claimed, experimenters and analysts may not yet have
beaten down all the relevant systematic errors which will plague
the measurements; the ground-based experiments will address
systematic effects as they become evident. Experience on the
ground may prove helpful to the satellite experiments.
A further distinction is that the
current crop of ground-based experiments
compare the orthogonal linear polarization components
within a single beam at a time rather than comparing them between beams
separated on the sky.
\begin{figure}[p]
\epsfxsize=3.0cm \epsfbox[120 520 220 620]{figure2.eps}
\vspace{6.0in}
\caption{The state of the field: approximate experimental limits on the CBR
polarization. The same CDM model as in Figure \ref{fig-lvsnu}
is sketched in for reference.}\label{fig-polimit}
\end{figure}
\section{Overview of Techniques}
Figure \ref{fig-polimit} presents current experimental limits on the CBR
polarization.
The first experiments dedicated toward detecting or limiting the
CBR polarization (Caderni et al.\ 1978; Nanos 1979; Lubin \&
Smoot 1979, 1981;
Lubin, Melese \& Smoot 1983) modulated the polarization of the incoming
signal
(either with a Faraday switch or a mechanical rotating analyzer)
and locked in at the modulation frequency to measure $Q$ or $U\!$,
depending on the orientation of the polarimeter. The increased
sensitivity of bolometer-based and HEMT\footnote{HEMT stands for
high electron mobility transistor; amplifiers using HEMTs have
very low noise
(Pospieszalski 1992, 1995).}-amplifier-based
radiometers being built today is such that the systematic
effects associated with the Faraday switch may be too
large to tolerate. (Faraday switches are very sensitive to
temperature variations and external magnetic field variations.)
The modulation frequency of a mechanically rotating analyzer is
limited in practice. Several new methods of Dicke-switching are
described below.
One other experimental limit appears in Figure \ref{fig-polimit}, the limit
from
the Saskatoon anisotropy experiment (Wollack et al.\ 1993),
at $\ell\approx 80$. This
experiment collected temperature differences between patches on
the sky, $\Delta T_i$. Measurements of $\Delta T_i$ were made in
two orthogonal linear polarizations, so that the polarization
anisotropy limit comes from comparing the two sets of $\Delta
T_i$. Thus, the variance of the polarization anisotropy measured
includes a component due to the spatial variation of the
(unpolarized) atmosphere. In other words, the best limit on the
plot comes from an experiment optimized to measure the
temperature anisotropy, not the polarization!\footnote{In fact,
later data from Saskatoon at a slightly larger $\ell$ give an
even lower limit to the polarization, but the full analysis has
not yet been completed. (Page 1999).} The current crop
of polarization experiments (with the exception of some satellite
missions which do not have to contend with atmospheric spatial
variations) measure the difference between two orthogonal linear
polarizations within a single beam at a time.
Receivers used in the current experiments dedicated to
polarimetery of the CBR may be divided into two categories:
1) bolometer pairs read out in an AC bridge, such as the
bolometer-bridge polarimeter invented for use in the Polatron
experiment described below and 2)
HEMT-amplifier correlation receivers. Correlation receivers
(Fujimoto, 1964; Rohlfs \& Wilson, 1996)
comprise two types also: a) receivers in which the two signals
proportional to the electric fields
from the two orthogonal polarizations are multiplied together
directly in
a nonlinear device and b) receivers in which the two signals are
split and recombined with appropriate phase shifts into four
signals which are subsequently detected and differenced to give
$Q$ and $U$. The former type of correlation receiver is
typically less bulky and capable of larger bandwidths than the
latter, but requires care to ensure sufficient dynamic range.
All these receivers may be Dicke-switched rapidly.
In particular, the correlation receivers may be phase-switched at
several kilohertz, fast enough to overcome the $1/f$ knee of even
the highest frequency (90~GHz) HEMT amplifiers. The switching is
achieved by inserting a relative phase shift of $0\deg$ or
$180\deg$ between the two
incoming signals; the output of a correlation receiver is
proportional to $\cos\theta$, where $\theta$ is the total phase
shift between the two incoming signals. Direct-multiplication
correlators are used in the POLAR and PIQU experiments, while the
Milano polarimeter and the SPOrt experiment use
detect-and-difference correlation schemes. (Peter Timbie
pioneered the use of direct-multiplication correlation receivers
for CBR anisotropy in the 1980's: reference Timbie.)
\section {Polarization Experiments at the Turn of the Millenium}
Due to the authors' familiarity with three of the current
ground-based polarization experiments, we devote unequal attention to those
in
what follows. For completeness, we mention five other
experiments of which we are aware. The frequency coverage and
$\ell$ coverage of these experiments is depicted in Figure
\ref{fig-lvsnu}.
Much of the other pertinent information is condensed in Table \ref{tbl-1}.
First we discuss ground-based experiments, beginning with the
experiment sensitive to the smallest angular scales. Then we
discuss space-based experiments briefly.
\subsection{The VLA 8.4~GHz CBR Project.}
Partridge et al.\ (1997) recently completed imaging and analysis of a
40~arcmin$^2$ field at 8.44~GHz
with 6\arcsec resolution, using the VLA.
The signals were collected in circular polarization, and all four
Stokes parameters recovered. The data came from 159 hours of
observations; such a project is unlikely to be repeated.
This work follows up on
earlier work at lower resolution (Fomalont et al.\ 1993) and at
lower frequency (Partridge et al.\ 1988).
These three papers contain the only published CBR polarization
limits from interferometry to date; the results are summarized
in Figure \ref{fig-polimit}.
\subsection{The Polatron.}
The Polatron experiment is being built by a team comprising
members from Caltech, Stanford University and Queen Mary and
Westfield College. The Polatron will be used to search for CBR
polarization on arcminute angular scales where the amplitude of
the polarization power spectrum is expected to peak.
Observations will be made at a frequency of 100\,GHz where
confusion from polarized foregrounds is expected to be a minimum.
The corrugated entrance feed of the Polatron will be
located at the Cassegrain focus of the 5.5\,m dish at the Owens
Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO), generating a $2.5'$ beam on the
sky. A broad-band OMT (orthomode transducer, see Chattopadhyay
et al.\ 1999) splits the incoming signal into two orthogonal
linear polarizations. The backend of the polarimeter feeds two
bolometers, each of which detects one of the linear polarization
states that comes from the OMT. Metal-mesh resonant filters
located between the OMT and the bolometers define a 20\% passband
centered at 96\,GHz. An AC-bridge readout circuit (see, for
example, Holzapfel et al.\ 1997) will be used to difference the
outputs from the two bolometers. At any instance, this
differencing scheme permits the measurement of a single Stokes
parameter (Q or U). By rotating the plane of polarization by
45$^\circ$ with a quartz half-wave plate located in front of the
entrance feed, a second Stokes parameter (U or Q) is then
measured.
The silicon nitride metal-mesh bolometers (Bock et al.\ 1996) that
will be used in the Polatron are identical to those that will be
flown as part of the Planck Surveyor High Frequency Instrument
(HFI) in 2006. The bolometers will be operated at 250\,mK where
they will have NEPs significantly lower than the background
photon noise limit. In 1 second of integration on a single
$2.5'$ pixel, the Polatron is expected to measure each Stokes
parameter to a precision of 700\,$\mu$K.
The Polatron will be commissioned in the summer of 1999 and will
make its first observations in the winter of 1999/2000. In 6
months it is expected that the Polatron will observe 850 $2.5'$
pixels to a sensitivity of 8\,$\mu$K per pixel in each of Q and
U. In a standard CDM model, this will be sufficient to detect
rms polarization at 5$\sigma$. Over its projected four-year
lifetime, the Polatron plans to map out the polarization anisotropy
between $\ell=200$ and $\ell=2600$.
\subsection{The PIQU Experiment.}
A group at Princeton University has designed an experiment
nicknamed PIQU, for Princeton IQU, a reference to the Stokes
parameters the experiment eventually plans to measure.
PIQU will measure the polarization at small angular scales at two
frequencies, 40~GHz and 90~GHz, with multiple horns in the focal
plane.
The experiment uses a 1.4~m off-axis parabola fed with a
corrugated horn antenna to provide a beamwidth of $0\fdg 23$
for the 90~GHz radiometer. The RF signals from the two arms of
an OMT, corresponding to two linear orthogonal polarizations from
the sky, are mixed down to a 2--18~GHz IF, split into three
sub-bands, and then directly
multiplied together in a broad bandwidth mixer. The front end of
the instrument uses HEMT amplifiers cooled to about 12~K.
Phase-switching at 4~kHz is done in one LO line. Phase tuners in the IF
lines and the LO line allow balancing of the phase to $\pm
20\deg$, such that the bandwidth degradation is less than 10\%.
The phase-one
instrument, PIQ-90, measures only one of $Q$ and $U$, chosen to be the
polarization with the most symmetry with respect to the
experimental apparatus, in an effort to minimize systematic
effects. This instrument operates at 90~GHz and will be deployed
to the roof of Princeton in the spring of 1999. A separate 40~GHz
cryostat is being developed and will be operated in a follow-up
data run subsequently. The 40~GHz receiver shares the IF components of
the 90~GHz receiver. In subsequent years, multiple horns will be
placed in the focal plane, using a larger cryostat, so that
multiple multifrequency measurements may be made simultaneously.
\subsection {The POLAR Experiment.}\label{sec-polar}
The Polarizaton Observations of Large Angular Regions (POLAR)
experiment has been designed and built by the Observational
Cosmology Group at the University of Wisconsin--Madison. POLAR
is designed to measure the CBR's $Q$ and $U$ Stokes parameters in
several broad bands
between 26 and 100 GHz. POLAR observes the CBR
polarization at large ($7^{\circ}$ FWHM) angular
scales--comparable to the COBE satellite. At these angular scales the
rms CBR polarization signal is expected to be quite small ($<1
\mu$K) unless the Universe was reionized at an early epoch
corresponding to a $z\sim100$. The raw system
noise of POLAR is a factor of 100 smaller than the instrument
that was used to set the current upper limits on large angular
scales (Lubin, Melese \& Smoot, 1983).
The primary goal of POLAR is to
reach a sensitivity level of $\Delta$T$_{Pol}/$T$_{CBR}\le 10^{-
6}$. At this level, POLAR will either detect polarization in the
CBR or place a tight constraint on the epoch of reionization.
POLAR employs a correlation radiometer that uses a corrugated feed horn to
couple the CBR into an orthomode transducer which decomposes the
incoming radiation into two linear polarizations. These two
linear polarized components are amplified using
two HEMT amplifiers
cooled to $\sim$15 K in a cryocooler.
After an additional stage of ambient temperature amplification,
the two parallel signal chains are mixed down to an intermediate
frequency band (2-12 GHz) where they are multiplied.
The IF is subdivided into three equal bands for
additional foreground discrimination. The output of the correlator
is proportional to $Q\sin 2\alpha +U\cos 2\alpha$ where $\alpha$
is the orientation of the polarimeter. POLAR began observations in the
Ka-band (26-36 GHz) in September 1998 at the University of
Wisconsin's Pine Bluff Observatory. POLAR observes $\sim 36$
spots directly overhead in a strip at a declination of
$43\deg$. Later in 1999, POLAR will add either a W-band (90-100
GHz) or Q-band (35-45~GHz) polarimeter (in the same cryostat)
which will observe
simultaneously with the Ka-band system. This additional
polarimeter will help significantly in discriminating against
foreground contamination. For additional information regarding
POLAR, see Keating et al.\ 1998 and
{\it http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/polar/.} Future plans for the
POLAR team include collaborating with UC-Santa Barbara to develop
a small angular scale ($\approx 10'$) polarimeter.
\subsection{The Milano Polarimetry Project.}
Sironi et al.\ (1998) have built and operated a 33 GHz
polarimeter coupled to a $14\deg$ corrugated feed horn. The
correlation receiver uses a phase discriminator comprising
several $90\deg$ hybrid tees (which output an incoming signal on
two ports which have a $90\deg$ phase difference between them)
and one $180\deg$ hybrid tee. Both $Q$ and $U$ are observed
simultaneously. An extension to the feed horn allows data to be
taken at $7\deg$; data have also been collected in this mode
(Sironi 1999). Future plans include mounting the polarimeter at
the Cassegrain focus of the 2.6 m dish at Testa Grigia (Sironi et
al. 1998), which would allow measurements
with a $1\deg$ beam.
\subsection{Space-based Experiments.}
The MAP and Planck Surveyor satellites are designed to measure the CBR
temperature anisotropy across the entire sky. Both will also
measure polarization. MAP, which is set to launch in fall of
2000, should make a statistical detection of polarization
anisotropy. Planck, with proposed launch date of 2007, will be
sensitive enough to detect polarization directly for most
CDM models. SPOrt is an
experiment dedicated to measuring CBR polarization. SPOrt is
meant to be deployed on the International Space Station in 2001 or 2002.
The MAP satellite (Jarosik et al. 1998) will use
polarization-sensitive radiometers to observe the whole sky, with a
frequency-dependent resolution ranging from $0\fdg21$ to
$0\fdg93$. Data will be collected in five bands, from
22~GHz to 90~GHz. The receivers are phase-switched at 2.5~kHz,
and use HEMT amplifiers. Corrugated feed horns couple to OMTs to
separate two orthogonal linear polarizations. The primary
reflectors are back to back $1.4\mbox{ m }\times1.6\mbox{ m}$
dishes. The difference data consist of $T_A - T_{B^\prime}$ and
$T_B - T_{A^\prime}$ where $A$ and $A^\prime$ designate the two
orthogonal linear polarizations from horn A, and similarly for
$B$ and $B^\prime$. From such pairs of numbers one can derive a
full-sky map of the polarization of the sky (Wright, Hinshaw, \&
Bennett 1995). Most of the radiometers are completely
constructed and tested. More information is available at
{\it http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/technical\_info.html}.
The Planck satellite (Tauber 1998) has two sets of receivers, the LFI set
and
the HFI set, for ``Low-Frequency Instrument" and ``High-Frequency
Instrument." The HEMT-based LFI radiometers are all linearly polarized, and
include four bands between 30 and 100~GHz. The angular resolution
for the LFI ranges from $0\fdg55$ to $0\fdg20$.
The HFI receivers use bolometers. Three of the six HFI
frequency bands are linearly polarized (143~GHz, 217~GHz and
545~GHz). The resolution for polarized bands ranges from
$0\fdg13$ to $0\fdg08$.
More information is available at
{\it http://astro.estec.esa.nl/SA-general/Projects/Planck/}.
The SPOrt project (Cortiglioni, et al. 1998) aims to measure the
polarization of over 80\% of the sky in $7\deg$ patches in
several frequency bands between 20 and 90~GHz. The receivers are
correlation receivers of the detect-and-difference variety, using
phase-switching, and measuring $Q$ and $U$ simultaneously.
\section{Summary and Discussion}
In addition to the CBR brightness spectrum and the temperature
anisotropy, the CBR polarization represents the third treasure trove of
information encoded in the CBR. The small polarization signal raises
large barriers that undermine the ability to extract this information.
These barriers include obtaining the requisite statistical sensitivity,
minimizing systematic errors, and discriminating against foreground
contamination. (See Tegmark, these proceedings.)
The experiments described above overcome these barriers in a variety of
different ways.
Long integration times (roughly 10
hours/pixel/detector) with ever more sensitive detectors will yield the
statistical sensitivity needed to detect CBR polarization.
These experiments will have to minimize systematic effects at levels
that have yet to be charted. The minimization of these systematic
effects impacts the design and implementation of experiments in many
different ways as demonstrated by the variety of experiments described
above. The foregrounds that could contaminate CBR polarization
are not well characterized.
Polarized galactic synchrotron radiation is the only
known foreground, and its intensity (much less its polarization) has
yet to be measured at high galactic latitudes at the relevant
frequencies. The best way to marginalize this ignorance is to perform
multifrequency measurements, as temperature anisotropy experiments
have shown.
Since the {\em best} overall approach has yet to be determined, the
community will invariably benefit from the variety of
experimental approaches described above.
\begin{table}
\caption{Parameters of ongoing CBR polarization experiments are
compiled here. References are given in the text, except in those
cases where the information is communicated by
the authors.} \label{tbl-1}
\begin{center}\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
Experiment & beamsize\tablenotemark{a} & frequency &
Receiver\tablenotemark{b} & Site \\
& & GHz & &\\
\tableline
VLA & $0\fdg 02$ & 8.44 & int & NM desert \\
POLATRON & $0\fdg 04$ & 96 & bolo br & OVRO \\
PLANCK HFI & $0\fdg 08$ & 143, 217, 545 & bolo & space L2 \\
PIQU & $0\fdg 22$ & 40, 92 & HCdm & Princeton, NJ \\
PIQU2\tablenotemark{c} & $\la 0\fdg 2$ & 40, 92 & HCdm & high alt site \\
MAP & $0\fdg 23$ & 22, 33, 40, 61, 98 & HTP & space L2 \\
PLANCK LFI & $0\fdg 20$ & 30,44,70,100 & HTP & space L2 \\
POLAR & $7\deg$ & 30 \& 40 or 90 & HCdm & Madison, WI\\
SBUW\tablenotemark{c} & $\la 0\fdg 2$ & 30 \& 40 or 90 & HCdm & high alt US
\\
SPORT & $7\deg$ & 22, 32, 60, 90 & HCdd & space station \\
Milano & $7\deg, 14\deg$ & 33 & HCdd & Antarctica\\
Milano2\tablenotemark{c} & $1\deg$ & 33 & HCdd & Alps\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\tablenotetext{a}{The smallest beamsize is given; most of the
experiments have frequency-dependent beamsizes.}
\tablenotetext{b}{Receiver types include {\bf int}
(inteferometer), {\bf bolo br} (bolometers in AC bridge),
{\bf bolo} (bolometers), {\bf HCdm} (HEMT correlation receivers with
direct multiplication), {\bf HCdd} (HEMT correlation receivers using
recombination of signals with appropriate phases, followed by
detection and differencing), and {\bf HTP} (HEMT total power -- see
text and the MAP website for more information.)}
\tablenotetext{c} {These three experiments are planned upgrades to
existing experiments; the exact parameters are not yet
determined. SBUW is a collaboration between UC--Santa Barbara and the
existing POLAR team.}
\end{table}
|
\section{Introduction}
Galaxy clusters play an important role in the models for structure
formation based on the gravitational instability hypothesis. They are
the most extended gravitationally bound systems in the Universe. For
this reason the study of their properties is a useful tool to
constrain the parameters entering in the definition of the
cosmological scenarios. In particular, their abundance and spatial
distribution (also as a function of redshift) have been used to obtain
estimates of the mass fluctuation amplitude and of the density parameter
$\Omega_0$ (e.g. Eke, Cole \& Frenk 1996; Viana \& Liddle 1996; Mo,
Jing \& White 1996; Oukbir, Bartlett \& Blanchard 1997; Eke et
al. 1998; Sadat, Blanchard \& Oubkir 1998; Viana \& Liddle 1999;
Borgani, Plionis \& Kolokotronis 1999; Borgani et al. 1999). In the
past years many different groups have compiled deep cluster surveys
in the optical band, which have been used to compute the clustering
properties of galaxy clusters. The first results showed that clusters
are strongly correlated, with a correlation length $r_0\approx 20-25\
h^{-1}$ Mpc, a factor 4-5 larger than that obtained for local galaxies
(e.g. Bahcall \& Soneira 1983; Postman, Huchra \& Geller 1992). Here
$h$ represents the Hubble constant $H_0$ in units of 100 km s$^{-1}$
Mpc$^{-1}$. Sutherland (1988) suggested the existence of a possible
strong effect due to the spurious presence of galaxies acting as
interlopers (see also Dekel et al. 1989; van Haarlem, Frenk \& White
1997). New analyses of optical catalogues, taking into account this
projection effect (Dalton et al. 1992; Nichol et al. 1992; Dalton et
al. 1994; Croft et al. 1997), led to a smaller value for the cluster
correlation length ($r_0\approx 13-18\ h^{-1}$ Mpc).
A way to overcome the projection problem is the use of data obtained
in the X-ray region of the spectrum. In fact, in this band, galaxy
clusters have a strong emission produced by thermal bremsstrahlung,
which allows to detect them also at high redshifts. Starting from the
eighties, different space missions produced extended cluster
catalogues which have been mainly used to compute their X-ray
luminosity function. In particular, the $ROSAT$ satellite provided a
good opportunity to build a reliable all-sky survey, which was
performed in the soft (0.1 -- 2.4 keV) X-ray band. First studies of
the clustering properties in small samples of X-ray selected galaxy
clusters have been performed by Lahav et al. (1989), Nichol, Briel \&
Henry (1994) and Romer et al. (1994). More recently the $ROSAT$ data
have been correlated with the Abell-ACO cluster catalogue (Abell,
Corwin \& Olowin 1989) to produce the X-ray Brightest Abell Cluster
sample (XBACs; Ebeling et al. 1996), for which estimates of the
two-point correlation function have been recently obtained (Abadi,
Lambas \& Muriel 1998; Borgani, Plionis \& Kolokotronis 1999). The
corresponding values for $r_0$ are in the range $r_0\approx 20-26\
h^{-1}$ Mpc. A smaller amplitude of the correlation function is
obtained from the preliminary analyses of the REFLEX sample (Collins
et al. 1999), which is also obtained by the $ROSAT$ All-Sky Survey
(RASS) data.
In this paper we estimate the clustering properties for the RASS1
Bright Sample (De Grandi et al. 1999), which is another X-ray cluster
catalogue obtained from the RASS. In this case the clusters are
spectroscopically searched in a preliminary list of candidates
produced by correlating the X-ray data with regions of galaxy
overdensity in the southern sky. In this way, the resulting catalogue
is not affected by the selection biases present in the Abell-ACO
cluster catalogue. The RASS1 Bright Sample is used to test a
theoretical model for the correlation function of X-ray clusters in
flux-limited samples (see also Moscardini et al. 1999). This model
makes use of the technique introduced by Matarrese et al. (1997) and
Moscardini et al. (1998), which allows a detailed modelling of the
redshift evolution of clustering, accounting both for the non-linear
dynamics of the dark matter distribution and for the redshift
evolution of the bias factor. A characteristic feature of this
technique is that it takes into full account light-cone effects, which
are relevant in analysing the clustering of even moderate redshift
objects (see also Matsubara, Suto \& Szapudi 1997; de Laix \& Starkman
1998; Yamamoto \& Suto 1999).
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we summarize the
characteristics of the RASS1 Bright Sample used in the following
clustering analysis. In Section 3 we discuss the method used to
compute the observational two-point correlation function for the RASS1
Bright Sample and we present the results. In Section 4 we introduce
our theoretical model to estimate the correlations of the X-ray
clusters in the framework of different cosmological models and we
compare our predictions to the observational results.
Conclusions are drawn in Section 5.
\section {The Sample}
The RASS1 Bright Sample (De Grandi et al. 1999), contains 130 clusters
of galaxies selected from the first processing of the $ROSAT$ All-Sky
Survey (RASS) data (Voges 1992). This sample was constructed as part
of an ESO Key Programme (Guzzo et al. 1995) aimed at surveying all
southern RASS candidates, which is now known as the REFLEX cluster
survey (B\"ohringer et al. 1998; Guzzo et al. 1999). The
identification of RASS cluster candidates was performed by means of
different optically and X-ray based methods. First, candidates were
found as overdensities in the galaxy density distribution at the
position of the X-ray sources using the COSMOS optical object
catalogue (e.g. Heydon-Dumbleton, Collins \& MacGillivray 1989). Then,
correlating all RASS sources with the ACO cluster catalogue, and,
finally, selecting all RASS X-ray extended sources. X-ray fluxes were
remeasured using the steepness ratio technique (De Grandi et
al. 1997), specifically developed for estimating fluxes from both
extended and pointlike objects. A number of selections aimed at
improving the completeness of the final sample lead to the RASS1
Bright Sample. Considering the intrinsic biases and incompletenesses
introduced by the X-ray flux selection and source identification
processes, the overall completeness of the sample is estimated to be
$\magcir 90$ per cent. The RASS1 Bright Sample is count-rate-limited
in the $ROSAT$ hard band (0.5 -- 2.0 keV), so that due to the
distribution of Galactic absorption its effective flux limit varies
between 3.05 and $4\times 10^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ over the
selected area. This covers a region of approximately 2.5 sr within the
Southern Galactic Cap, i.e. $\delta<2.5^o$ and $b<-20^o$, with the
exclusion of patches with RASS exposure times lower than 150 s and of
the Magellanic Clouds area. The exact sky map covered by the sample is
shown in Figure 2 of De Grandi et al. (1999). The redshift
distribution for our whole sample is presented in the left panel of
Figure~\ref{fi:nz} while the X-ray luminosity $L_X$ as a function of
the redshift for each cluster is shown in the right one. It is
possible to notice that 66 per cent of the clusters have $z<0.1$ but
the redshift distribution has a tail up to $z\simeq 0.3$.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\psfig{figure=fig1.ps,height=8.cm,width=16cm,angle=0}
\caption{Left panel: the redshift distribution of the RASS1 Bright Sample.
Right panel: the X-ray luminosity $L_X$ (in the $ROSAT$ hard band 0.5
-- 2.0 keV) vs. the redshift $z$ for each cluster of the sample. The
solid line shows the X-ray luminosity corresponding to the
limiting flux $S_{\rm lim}= 3\times 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$
in an Einstein-de Sitter model.}
\label{fi:nz}
\end{figure*}
\section{The 2-point correlation function}
Before computing the clustering properties of our sample, we have to
derive for each cluster the comoving radial distance $r$ from the
observer, given the redshift of each source. To this goal we use the
standard relation (neglecting the effect of peculiar motions)
\begin{equation}
r(z) = {{c} \over H_0 \sqrt{|\Omega_{0\cal R}|}}
{\cal S} \left(\sqrt{|\Omega_{0\cal R}|}
\int_0^z dz' \left[\left( 1+z' \right)^2 \left(1+\Omega_{\rm 0m} z'\right) -
z'\left(2+z'\right) \Omega_{0\Lambda}\right]^{-1/2} \right) \;,
\label{eq:x_z}
\end{equation}
where $\Omega_{0\cal R} \equiv 1 - \Omega_{\rm 0m} -
\Omega_{0\Lambda}$, with $\Omega_{\rm 0m}$ and $\Omega_{0\Lambda}$ the
density parameters for the non-relativistic matter and cosmological
constant components, respectively. In this formula, for an open
universe model, $\Omega_{0\cal R}>0$ and ${\cal S}(x)\equiv \sinh (x)$,
for a closed universe, $\Omega_{0\cal R}<0$ and ${\cal S}(x)\equiv \sin
(x)$, while in the Einstein-de Sitter (EdS) case, $\Omega_{0\cal R} =
0$ and ${\cal S}(x) \equiv x$.
To compute the spatial two-point correlation function $\xi(r)$ we
adopt both the Landy \& Szalay (1993) estimator,
\begin{equation}
\xi(r)= {{N_r (N_r-1)}\over{N_c (N_c-1)}}
{{DD(r)}\over{RR(r)}} - {{N_r-1}\over {N_c}}
{{DR(r)}\over{RR(r)}}+1\ ,
\label{eq:xi_ls}
\end{equation}
and the Davis \& Peebles (1983) estimator,
\begin{equation}
\xi(r)= 2 {{N_r}\over {N_c-1}} {{DD(r)}\over{RR(r)}}-1 \ .
\label{eq:xi_dp}
\end{equation}
In the previous formulas $N_r$ is the number of
random points and $N_c$ that of clusters, DD is the number of distinct
cluster-cluster pairs, DR is the number of cluster-random pairs and RR
refers to random-random pairs with separation between $r$ and $r +
\Delta r$. The random catalogue contains a number of sources 1,000 times
larger than the real catalogue (i.e. $N_r=1000 N_c$). To generate
this sample we have extracted randomly coordinates from the surveyed
area (see Figure 2 in De Grandi et al. 1999), assigning to each
position a random flux drawn from the observed number counts (Figure 8
in De Grandi et al. 1999). We decided to retain the source in the
catalogue if its flux is larger than the flux limit at the choosen
position. We adopt two different methods to assign the random
redshifts: in the first we scramble the observed redshifts of the
clusters in the sample; in the second we generate them randomly from
the observed redshift distribution binned in intervals of 0.01 in
$z$. The results obtained with these two different methods are
practically indistinguishable. The same happens also if we use the two
previous estimators for the two-point correlation function
(eqs.\ref{eq:xi_ls}-\ref{eq:xi_dp}). The errorbars have been
estimated by using the bootstrap method with 50 resamplings. We find
that the errors obtained in this way are in many cases larger than
$\sqrt{3}$ times the Poissonian estimates, which are often used as an
analytical approximation of the bootstrap errors (Mo, Jing \& B\"orner
1992). This is particularly true at small separations.
In the left panel of Figure~\ref{fi:xitot} we show the correlation
function computed for the whole catalogue. We present results obtained
by using both an EdS model and two models with $\Omega_{\rm 0m}=0.3$
(with and without cosmological constant). The results are quite
similar and the differences are always small.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\psfig{figure=fig2.ps,height=8.cm,width=16cm,angle=0}
\caption{Left panel: the two-point correlation function of the whole RASS1
Bright Sample. Filled circles, open circles and open squares refer to
results obtained by assuming $(\Omega_{\rm
0m},\Omega_{0\Lambda})=(1,0)$, $(\Omega_{\rm
0m},\Omega_{0\Lambda})=(0.3,0)$ and $(\Omega_{\rm
0m},\Omega_{0\Lambda})=(0.3,0.7)$, respectively. The corresponding
best-fit relations are shown by heavy solid line, light solid line and
dotted line, respectively. The 1-$\sigma$ errorbars obtained by the
bootstrap method are shown only for the EdS case for clarity; their
sizes in the other cases are similar. Right panel: confidence contours
(68.3, 95.4 and 99.73 per cent confidence levels) of the fitting parameters
$r_0$ and $\gamma$ for the two-point correlation function of the whole
RASS1 Bright Sample. Heavy solid lines and filled circle refer to
confidence levels and to the best fitting value obtained for the EdS
case; light solid lines and open circle show the corresponding results
for $(\Omega_{\rm 0m},\Omega_{0\Lambda})=(0.3,0)$ while dotted lines
and open square refer to $(\Omega_{\rm
0m},\Omega_{0\Lambda})=(0.3,0.7)$ model.}
\label{fi:xitot}
\end{figure*}
The correlation function has been fitted by adopting the power-law relation
\begin{equation}
\xi(r)=(r/r_0)^{-\gamma}\ .
\label{eq:powlaw}
\end{equation}
The best-fit parameters have been obtained by using a maximum
likelihood estimator based on Poisson statistics and unbinned data
(Croft et al. 1997; see also Borgani, Plionis \& Kolokotronis 1999).
Unlike the usual $\chi^2$-minimization, this method allows to avoid
the uncertainties due to the binsize, to the position of the bin
centres and to the bin scale (linear or logarithmic).
To build the estimator, it is necessary to estimate the predicted
probability distribution of cluster pairs, given a choice for the
correlation length $r_0$ and the slope $\gamma$. By using all the
distances between the cluster-random pairs, we can compute the number
of pairs $g(r)dr$ in arbitrarily small bins $dr$ and use it to predict
the mean number of cluster-cluster pairs $h(r)dr$ in that interval as
\begin{equation}
h(r)dr=
{{N_c-1}\over{2N_r}} [1+\xi(r)] g(r)dr\ ,
\end{equation}
where the correlation function $\xi$ is
modelled with a power-law as in eq.(\ref{eq:powlaw}). Actually the
previous equation holds only for the Davis \& Peebles (1983) estimator
[eq.(\ref{eq:xi_dp})] but, since we obtain very similar results using
different estimators, we can safely apply it here. Now it is possible to
use all the distances between the $N_p$ cluster-cluster pairs data to
build a likelihood. In particular, the likelihood function ${\cal L}$
is defined as the product of the probabilities of having exactly one
pair at each of the intervals $dr$ occupied by the cluster-cluster
pairs data and the probability of having no pairs in all the other
intervals. Assuming a Poisson distribution, one finds
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}= \prod_i^{N_p} \exp[-h(r)dr] h(r)dr \prod_{j\ne i} \exp[-h(r)dr]\ ,
\end{equation}
where $j$ runs over all the intervals $dr$ where there are no pairs.
It is convenient to define the usual quantity $S=-2 \ln {\cal L}$
which can be written, once we retain only the terms depending on the
model parameters $r_0$ and $\gamma$, as
\begin{equation}
S=2\int^{r_{\rm max}}_{r_{\rm min}} h(r)dr -2\sum_i^{N_p} \ln[h(r_i)]\ .
\end{equation}
The integral in the previous equation is computed over the range of scales
where the fit is made. We will adopt 5 and 80 $h^{-1}$ Mpc for
$r_{\rm min}$ and $r_{\rm max}$, respectively.
By minimizing $S$ one can obtain the best-fitting parameters $r_0$ and
$\gamma$; the confidence levels are defined by computing the increase
$\Delta_S$ with respect the minimum value of $S$ and assuming a
$\chi^2$ distribution for $\Delta_S$.
By applying this maximum likelihood method to the RASS1 Bright Sample
with the assumption of an EdS model, we find $r_0= 21.5^{+3.4}_{-4.4}\
h^{-1}$ Mpc and $\gamma=2.11^{+0.53}_{-0.56}$ (95.4 per cent
confidence level with one fitting parameter). Since the redshift
distribution is shallow, the values obtained in other cosmologies are
quite similar: for $(\Omega_{\rm 0m},\Omega_{0\Lambda})=(0.3,0)$ we
find $r_0= 21.4^{+3.4}_{-4.6} \ h^{-1}$ Mpc and
$\gamma=2.17^{+0.55}_{-0.56}$, while for $(\Omega_{\rm
0m},\Omega_{0\Lambda})=(0.3,0.7)$ we find $r_0= 22.1^{+3.6}_{-4.7} \
h^{-1}$ Mpc and $\gamma=2.06^{+0.54}_{-0.56}$. The best-fit relations
are also shown in Figure~\ref{fi:xitot}. Notice that a
$\chi^2$-minimization procedure gives similar results, but with larger
errorbars.
In the right panel of the same figure we show the contour levels
corresponding to $\Delta_S$ equal to 2.30, 6.31 and 11.8. Assuming
that $\Delta_S$ is distributed as a $\chi^2$ distribution with two
degrees of freedom, they correspond to 68.3, 95.4 and 99.73 per cent
confidence levels, respectively. Notice that by assuming a Poisson
distribution the method considers all pairs as independent, neglecting
their clustering. Consequently the resulting errobars can be
underestimated (see the discussion in Croft et al. 1997).
Our results are somewhat larger than those derived by Romer et
al. (1994) who found $r_0 = 13-15\ h^{-1}$ Mpc by analysing a sample
of galaxy clusters also selected from the RASS in a similar region of
sky ($22^h <$ RA $< 3^h$, $-50^o < \delta < 2^o$, $|b|>-40^o$). A
partial explanation of this difference is related to the deeper
limiting flux ($S_{\rm lim}\simeq 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in
the 0.1 -- 2.4 keV band) of their catalogue: as we will discuss in the
next section, the correlation length is expected to depend on the
characteristics defining the surveys, such as their limits in flux
and/or luminosity. However we have to remind that this early sample
was derived drawing on X-ray information from the $ROSAT$ standard
analysis software (SASS), which was not optimazed for the analysis of
extended sources (for a more detailed discussion see e.g. De Grandi et
al. 1997), and this source of incompleteness was not included in the
analysis of Romer et al. (1994). Moreover in their analysis the sample
sky coverage (i.e., the surveyed area as a function of the flux limit)
was not discussed.
Previous analyses of the XBACs sample, which is a flux-limited
catalogue of X-ray Abell clusters with a limiting flux $S_{\rm lim}=
5\times 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the 0.1 -- 2.4 keV band,
gave compatible amplitudes for the correlation function:
$r_0=21.1^{+1.6}_{-2.3}\ h^{-1}$ Mpc (Abadi, Lambas \& Muriel 1998)
and $r_0=26.0^{+4.1}_{-4.7}\ h^{-1}$ Mpc (Borgani, Plionis \&
Kolokotronis 1999; errorbars in this case are 2-$\sigma$
uncertainties). Preliminary analyses of the clustering properties of
the REFLEX sample (Collins et al. 1999; Guzzo et al. 1999), which has
a limiting flux $S_{\rm lim}= 3\times 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$
in the 0.1 -- 2.4 keV band, lead to a smaller correlation length
($r_0\simeq 18 \ h^{-1}$ Mpc). Also in this case, the discrepancy is
probably a consequence of the deeper limiting flux.
\section{Comparison with theoretical models}
\subsection{Structure formation models}
In the following analysis we consider five models, all normalized to
reproduce the local cluster abundance. In particular we will adopt the
normalizations obtained by Eke, Cole \& Frenk (1996) by analysing the
temperature distribution of X-ray clusters (Henry \& Arnaud 1991).
All our models belong to the general class of Cold Dark Matter (CDM)
scemarios; their linear power-spectrum can be represented as $P_{\rm
lin}(k,0) \propto k^n T^2(k)$, where, for the CDM transfer function
$T(k)$, we use the Bardeen et al. (1986) fit. In particular, we
consider three different EdS models, for which the power-spectrum
amplitude corresponds to $\sigma_8=0.52$ (here $\sigma_8$ is the
r.m.s. fluctuation amplitude in a sphere of $8 h^{-1}$ Mpc). They are:
a version of the standard CDM (SCDM) model with shape parameter (see
its definition in Sugiyama 1995) $\Gamma=0.45$ and spectral index
$n=1$; the so-called $\tau$CDM model, with $\Gamma=0.21$ and $n=1$; a
tilted model (TCDM), with $n=0.8$ and $\Gamma=0.41$, corresponding to
a high (10 per cent) baryonic content. We also consider an open CDM
model (OCDM), with matter density parameter $\Omega_{\rm 0m}=0.3$ and
$\sigma_8=0.87$ and a low-density flat CDM model ($\Lambda$CDM), with
$\Omega_{\rm 0m}=0.3$, with $\sigma_8=0.93$. Except for SCDM, which is
shown as a reference model, all these models are also consistent with
COBE data; for TCDM consistency is achieved by taking into account the
possible contribution of gravitational waves to large-angle CMB
anisotropies. A summary of the parameters of the cosmological models
used in this paper is given in Table \ref{t:models}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption[]{The parameters of the cosmological models. Column 2: the present
matter density parameter $\Omega_{\rm 0m}$; Column 3: the present
cosmological constant contribution to the density $\Omega_{0\Lambda}$;
Column 4: the primordial spectral index $n$; Column 5: the Hubble
parameter $h$; Column 6: the shape parameter $\Gamma$; Column 7: the
spectrum normalization $\sigma_8$; Column 8: the value of the parameter $\eta$
in the luminosity-temperature relation required to reproduced the observed
$\log N$--$\log S$ (see text for details).}
\tabcolsep 4pt
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc} \\ \\ \hline \hline
Model & $\Omega_{\rm 0m}$ & $\Omega_{0\Lambda}$ & $n$ & $h$ &
$\Gamma$ & $\sigma_8$ & $\eta$ \\ \hline
SCDM & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 0.50 & 0.45 & 0.52 & -0.8 \\
$\tau$CDM & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 0.50 & 0.21 & 0.52 & 0.0 \\
TCDM & 1.0 & 0.0 & 0.8 & 0.50 & 0.41 & 0.52 & -0.3 \\
OCDM & 0.3 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 0.65 & 0.21 & 0.87 & -0.3 \\
$\Lambda$CDM & 0.3 & 0.7 & 1.0 & 0.65 & 0.21 & 0.93 & -0.2 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{t:models}
\end{table}
\subsection{The method}
Theoretical predictions for the spatial two-point correlation
function in the RASS1 Bright Sample have been here obtained in the
framework of the above cosmological models by using a method presented
in more detail in (Moscardini et al. 1999).
Here we only give a short description.
Matarrese et al. (1997; see also Moscardini et al. 1998) developed an
algorithm to describe clustering in our past light-cone, where the
non-linear dynamics of the dark matter distribution and the redshift
evolution of the bias factor are taken into account. In the present
paper we adopt a more refined formula which better accounts for the
light-cone effects (see Moscardini et al. 1999). The observed spatial
correlation function $\xi_{\rm obs}$ in a given redshift interval
${\cal Z}$ is given by the exact expression
\begin{equation}
\xi_{\rm obs}(r) = { \int_{\cal Z} d z_1 d z_2 {\cal N}(z_1) r(z_1)^{-1}
{\cal N}(z_2) r(z_2)^{-1} ~\xi_{\rm obj}(r;z_1,z_2) \over
\bigl[ \int_{\cal Z} d z_1 {\cal N}(z_1) r(z_1)^{-1} \bigr]^2 } \;,
\label{eq:xifund}
\end{equation}
where $\xi_{\rm obj}(r,z_1,z_2)$ is the correlation function of pairs
of objects at redshifts $z_1$ and $z_2$ with comoving separation
$r$ and ${\cal N}(z)$ is the
actual redshift distribution of the catalogue. A related
approach to the study of correlations on the light-cone hypersurface
has been recently presented by Yamamoto \& Suto (1999) and Nishioka \&
Yamamoto (1999) within linear theory and by Matsubara, Suto \& Szapudi
(1997) in the non-linear regime.
An accurate approximation for $\xi_{\rm obj}$ over the scales
considered here is
\begin{equation}
\xi_{\rm obj}(r,z_1,z_2) \approx b_{\rm eff}(z_1) b_{\rm eff}(z_2)
\xi_{\rm m}(r,z_{\rm ave}) \;,
\end{equation}
where $\xi_m$ is the dark matter covariance function and $z_{\rm ave}$
is an intermediate redshift between $z_1$ and $z_2$, for which an
excellent approximation is obtained through $D_+(z_{\rm ave}) =
D_+(z_1)^{1/2}D_+(z_2)^{1/2}$ (Porciani 1997), with $D_+(z)$ the
linear growth factor of density fluctuations.
In our treatment we disregard the effect of redshift-space
distortions. Some analytical expressions have been obtained in the
mildly non-linear regime, by using either the Zel'dovich approximation
(Fisher \& Nusser 1996) or higher order perturbation theory (Heavens,
Matarrese \& Verde 1998). The complicating role of the
cosmological redshift-space distortions on the evolution of the bias
factor has been considered by Suto et al. (1999).
A rough estimate of the effect of
redshift-space distortions can be obtained within linear theory and
the distant-observer approximation (Kaiser 1987; see Zaroubi \&
Hoffman 1996 for an extension of this formalism to all-sky
surveys). In this case the enhancement of the redshift-space averaged
power spectrum is given by the factor $1+2\beta/3+\beta^2/5$, where
$\beta\simeq \Omega_{\rm 0m}^{0.6}/b_{\rm eff}$ and $b_{\rm eff}$ is
the effective bias (see below). Plionis \& Kolokotronis (1998),
by analysing the XBACs catalogue and using linear perturbation theory
to relate the X-ray cluster dipole to the Local Group peculiar
velocity, found $\beta\simeq 0.24\pm 0.05$. Adopting this approach,
Borgani, Plionis \& Kolokotronis (1999) conclude that the overall
effect of redshift-space distortions is a small change of the correlation
function, which expressed in terms of $r_0$ corresponds to an
$\simeq 8$ per cent increase.
The effective bias $b_{\rm eff}$ appearing in the previous equation
can be expressed as a weighted average of the `monochromatic' bias
factor $b(M,z)$ of objects of some given intrinsic property $M$ (like
mass, luminosity, ...), as follows
\begin{equation}
b_{\rm eff}(z) \equiv {\cal N}(z)^{-1} \int_{\cal M} d\ln M' ~b(M',z)
~{\cal N}(z,M')\, ,
\label{eq:b_eff}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal N}(z,M)$ is the number of objects actually present in the
catalogue with redshift in the range $z,~z+dz$ and $M$ in the range
$M,~M+dM$, whose integral over $\ln M$ is ${\cal N}(z)$. In our
analysis of cluster correlations we will use for ${\cal N}(z)$ in
eq.(\ref{eq:xifund}) the observed one, while in the theoretical
calculation of the effective bias we will take the ${\cal N}(z,M)$
predicted by the model described below. This phenomenological approach
is self-consistent, in that our theoretical model for ${\cal N}(z,M)$
will be required to reproduce the observed cluster abundance and their
$\log N$--$\log S$ relation.
For the cluster population it is extremely reasonable to assume that
structures on a given mass scale are formed by the hierarchical
merging of smaller mass units; for this reason we can consider
clusters as being fully characterized at each redshift by the mass $M$
of their hosting dark matter haloes. In this way their comoving mass
function $\bar n(z,M)$ can be computed using an approach derived from
the Press-Schechter technique. Moreover, it is possible to adopt for the
monochromatic bias $b(M,z)$ the expression which holds for virialized
dark matter haloes (e.g. Mo \& White 1996; Catelan et al. 1998).
Recently, a number of authors have shown that the Press-Schechter
(1974) relation does not provide an accurate description of the halo
abundance both in the large and small-mass tails (e.g. Sheth \& Tormen
1999). Also, the simple Mo \& White (1996) bias formula has been shown
not to correctly reproduce the correlation of low mass haloes in
numerical simulations. Several alternative fits have been recently
proposed (Jing 1998; Porciani, Catelan \& Lacey 1999; Sheth \& Tormen
1999; Jing 1999). In this paper we adopt the relations recently
introduced by Sheth \& Tormen (1999), which have been shown to produce
an accurate fit of the distribution of the halo populations in the GIF
simulations (Kauffmann et al. 1999). They read
\begin{equation}
\bar n(z,M) = \sqrt{2 a A^2 \over \pi} \
{{3 H_0^2 \Omega_{\rm 0m}} \over {8\pi G}} \
{ \delta_c
\over M D_+(z) \sigma_M } \
\biggl[ 1 + \biggl( {{D_+(z) \sigma_M} \over {\sqrt{a} \delta_c}}
\biggr)^{2p} \biggr] \
\bigg| {d \ln \sigma_M
\over d \ln M} \bigg| \exp \biggl[ -{a \delta_c^2 \over
2 D_+^2(z) \sigma^2_M}
\biggr] \;
\label{eq:ps2}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
b(M,z) = 1 + {1 \over \delta_c }
\biggl( {a \delta_c^2 \over \sigma_M^2 D_+^2(z)} - 1\biggr)
+ {2 p \over \delta_c }
\biggl( {1 \over { 1+[\sqrt{a} \delta_c / (\sigma_M D_+(z))]^{2p}}}
\biggr) \; .
\label{eq:b_mono2}
\end{equation}
Here $\sigma^2_M$ is the mass-variance on scale $M$, linearly
extrapolated to the present time ($z=0$), and $\delta_c$ the critical
linear overdensity for spherical collapse. Following Sheth \& Tormen
(1999), we adopt their best-fit parameters $a=0.707$, $p=0.3$ and
$A\approx 0.3222$, while the standard (Press \& Schechter and Mo \&
White) relations are recovered for $a=1$, $p=0$ and $A=1/2$. Notice
that
\begin{equation}
{\cal N}(z,M) = 4\pi r^2(z) {dr \over dz}
\left[1 + {H_0^2 \over c^2} ~\Omega_{0\cal R} ~r^2(z)\right]^{-1/2}
{\bar n}(z,M) ~\phi(z,M) \;,
\end{equation}
where $\phi(z,M)$ is the isotropic catalogue selection function, which
also accounts for the catalogue sky coverage, as detailed below.
The last ingredient entering in our computation of the correlation
function is the redshift evolution of the dark matter covariance
function $\xi_{\rm m}$. As in Matarrese et al. (1997) and Moscardini
et al. (1998) we use an accurate method, based on the Hamilton et
al. (1991) ansatz, to evolve $\xi_{\rm m}$ into the fully non-linear
regime. In particular, we use the fitting formula given by Peacock \&
Dodds (1996).
In order to predict the abundance and clustering of X-ray clusters in
the RASS1 Bright Sample we need to relate X-ray cluster fluxes into a
corresponding halo mass at each redshift. The given band flux $S$
corresponds to an X-ray luminosity $L_X=4\pi d_L^2 S$ in the same
band, where $d_L=(1+z) r(z)$ is the luminosity distance. To convert
$L_X$ into the total luminosity $L_{\rm bol}$ we perform band and
bolometric corrections by means of a Raymond-Smith code, where an
overall ICM metallicity of $0.3$ times solar is assumed. We translate
the cluster bolometric luminosity into a temperature, adopting the
empirical relation $T = {\cal A} \ L_{\rm bol}^{\cal B} \
(1+z)^{-\eta}$, where the temperature is expressed in keV and $L_{\rm
bol}$ is in units of $10^{44} h^{-2}$ erg s$^{-1}$. In the following
analysis we assume ${\cal A}=4.2$ and ${\cal B}=1/3$; these values
allow a good representation of the local data for temperatures larger
than $\approx 1$ keV (e.g. David et al. 1993; White, Jones \& Forman
1997; Markevitch 1998). Analysing a catalogue of local compact
groups, Ponman et al. (1996) showed that at lower temperatures the
$L_{\rm bol}-T$ relation has a steeper slope (${\cal B}\approx
0.1$). For these reasons we prefer to fix a minimum value for the
temperature at $T=1$ keV. Moreover, even if observational data are
consistent with no evolution in the $L_{\rm bol}-T$ relation out to $z
\approx 0.4$ (Mushotzky \& Scharf 1997), a redshift evolution
described by the parameter $\eta$ has been introduced to reproduce the
observed $\log N$--$\log S$ relation (Rosati et al. 1998; De Grandi et
al. 1999) in the range $2 \times 10^{-14} \le S \le 2 \times 10^{-11}$
(see also Kitayama \& Suto 1997; Borgani et al. 1999). The values of
$\eta$ required for SCDM, $\tau$CDM, TCDM, OCDM and $\Lambda$CDM
models are reported in Table \ref{t:models}. A general discussion of
the effects of different choices of the parameters entering in this
method (e.g. the scatter in the $L_{\rm bol}-T$ relation) is presented
elsewhere (Moscardini et al. 1999).
Finally, with the standard assumption of virial isothermal gas
distribution and spherical collapse, it is possible to convert the
cluster temperature into the mass of the hosting dark matter halo,
namely (e.g. Eke, Cole \& Frenk 1996)
\begin{equation}
T = {7.75 \over \beta_{\rm TM}} {\left(M\over {10^{15} h^{-1}
M_\odot}\right)}^{2/3}
(1+z) {\left( \Omega_{\rm 0m} \over \Omega_{\rm m}(z)\right) }^{1/3}
\left({\Delta_{\rm vir}(z) \over {178}}\right)^{1/3} \ .
\end{equation}
The quantity $\Delta_{\rm vir}$ represents the mean density of the
virialized halo in units of the critical density at that redshift
(e.g. Bryan \& Norman 1998 for fitting formulas). We assume
$\beta_{\rm TM}=1.17$, which is in agreement with the results of
different hydrodynamical simulations (Bryan \& Norman 1998; Gheller,
Pantano \& Moscardini 1998; Frenk et al. 1999).
Once the relation between observed flux and halo mass at each redshift
is established we account for the RASS1 Bright Sample sky coverage
$\Omega_{\rm sky}(S)$ (see Figure 7 in De Grandi et al. 1999) by
simply setting $ 4 \pi \phi(z,M) = \Omega_{\rm sky}[S(z,M)]$.
\subsection{Results}
In Figure~\ref{fi:theor} we compare our predictions for the RASS1
spatial correlation function in different cosmological models to the
observational data. All the EdS models here considered predict too
small an amplitude. Their correlation lengths are smaller than the
observational results: we find $r_0\simeq 11.5, 12.8, 14.8 \ h^{-1}$
Mpc for SCDM, TCDM and $\tau CDM$, respectively. On the contrary,
both the OCDM and $\Lambda$CDM models are in much better agreement
with the data and their predictions are always inside the 1-$\sigma$
errorbars ($r_0\simeq 18.4, 18.6 \ h^{-1}$ Mpc, respectively). In
order to quantify the differences between the model predictions and
the observational data, we use again the maximum likelihood approach.
The minimum value for $S$ is obtained for the $\Lambda$CDM model. A
similar value, corresponding to $\Delta_S=0.7$, is obtained for
the OCDM model, while for the EdS models the resulting $S$ are much
larger: $\Delta_S=10.6, 19.3, 26.8$ for $\tau CDM$, TCDM and SCDM
models, respectively.
To evaluate what is the effect of neglecting the description of
clustering in the past light-cone, as usually done in previous
analyses, we estimate the cluster correlation function as
$\xi(r)=b^2_{\rm eff}(z_{\rm med})\xi_{\rm m}(r,z_{\rm med})$, where
$z_{\rm med}$ is the median redshift of the catalogue. For the RASS1
Bright Sample we have $z_{\rm med}\simeq 0.08$. The resulting values
of the correlation lengths obtained in this way are $r_0\simeq 13.5,
15.5, 18.2, 21.9, 22.4 \ h^{-1}$ Mpc, for SCDM, TCDM, $\tau CDM$, OCDM and
$\Lambda CDM$, respectively. They are typically 20 per cent higher
than the estimates obtained by our method. This difference is due to
the fact that in the past light-cone formalism the matter correlation
functions (and bias factors) are weighted by a factor ${\cal
N}(z)/r(z)$, for which the average value on the whole sample
corresponds neither to the median nor to the mode of the redshift
distribution. Actually, the presence of the comoving radial distance
$r(z)$ at the denominator tends to shift the ``effective redshift'' to
smaller values of $z$. As a consequence, the true cluster
correlations, which are indeed measured in our past light-cone,
have typically smaller amplitudes than those estimated at the median
redshift of the catalogue. Of course, the importance of this effect
becomes larger when deeper surveys are considered.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\psfig{figure=fig3.ps,height=10.cm,width=16cm,angle=0}
\caption{Comparison of the observed spatial correlation for clusters in the
RASS1 Bright Sample (shown as in Figure~\ref{fi:xitot}) with the
predictions of the various theoretical models: SCDM (solid line),
$\tau$CDM (dotted line), TCDM (short-dashed line), OCDM (long-dashed
line) and $\Lambda$CDM (dotted-dashed line). }
\label{fi:theor}
\end{figure}
In order to study the possible dependence of the clustering properties
of the X-ray clusters on the observational characteristics defining
the survey, we use our model to predict the values of the correlation
length $r_0$ in catalogues where we vary the limiting X-ray flux
$S_{\rm lim}$ or luminosity $L_{\rm lim}$ (both defined in the energy
band 0.5 -- 2 keV). Notice that this analysis can be related to the
study of the richness dependence of the cluster correlation
function. In fact, a change in the observational limits implies a
change in the expected mean intercluster separation $d_c$. Bahcall \&
West (1992) found that the Abell clusters data are consistent with a
linear relation $r_0=0.4 d_c$, while a milder dependence is resulting
from the analysis of the APM clusters (Croft et al. 1997). Our results
are shown in Figure~\ref{fi:slim}. All the cosmological models display
a similar trend: in the flux and luminosity intervals here considered,
the correlation length $r_0$ has a slow growth with $S_{\rm lim}$
(left panel), and a more marked one with $L_{\rm lim}$ (right
panel). For example, for OCDM and $\Lambda CDM$ the correlation length
changes from $r_0 \simeq 18$ to $r_0 \simeq 21 h^{-1}$ Mpc, when the
limiting flux varies from $S_{\rm lim}= 10^{-12}$ to $S_{\rm
lim}=10^{-11}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, and from $r_0\simeq 18$ to
$r_0\simeq 30 h^{-1}$ Mpc, when the limiting luminosity varies from
$L_{\rm lim}= 10^{42}$ to $L_{\rm lim}= 10^{44} h^{-2}$ erg
s$^{-1}$. The values of $r_0$ for the EdS models have similar
variations but are always smaller. We can compare these predictions to
the results obtained by computing the two-point correlation function
in the RASS1 Bright Sample with the same cuts in X-ray flux or
luminosity. The estimates of $r_0$ obtained in this way are presented
in Table \ref{t:r0_lim} (where we also report the number of clusters
inside each subsample) and shown in the figure (open squares). In
both panels the whole catalogue is represented by the square on the
right. Because of the small number of clusters in these subsamples,
we prefer to fit the correlation function by fixing the value of the
slope $\gamma=1.8$; we find that our values of $r_0$ are only slightly
dependent on this assumption. The errorbars shown in the figure
correspond to an increase $\Delta_S = 4$ with respect to the minimum
value of $S$. With the assumption that $\Delta_S$ is distributed as a
$\chi^2$ distribution with a single degree of freedom, this
corresponds to 95.4 per cent confidence level. By analysing the trend
with changing limiting flux, we find that the observed values of $r_0$
are almost constant even if $S_{\rm lim}$ changes by a factor larger
than 2. This result is in agreement with what Borgani, Plionis \&
Kolokotronis (1999) obtained for XBACs. We notice that OCDM and
$\Lambda$CDM are able to reproduce the amount of clustering shown by
the RASS1 Bright Sample, while all the EdS models strongly
underpredict the amplitude of the correlation function. The situation
is slightly different when we analyse luminosity-limited
catalogues. The RASS1 Bright Sample suggests a small increase of $r_0$
with $L_{\rm lim}$, even if the hypothesis of a constant correlation
length cannot be rejected. This is consistent with a similar analysis
made by Abadi, Lambas \& Muriel (1998) on the XBACs catalogue. As
shown in the left panel of Figure~\ref{fi:slim}, our models always
tend to predict smaller correlations, even if the non-EdS models are
still marginally consistent with the observational data.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\psfig{figure=fig4.ps,height=8.cm,width=16cm,angle=0}
\caption{The behaviour of the correlation length $r_0$
as a function of the limiting X-ray flux $S_{\rm lim}$ (left panel)
and luminosity $L_{\rm lim}$ (right panel). The open squares and
errorbars (95.4 per cent confidence level) refer to different
subsamples of RASS1 Bright Sample here analysed. The prediction of
the various theoretical models are shown as in Figure~\ref{fi:theor}:
SCDM (solid line), $\tau$CDM (dotted line), TCDM (short-dashed line),
OCDM (long-dashed line) and $\Lambda$CDM (dotted-dashed line). }
\label{fi:slim}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption[]{The correlation length $r_0$ in flux-limited
(left) and luminosity-limited (right) subsamples of the RASS1 Bright
Sample. Column 1: the limiting X-ray flux $S_{\rm lim}$ (in units of
$10^{-11}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$) or luminosity $L_{\rm lim}$ (in
units of $10^{44} h^{-2}$ erg s$^{-1}$); Column 2: the number of
clusters in the subsample; Column 3: the correlation length $r_0$ (in
units of $h^{-1}$ Mpc) as obtained from the maximum likelihood
analysis with fixed slope $\gamma=1.8$ (errorbars correspond to 95.4
per cent confident level) }
\tabcolsep 4pt
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc} \\ \\ \hline \hline
$S_{\rm lim}$ & no. of clusters & $r_0$ &\hspace{2.truecm} & $L_{\rm lim}$ &
no. of clusters & $r_0$ \\ \hline
0.3 & 126 & $21.2^{+4.0}_{-4.1}$ && 0.01& 126 & $21.2^{+4.0}_{-4.1}$\\
0.5 & 78 & $23.7^{+5.2}_{-5.4}$ && 0.03& 122 & $22.6^{+4.2}_{-4.2}$\\
0.7 & 41 & $18.1^{+9.3}_{-11.1}$ &&0.05& 118 & $23.1^{+4.3}_{-4.3}$\\
& & & &0.10 & 115 & $24.3^{+4.4}_{-4.5}$ \\
& & & &0.15 & 106 & $24.9^{+5.1}_{-5.4}$ \\
& & & &0.20 & 98 & $27.2^{+6.0}_{-6.1}$ \\
& & & &0.25 & 89 & $30.2^{+7.1}_{-7.2}$ \\
& & & &0.30 & 84 & $32.5^{+7.6}_{-7.7}$ \\
& & & &0.40 & 74 & $32.8^{+9.5}_{-9.9}$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{t:r0_lim}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have studied the two-point correlation function
$\xi(r)$ of a flux-limited sample of X-ray galaxy clusters, the RASS1
Bright Sample. These observational results have been used to test a
theoretical model predicting the clustering properties of X-ray
clusters in flux-limited surveys in the framework of different
cosmological scenarios. Our main results are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Assuming an Einstein-de Sitter model,
$\xi(r)$ can be well fitted using the standard power-law relation
$\xi=(r/r_0)^{-\gamma}$, with $r_0= 21.5^{+3.4}_{-4.4} h^{-1}$ Mpc and
$\gamma=2.11^{+0.53}_{-0.56}$ (95.4 per cent confidence levels with
one fitting parameter). The values obtained in models with matter
density parameter $\Omega_{\rm 0m}=0.3$ are quite similar.
\item
The amplitude of the correlation function is almost constant when the
RASS1 Bright Sample is analysed with different limiting fluxes in the
range $S_{\rm lim}=3-7 \times 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ while
it displays a slightly increasing trend when computed in catalogues with an
increasing X-ray luminosity limit in the range $L_{\rm lim}=0.01-0.4
\times 10^{44}h^{-2}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
\item
The comparison with the predictions of our theoretical models shows
that the Einstein-de Sitter models are unable to reproduce the
observational results obtained for the whole RASS1 Bright Sample. On
the contrary, good agreement is found for the models with matter
density parameter $\Omega_{\rm 0m}=0.3$, both with and without a
cosmological constant.
\item
Our models are also able to reproduce the behaviour of $r_0$ with
$S_{\rm lim}$ and $L_{\rm lim}$, but the observed amount of clustering
is reproduced only by the open and $\Lambda$ models.
\end{itemize}
In conclusion, we believe that the method presented here leads to
robust predictions on the clustering of X-ray clusters; its future
application to new and deeper catalogues will allow to provide useful
constraints on the cosmological parameters.
\section*{Acknowledgments.}
This work has been partially supported by Italian MURST, CNR and
ASI. We are grateful to Stefano Borgani, Enzo Branchini, Houjun Mo,
Ornella Pantano, Piero Rosati, Bepi Tormen and Elena Zucca for useful
discussions. We also thank the referee, C. Collins, for comments which
allowed us to improve the presentation of this paper.
|
\section{Introduction}
The theory of joins of (geometric) simplicial complexes as given by Brown, \cite{Top:Brown}, or Spanier, \cite{:Span}, reveals the join operation to be a basic geometric construction. It is used in the development of several areas of geometric topology (cf. Hudson, \cite{Hudson}) whilst also being applied to the basic properties of polyhedra relating to homology.
The theories of geometric and abstract simplicial complexes run in a largely parallel way and when describing the theory, expositions often choose which aspect -- abstract combinatorial or geometric -- to emphasise at each step. Historically in algebraic topology geometric simplicial complexes, as tools, were largely replaced by CW complexes whilst the combinatorial abstract complex became part of simplicial set theory. In the process, joins were negelected and there does not seem to be a well known definition of the join of two simplicial sets.
Within the setting of simplicial set theory, the ordinal sum plays a strange r\^ole. This operation takes two ordinals and concatenates them, so $[m]or[n] = [m+n+1]$, where \linebreak$[m] = \{ 0 < 1 < \cdots < m \}$, so it is fundamental for the combinatorics of ordinals. In the literature on simplicial set theory it seems rarely to be mentioned, yet it is sometimes there but hidden, for instance, in the $\overline{W}$-construction for simplicial groups (see May, \cite{Algtop:May}) or simplicial groupoids (see Dwyer and Kan, \cite{DandK}).
In this context it occurs through the use of the Artin-Mazur codiagonal, \cite{AandM}, which assigns to a bisimplicial set or group, a much smaller model of the homotopy type than does the diagonal. (The diagonal is intuitively easier to use and tends to be ``wheeled out'' whenever passage from bisimplicial objects to simplicial objects is needed; however, it may not always be the most efficient tool to use.) This codiagonal is linked with the total DEC functor (Illusie \cite{Cot:Ill}, Duskin \cite{:Dus}, Porter, \cite{:Porter}, Bullejos et al \cite{Bull}), which can be given explicitly in terms of the ordinal sum.
In this brief note, it is shown that the ordinal sum leads naturally to a ``join'' operation on {\em augmented} simplicial sets, and the relation of this join to the geometric join is studied.
\section{Definitions}\label{defn}
It will be assumed that the reader is conversant in general with basic
simplicial set theory, in particular, the definition of the
singular complex of a topological space, and the geometric realisation of a singular complex. On the subject of notation, note that the simplicial set which is called the $n$-simplex, $\triangle [n]$\glossary{$\triangle [n]$}, is the representable functor, $\Delta (-,[n])$. The simplicial set $\triangle [n]$ will be referred to as the {\it standard} $n$-{\it simplex}.
The category of finite ordinals will be denoted $\Delta $: the
ordinal $\{0 < 1 < \cdots < n\}$ will be denoted $[n]$ with the empty
set being denoted by $[-1]$.\\
\noindent {\bf Definition \ref{defn} (i)}\\
Let $f_i:[p_i] \rightarrow [q_i]$ for $i = 0, 1$. Define the
``ordinal sum'' functor, \\ $or:\Delta ^{2} \longrightarrow
\Delta$, as follows:-\[ or([p_0],[p_1]) = [p_0 + p_1 + 1] \]\[
or(f_0,f_1) = \left\{\begin{array}{lcl} f_0(k) & \mbox{ if } & 0 \leq
k \leq p_0 \\ f_1(k-p_0-1)+q_0+1 & \mbox{ if } & p_0+1 \leq k
\\\end{array} \right. \] \\
Note that $[-1]$ is a two sided identity for the operation on
objects.\\
\noindent {\bf Definition \ref{defn} (ii)} \\
An augmented simplicial set is a simplicial
set, $X$, together with an augmentation, that is, a set $X_{-1}$ and
a morphism $q_X:X_0\longrightarrow X_{-1}$, where $q_Xd_0 = q_Xd_1$.
There is an obvious forgetful functor from the category, $ASS$, of augmented simplicial sets
to that $SS$, of simplicial sets, cf. Duskin \cite{:Dus}.\\
\noindent {\bf Definition \ref{defn} (iii)} \\
The {\it canonical augmentation} of a simplicial set has $X_{-1} =
\pi_0(X)$ and $q_X$ the coequaliser of
$$X_1 \begin{array}{l}
\stackrel{d_0}{\longrightarrow} \\ \stackrel{d_1}{\longrightarrow}
\end{array} X_0 .$$
This augmentation is left adjoint to the forgetful functor.\\
\noindent {\bf Definition \ref{defn} (iv)} \\
The {\it trivial augmentation} of a simplicial set has $X_{-1} =
\ast $, the one point set, and $q_X$
the unique (trivial) morphism $X_0 \longrightarrow \ast$.
This augmentation is right adjoint to the forgetful functor.\\
\noindent {\bf Definition \ref{defn} (v)} \\
The {\it geometric realisation} defined on augmented simplicial sets is the
composition of the forgetful functor to simplicial sets and the usual
geometric realisation functor to topological spaces.
(This is the only reasonable definition of a geometric realisation on
augmented simplicial sets, as the codomain of the augmentation is, in
some sense, the image of the empty set.)
\noindent {\bf Definition \ref{defn} (vi)} \\
The {\it singular complex functor} from topological spaces to
augmented simplicial sets is the composition of the normal singular complex
functor, which is right adjoint to the geometric realisation functor,
with the trivial augmentation functor, right adjoint to the forgetful functor.
It is automatic that the two functors so defined are adjoint.
\section{Combinatorial Join}
\label{monoid}
The following is our proposed definition for a join of augmented simplicial sets.\\
\noindent {\bf Definition \ref{monoid} (i)}\\
Let the {\it join} of two augmented simplicial sets $X$ and $Y$ be denoted $X \odot Y $. The set of $n$-simplices, $(X \odot Y)_n$, is:-
\[ \bigsqcup_{i=-1}^n X_{n-1-i} \times Y_i \]
the face maps are given by:-
\[d_i^n(x,y) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cl} (d_i^px,y) & \mbox{ \ if \ } 0
\leq i \leq p \\(x,d_{i-p-1}^{n-p-1}y) & \mbox{ \ if \ } p < i \leq n
\end{array} \right. \]
where $(x,y) \in X_p \times Y_{n-p-1}$, and $d_0^0$ is the
augmentation (of $X$ or $Y$);\\
lastly, the degeneracies are:-
\[s_i^{n-1}(x,y) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cl} (s_i^px,y) & \mbox{ \ if \ }
0 \leq i \leq p \\(x,s_{i-p-1}^{n-p-2}y) & \mbox{ \ if \ } p < i \leq n-1
\end{array} \right. \]
where $(x,y) \in X_p \times Y_{n-p-2}$.
There is also a coend definition for $\odot$:\[ X \odot Y
\cong\int^{p,q} (X_p \times Y_q) \cdot \triangle([p]or[q]) \]
\noindent {\bf Remark}\\
It is trivial to prove that $\triangle [n] \odot \triangle [m]
\cong \triangle [n+m+1]$. It is also true that $\odot $ is an
associative operation, but the simplest proof requires a number of
constructions and results associated with the join which are not of
immediate interest here.
\section{Topological Join}
\label{top}
The following definition is a generalisation of the concept of join for two
suitable subspaces of a vector space.
The {\it topological join} thus defined is discussed in some detail in chapter 5,
section 7 of \cite{Top:Brown}. Results proved there will be used here
without proof: the notation for this section is largely taken from
there. We work within the category of compactly generated spaces.\\
\noindent {\bf Definition \ref{top} (i)} \\
Consider two topological spaces
${\cal U}$ and ${\cal V}$, and construct a set of 4-tuples
$(r,u,s,v)$, where $u \in {\cal U},\; v \in {\cal V}, \; r,s \in
[0,1]$ and $r + s = 1$: in
the case that $r = 0$, the $u$ will be ignored, and in the case that
$s = 0$, the $v$ will be ignored. This set will be suggestively called
${\cal U} \ast {\cal V}$.
There are obvious projections from this set of 4-tuples: \\
$p_{\cal U}:{\cal U} \ast {\cal V} \rightarrow {\cal U}$,
\rule{5pt}{0pt} $p_{\cal V}:{\cal U} \ast {\cal V} \rightarrow {\cal
V}$, \rule{5pt}{0pt} $p_r:{\cal U} \ast {\cal V} \rightarrow (0,1] $
and $p_s:{\cal U}
\ast {\cal V} \rightarrow (0,1]$ \\
which are termed the {\it coordinate functions} of ${\cal U} \ast
{\cal V}$. The first two are obviously defined, the last two take a
point $(r,u,s,v) \in {\cal U} \ast {\cal V} $ to $r$ and $s$
respectively.
The {\it topological join} of ${\cal U}$ and ${\cal V}$ is
defined as the set ${\cal U} \ast {\cal V}$ together with the initial
topology with respect to the {\it coordinate functions}. Thus a
function with codomain ${\cal U} \ast {\cal V}$ is a continuous
function if and only if its composite with each of the coordinate
functions is continuous.
\medskip
To compare the combinatorial and topological join operations, we will need more precision on the construction of the geometric realisation.
There are a number of different constructive definitions of geometric
realisation. The process is essentially the following:
(i) take one copy of $\triangle ^n$ for each non-degenerate $n$-simplex of
$X$;\\
and then
(ii) glue them all together using the face and degeneracy maps of
the simplicial set $X$ (see \cite{Cat:Mac}). \\ Explicitly we have:
Let $X$ be a simplicial set. Define $RX$ by:\\
\[ RX = \sqcup_{n \in {\mathbb N}}\sqcup_{x \in X_n} \triangle ^n_x \]
Define an equivalence relation on $RX$ as generated by the
following relation:\\
writing $({\bf p},x)$ for $(p_0,\cdots ,p_m) \in \triangle ^m_x$
and $({\bf q},y)$ for $ (q_0,\cdots ,q_n) \in \triangle ^n_y$ then
$({\bf p},x) \sim ({\bf q},y)$ if either \\
\rule{20mm}{0mm} $d_ix = y$ and $\delta _i(q_0,\cdots ,q_n) =
(p_0,\cdots , p_m)$ or \\
\rule{20mm}{0mm} $s_ix = y$ and $\sigma _i(q_0,\cdots ,q_n) =
(p_0,\cdots, p_m)$,\\
where the $\delta_i$ and $\sigma_i$ are the continuous maps given by face inclusion and folding in the usual way.
Then $ |X| \cong {RX}/{\sim} $ where $ {RX}/{\sim } $ has
the identification topology.
\begin{proposition}
\label{join}
\[\triangle ^p \ast \triangle ^q \cong \triangle ^{p+q+1} \]
\end{proposition}
{\bf Proof} \\
Consider the vector space ${\mathbb R}^{p+q+1}$ and the two compact convex subsets:
\[ X = \{ \, (x_0,x_1,\cdots, x_p,0,\cdots ,0)
\, | \, \sum_{i=0}^p x_i = 1 \, \} \]
\[ Y = \{ \, (0,\cdots,0,y_0,y_1,\cdots ,y_q) \, | \, \sum_{j=0}^q
y_j = 1 \, \} \]
First note that $X \cong \triangle ^p$ and $Y \cong \triangle ^q$.
Furthermore, it is clear that no two lines in the set $U = \{ \,
r{\bf x} + (1-r){\bf y} \, | \, 0 \leq r \leq 1, \, {\bf x} \in X, \,
{\bf y} \in Y \, \} $ intersect except at endpoints. Thus $X \ast Y =
U$. However, $U$ is the subset of ${\mathbb R} ^{p+q+1} $ given by
\[ \{\, (rx_0,\cdots ,rx_p, (1-r)y_0,\cdots ,(1-r)y_q) \, | \,
\sum_{i=0}^p rx_i + \sum_{j=0}^q (1-r)y_j = 1 \, \}. \]
That is, $U$ is the affine $(p+q+1)$-simplex. Therefore $\triangle ^p \ast
\triangle ^q \cong \triangle ^{p+q+1}$. \hfill $\square $ \\
When we form $\triangle [p] \odot \triangle [q]$, we obtain, on varying $p$ and $q$, a bicosimplicial object in $SS$. (In general if $\cal C$ is a category, a cosimplicial object in $\cal C$ is a functor from $\Delta$ to $\cal C$, whilst a bicosimplicial object is a functor from $\Delta \times \Delta$ to $\cal C$.) Similarly $\triangle^p \ast \triangle^q$ is a bicosimplicial space.
\begin{lemma}
There is a natural isomorphism
\[ |\triangle [p]| \ast |\triangle [q]| \cong |\triangle [p] \odot
\triangle [q]| \]
of bisimplicial spaces.
\label{join2}
\end{lemma}
{\bf Proof}\\
Recall $|\triangle [m]| := \triangle ^m $. Since
$\triangle [p] \odot \triangle [q] \cong \triangle ([p]or[q]) =
\triangle [p+q+1]$, the isomorphism exists for each pair $(p,q)$.
Now $\{\triangle ^n\}_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ has an obvious cosimplicial
structure, and the isomorphism is easily seen to be an isomorphism of bicosimplicial
spaces. \hfill $\square $ \\
\begin{theorem} \rule{0pt}{12pt} \\
Let $X$ and $Y$ be trivially augmented simplicial sets. Then
\[ |X \odot Y| \cong |X| \ast |Y| \]
\label{join3}
\end{theorem}
{\bf Proof}\\
(The following is a direct geometric proof: we will comment later on the categorical aspects.)
Recall that
\[ |X| \ast |Y| \, := \, \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} r[(p_0,\cdots,p_m)_x]
\rule{24pt}{0pt} s.t. & \sum_{i=0}^m p_i = 1 \mbox{ , } \sum_{i=0}^n
q_i = 1 \mbox{ , } \\ \rule{12pt}{0pt} + s[(q_0, \cdots q_n)_y] \, &
x \in X_m \mbox{ , } y \in Y_n \mbox{ , } r + s = 1
\\ & p_i,q_i,r,s \geq 0 \\ & \mbox{and }
[-] \mbox{ denotes equivalence class} \end{array} \right\} \]
It should also be noted that if $r = 0$, the point from $|X|$ is
ignored and similarly, if $s = 0,$ the point from $|Y|$ is ignored.\\
Define a map $ f:|X| \ast |Y| \longrightarrow |X \odot Y| $ as
follows:
\[ f(r[(p_0,\cdots ,p_m)_x] + s[(q_0,\cdots ,q_n)_y]) \mapsto
[(rp_0,\cdots ,rp_m,sq_0,\cdots ,sq_n)_{x,y}] \]
The function $f$ is well defined since if $r = 0$, the point $x$ is ignored, similarly if $s = 0$. This means that for any $y$, it
must be true that $(0,\cdots 0,q_0,\cdots ,q_n)_{(x,y)} \sim (0,\cdots
0,q_0,\cdots q_n)_{(x',y)}$ for all $x,x' \in X$. This will be true exactly when the augmentation of both $X$ and $Y$ are trivial as was required. A moment's thought then will show that the function $f$
respects the relation and so is well defined. Continuity is also
trivial to check. The obvious inverse function is also continuous under the
definition of the topology on $|X| \ast |Y|$. Thus the two spaces are homeomorphic. \hfill $\square $ \\
\noindent{\bf Remarks}\\
(i) It may seem slightly contrived that the condition ``trivially augmented'' should be needed, however consider the following example:
Let $X := \triangle [0] \sqcup \triangle [0]$ together with the {\it canonical} augmentation, and consider $X \odot X$. The result is the disjoint union of four unit intervals -- that is, $\triangle [1] \sqcup \triangle [1] \sqcup \triangle [1] \sqcup \triangle [1] $: Ideally, the result should be homotopically equivalent to a $1$-sphere.
(ii) The Theorem above is in fact a simple consequence of a categorical argument which shows a different aspect of the necessity for having a trivial augmentation.
The simplicial complex functor to augmented simplicial sets needs to specify an augmentation, and for the functor to be right adjoint to the geometric realisation functor, the augmentation must be the trivial one (since the trivial augmentation is right adjoint to the forgetful functor from augmented simplicial sets to simplicial sets). Thus the condition `trivially augmented' merely requires that the augmented simplicial sets are related to the geometric realisation functor upon which the theorem depends. The result is now seen to depend just on left adjoints interacting nicely with the coends in the geometric realisation and join functors.
\section{Simplicial Spheres.}
Recall (from \cite{Top:Brown}) that
\[ {\bf S}^p \ast {\bf S}^q \cong {\bf S}^{p+q+1} . \]
This essentially says that the $n$-sphere in the category of topological spaces is the join of $n+1$ copies of the $0$-sphere.
There are several simplicial models for the n-sphere. For instance, Gabriel and Zisman, \cite{GandZ}, p.26, define the simplicial circle, $\Omega$, to be the coequaliser of the pair of morphisms
$$\diagram
\triangle [0]\rto<1ex>^{\delta_0}\rto<-1ex>_{\delta_1} & \triangle[1],
\enddiagram$$
and the suspension of a pointed simplicial set $X$ to be $\Omega \wedge X$. This gives an n-sphere as being $\bigwedge^n\Omega$, obtained from the n-cube $\triangle[1]^n$ by collapsing the `boundary' of the cube to a point. Other authors form a simplicial sphere by collapsing the boundary $\partial \triangle[n]$ of the n-simplex to a point.
The join operation suggests another form.
Consider the simplicial set formed as the disjoint union of two copies of $\triangle [0]$ and augmented trivially. This will be denoted by ${\bf S}^0$ and will be referred to as the simplicial $0$-sphere.
Then ${\bf S}^0 \odot {\bf S}^0$ has four non-degenerate $1$-simplices connected to each other in a ``diamond'' as below:-\\
\begin{picture}(300,115)
\put(150,55){\vector(1,1){47}}
\put(150,55){\vector(1,-1){47}}
\put(250,55){\vector(-1,1){47}}
\put(250,55){\vector(-1,-1){47}}
\put(150,55){\circle*{5}}
\put(200,105){\circle*{5}}
\put(200,5){\circle*{5}}
\put(250,55){\circle*{5}}
\end{picture}
Define the simplicial $n$-sphere, ${ S}^n \in ob{\mathit ASS}$, as follows:-
\[S^n : = \underbrace{ {S}^0 \odot \cdots \odot { S}^0}_{n+1} \]
It is clear from the definition of combinatorial join and of the simplicial $0$-sphere that the simplicial $n$-sphere is a triangulation of the topological $n$-sphere. In fact, theorem~\ref{join3} gives explicitly that
\[ |{ S}^n| \cong {\bf S}^n. \]
Moreover this model clearly satisfies
\[ S^p \odot S^q \cong S^{p+q+1}\]
unlike the other models. Thus if we write $\Sigma^n = \triangle[n] / \partial\triangle[n]$ then $\Sigma^p \odot \Sigma^q$ has one non-degenerate simplex in each of the dimensions 1, p + 1, q + 1, and p + q + 1, and two non-degenerate simplices in dimension 0 and so `looks' totally unlike $\Sigma^{p+q+1}$.
The combinatorial join forms part of a closed monoidal structure on the category of augmented simplicial sets, $ASS$. (The `internal hom' is given by
\[ [X,Y]_n = ASS(X,Dec^{n+1}Y),\]
where $Dec$ is the d\'ecalage functor (see Duskin, \cite{:Dus} ).) It is therefore possible to define augmented analogues of the loopspace construction that are compatible with the join.
|
\section{Prologue}
The satellite missions {\sl MAP} and {\sl Planck} dominate any view of future
measurements of the anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background. We
will attempt to look beyond and around those two experiments and see
what sorts of physical questions other future projects might
address.
The reader has several advantages over the authors which we will not
try to counter. First, many of the experiments which are in the near
term future for us will be in the present or past for the reader, so
we do not focus on evaluating detailed {\it anticipated\/} technical
capabilities for a short list of such experiments. Readers who wish to
pursue that approach might start at
{\tt http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cmb.html},
or other similar web-pages for up to date information and links.
Second, readers of the rest this volume will be in a better position than we
are to make informed judgements about the ideal strategies for
measuring, avoiding or understanding foreground sources. Therefore,
even though we think that this aspect of anisotropy will be an
increasingly important and sophisticated part of the field, we have
not put much emphasis on it here. As a crude aid to understanding how
well future experiments are equipped to cope with foreground sources
we have included a column giving the number of independent frequency
channels for each experiment listed in Table~1.
A view of the present situation, indicated in Figure~1 (see Smoot \&
Scott 1998 for more details), sets the
context for our view of the future. Even at a casual and sceptical
glance these experiments seem to be converging on a power spectrum
which has a peak in it. This is confirmed by careful quantitative
analysis of combined data sets (Bond, Jaffe \& Knox~1998).
Collectively these CMB measurements already tell us a number of
fundamental things about the sort of Universe that we live in (see
Lawrence, Scott \& White~1999). The prospects for future measurements
look very bright indeed. Announcements of the value of $\Omega_0$, for
example, are likely to (continue to) come from experiments carried out
from the best terrestrial sites or suspended from stratospheric
balloons, during the next few years. However, the full belief of the
community in any detailed cosmological conclusions will and should
await the satellite results.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=13cm \epsfysize=12cm \epsfbox{halpern_scott_fig1_col.ps}
\caption{A summary of the current anisotropy data, here presented
as the extrapolated value of the quadrupole moment for a flat power
spectrum, plotted against the multipole moment, which is roughly an
inverse angle, $\ell\simeq135^\circ/\theta$. The dotted line is the flat
power spectrum fit to {\sl COBE} slone. The solid line is the power spectrum
for standard Cold Dark Matter, as an example model. We give a separate
list of references at the end, and there are several other recent reviews
which discuss current experiments in more detail (e.g.~Lawrence 1998).}
\end{figure}
Despite the steadily improving quality of experiments, we believe that
none of the more recent experiments in Figure~1 would have stood as a
convincing {\it discovery\/} of primordial anisotropy had it not been
for {\sl COBE} (this remark certainly applies to our own experiment,
{\sl BAM}, as much as to any other experiment). What was critical in the
discovery was the understanding of the roles of galactic contributions
and systematic errors, provided by {\sl COBE}'s all-sky coverage and
comparatively stable operating environment. It was also crucial for
the discovery process that the DMR on {\sl COBE} and the {\sl FIRS} balloon
program showed a consistent fluctuation amplitude {\it and}, later
analysis showed, correlated structures observed at very different
wavelengths. Many experimenters had reassured themselves by making
plots showing the similarity of the {\sl FIRS} and DMR power spectra, before
the end of the day on which the DMR results were announced.
There is a lesson arising from the history of the measurement of the
intensity spectrum of the CMB which may be useful here. There were
plenty of experiments prior to 1990 which appeared to have sufficient
sensitivity to perform useful measurements, many of these with no
obvious source of systematic error.\footnote{We will decline to
provide examples here, reminded as we are of Winston Churchill's
failed attempt to maintain parliamentary courtesy when he said that
half of the members present were not asses.} The successful 1990
experiments (Gush et al.~1990, Mather et al.~1990) were
performed {\it out of the atmosphere\/}, they were {\it
differential\/} and they were carried out with {\it a fanatical
attention to avoiding systematic errors\/} as the primary design
guideline. The results were clear and reliable enough to render moot
any lingering debates about inconsistencies between previous
experiments. One should not be surprised to see a very similar
scenario play itself out in the near term anisotropy measurements.
\section{Near Term Future Experiments}
Table~1 lists the properties of some future experiments. The list is
meant to be illustrative of current planning; experiments are included
which are past the proposal stage and for which no results are yet
available. Some of the listed experiments already have data. Of
course many experiments which have already produced some results and
are therefore not on this list will also produce future results.
All of the listed experiments involve dedicated, custom-built
instrumentation. The control of systematic errors which this allows
puts these experiments well ahead of attempts to use existing general
purpose facilities.
\begin{table}
\caption{Several Future Anisotropy Experiments}
\begin{center
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\tableline
Snappy & Frequency &$\ell$-range & Number of \\
Acronym & Coverage (GHz)& & freq. channels \\
\tableline
\multicolumn{4}{r}{Single Dish Telescopes}\\
\tableline
{\sl MAT} & 26--46, 140--150 & 30--850 & 3 \\
{\sl MAXIMA}& 150--420 & 50--700 & 4 \\
{\sl BOOMERanG} & 100--800 & 10--700 & 4 \\
{\sl BEAST } & 25--90 & 10--800 & \\
{\sl TopHat } & 150--720 & 10--700 & 5 \\
{\sl ACBAR } &150--450 & 60--2500 & 4 \\
\tableline
\multicolumn{4}{r}{Interferometers}\\
\tableline
{\sl VSA }& 26--36 & 130--1800& 6 \\
{\sl CBI }& 26--36 & 300--3000& 10 \\
{\sl DASI} & 26--36 & 125--700 & 5 \\
{\sl MINT} & 140--250 & 1000--3000 & 10 \\
\tableline
\multicolumn{4}{r}{Satellites}\\
\tableline
{\sl MAP} & 20--106 & 1--800& 5 \\
{\sl Planck} & 30--850 & 1--1500 & 4 + 6 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Sufficient sensitivity is achievable, sometimes through great
technical effort. The various detection technologies available each
impose constraints on experimental design and come with their own set
of sources of potential systematic errors. Any serious discussion of
specific systematic errors is beyond the scope of this article but we
include some naive examples to illustrate the problem. Either a $100\,$mK
change in the temperature of an {\it ideal\/} aluminum mirror or a
$200\,$mK change in the atmosphere above a stratospheric balloon causes a
radiative signal {\it 25 times larger\/} per pixel than the {\sl MAP}
systematic error budget!
\subsection{Systematic Errors}
The careful CMB experimenter is not paranoid, but knows that the
Universe is {\it in fact\/} trying to ruin the experiment. The standard
answer to the question of what level of systematic error is tolerable
is that there is no systematic way to handle systematic errors and,
therefore, that {\it any\/} level of systematic error is a concern. We
will ignore this good advice for a moment and try to estimate an
answer.
If the goal of an experiment is to get a rough estimate of the power
spectrum of the sky, a systematic error amounting to $10\%$ of the
signal amplitude contributes about $1\%$ to the power spectrum. Even
if the signals are correlated in some surprising way and this
estimate is wrong by a factor of a few, the effect is not likely to
mask the presence of the main acoustic peak, for example. This fact is what
has allowed us to get so far without a better understanding of diffuse
foreground sources.
On the other hand, there are important questions whose answer requires
correlating many pixels in a map together in order to pick out a fairly weak
efect. Measuring amplitudes of non-Gaussian statistics of a map or
searching for intensity-polarization correlations are examples. In
these cases the requirement for what level of signal systematic errors
can contribute to a map becomes very stringent. The amplitude of
systematic errors should be below the experiment's single pixel
variance divided by the square root of the number of pixels to be
averaged. As a numerical example, in an experiment with $0.13^\circ$
pixels and $30\,\mu$K variance averaging 1/10 of the sky, one needs to
know that systematic errors are less than $0.06\,\mu$K rms for the
average value not to be tainted. This is 50 times better than any
experiment we have heard of. The lesson is:
to produce maps of the CMB which merit
careful scrutiny, avoid systematic errors like the
plague.\footnote{Winston Churchill also said `One ought never to turn one's
back on a threatened danger and try to run
away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet
it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half'.}
\subsection {Detection Techniques}
Detectors fall into two broad categories: coherent detectors, in which
the radiative electric field, including its phase, is amplified before
detection; and incoherent detectors, which measure total radiative
power within some frequency band.
There are two types of very low noise coherent amplifier: InP high
electron-mobility transistors (HEMTs); and
superconductor-insulator-superconductor (SIS) mixers. HEMTs can be
operated at temperatures as warm as room temperature. The noise
performance gets better as they are cooled, down to $\simeq4\,$K,
although amplifiers exhibit gain fluctuations at low temperature.
Recently HEMT amplifiers have been made to work at frequencies well
above $100\,$GHz -- noise performance is better at lower frequencies.
SIS mixers are typically quieter than HEMTs and can operate at
frequencies as high as $1\,$THz. However they must be cooled to
$4\,$K to operate. Either of these coherent amplifiers can be used in
a single telescope where the signal is amplified and detected, or as
part of an interferometer in which case amplified signals from several
telescopes are each multiplied with a local oscillator signal yielding
lower frequency outputs which are then correlated to produce
interference fringes.
The advantages of coherent detectors are that they are fast, stable,
not sensitive to microphonic pick-up and involve simple cryogenics.
HEMTs also have the important practical advantage that many aspects of
detector performance can be verified at room temperature, which
greatly speeds up new instrument development. The disadvantage is
that they are not as sensitive to broad band signals as incoherent
detectors are.
\begin{table}
\caption{Detection strategies}
\begin{center
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\tableline
Snappy & Detectors & Striking & Location \\
Acronym & & Feature & \\
\tableline
\multicolumn{4}{r}{Single Dish Telescopes}\\
\tableline
{\sl MAT } &HEMTs and SIS & Has data & Chile 17{,}000$^\prime$\\
{\sl MAXIMA}& $100\,$mK Bolos. &Has data & Balloon\\
{\sl BOOMERanG} &$300\,$mK Bolos. &First CMB LDB flt.& Balloon,
LDB\tablenotemark{a}\\
{\sl BEAST } & & & Balloon, LDB\\
{\sl TopHat } & Bolometers &Tel. {\it above\/} balloon
& Balloon, LDB\\
{\sl ACBAR } &$300\,$mK Bolos. & Imaging array
& S. Pole 10{,}000$^\prime$\\
\tableline
\multicolumn{4}{r}{Interferometers}\\
\tableline
{\sl VSA } &HFETs &14 antennae & Tenerife\\
{\sl CBI }& HEMTs at $6\,$K &13 antennae & Chile, 17{,}000$^\prime$\\
{\sl DASI} &Cooled HEMTs & 13 elements & S. Pole, 10{,}000$^\prime$\\
{\sl MINT} &SIS &6 antennae &Chile\\
\tableline
\multicolumn{4}{r}{Satellites}\\
\tableline
{\sl MAP} & HEMTs $<95\,$K & Differential tels.
& Space, L2\tablenotemark{b}\\
{\sl Planck} &HEMTs at $20\,$K & & Space, L2\\
&$0.1\,$K Bolos. & & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\tablenotetext{a}{LDB = Long Duration Balloon}
\tablenotetext{b}{L2 = Earth-Sun L$_2$ Lagrange point}
\end{table}
Incoherent detectors, in this case bolometers, can be an order of
magnitude more sensitive than HEMT and SIS systems. They can be made
to operate with background limited performance (BLIP), where
fundamental thermodynamic fluctuations in the incident radiation field
dominate over detector noise. In addition
they can be made to be sensitive to a
broad range of wavelengths. However, physical device size scales with
wavelength and so it is easier to make small bolometers sensitive.
Typically bolometers are designed for frequencies above $50\,$GHz.
Bolometers are often susceptible to microphonic and radio-frequency
pick-up. They are non-linear and therefore they must be characterized
in their experimental operating condition, which can be very difficult
for balloon and satellite experiments. They need cumbersome
cryogenics to reach their operating temperatures of $0.3\,$K or
colder. However, their extraordinary sensitivity and broad frequency
coverage often outweigh these disadvantages. Table~2 lists some
detector properties for the experiments in Table~1.
\subsubsection{Interferometers}
The idea of building a dedicated interferometer to study anisotropy of
the CMB is not new, but improvements in detectors, and especially in
broad bandwidth correlators has made this a very promising option,
which is being actively pursued by several groups.
Interferometers do a good job of rejecting the effects of atmospheric
variations compared to beam-chopped single telescope instruments.
Measurements take place essentially instantaneously, on time scales
associated with the interference bandwidth, and on these time scales
the atmosphere does not vary. Also, interferometers measure at
slightly higher angular resolution than a single telescope of the same
overall size, and in any case can easily be built for higher
resolution than the currently planned space missions. This advantage
will be important in exploring the expected Sunyaev-Zel'dovich forest,
especially if they can also be made to work above $200\,$GHz.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{halpern_scott_fig2.ps}
\caption{The proposed pointed platform of {\sl MINT}, with four $30\,$cm
aperture telescopes mounted on a single $1.5\,$m platform,
illustrating how CMB interferometers are very different from the {\sl
VLA}. Drawing courtesy of W.B. Dorwart, Princeton University.}
\end{figure}
Unlike the case for conventional radio interferometers, the individual
telescopes here are crowded quite close together to keep angular
resolution modest. Often, all the telescopes are mounted on a single
pointed platform, which eliminates the need for signal delays before
the correlators. See White et al.~(1997) for an analysis of the performance of
these interferometers for measuring anisotropies.
\subsubsection{Satellites}
Assuming that neither suffers any serious mishap, {\sl MAP} and {\sl Planck}
will produce {\it definitive\/} measurements of the primary anisotropy of the
CMB, at a reliability level which the other experiments can not attain.
The reliability arises form the long observation period, complete sky
coverage and, primarily, the extraordinarily good observing
environment at L2. Even during the 90-odd day period during which it
makes its way past the moon and out to L2 to start the nominal
observation program, {\sl MAP} will be in a much more thermally and
radiatively stable observing environment than any previous CMB
experiment.
\section{After {\sl MAP} and {\sl Planck}}
What will the important experimental questions be after {\sl MAP} and
{\sl Planck} succeed? Clearly, measurements of the polarization of
the CMB, which are explored elsewhere in this volume, will be very
exciting. We also expect that studying diffuse
foreground emission will become very exciting and active, as our ability
to measure and identify these sources of emission develops. However,
that topic is covered in the whole rest of this book so we need not
consider it further here! For the remainder of this article we will discuss
various ideas for what might be conceivable in the more long term
future.\footnote{Ignoring the sound advice of Winston Churchill, who said
`It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only
be grasped one link at a time.'}
\subsection{Anisotropy}
\subsubsection{Statistics}
Can phases contain information which is not {\it more\/} easily seen
in the power spectrum? In principle, of course the answer is yes.
But in practice, it seems clear that the smart money has to be on the
negative answer. So although it would always be foolish to neglect to
search for other signals, we expect that the vast majority of the
primary anisotropy information will be contained in the power
spectrum. Partly this is because the signals seem likely to be close
to Gaussian, but also because the power spectrum (or the variance as a
function of scale) is such a robust quantity -- specific patterns
on the sky may require lots of phase-correlation to produce them, but
much of that simply specifies the specific realization, rather than
containing information about the underlying model. The supremacy of
the power spectrum will certainly cease to be true for foreground
signals, or indeed for a range of astrophysical processing effects
that come in at smaller angular scales.
One could imagine mounting a specific search for, e.g.~point or line
sources on the sky, as specific examples of non-Gaussian signals. One
question to ask, then, is what sort of strategy one would design to carry
this out most efficiently ({\it and\/} convincingly). We find it hard to
see how to avoid the conclusion that you would end up making a map, perhaps
deeper and with higher resolution than otherwise, but a map nevertheless.
Hence we suspect that the search for non-Gaussian signals is unlikely to
be a strong driver for the design of future experiments, even if it plays
a stronger role in the data analysis.
A great deal of effort has been going into the study of non-Gaussian
signals, e.g.~using Minkowski functionals, wavelets, etc.
Given how many such tests have
already been applied to {\sl COBE}, we imagine that {\it every\/} reasonable
statistic will be measured for all future large data-sets. In particular
we foresee an increased interest in the investigation of non-Gaussian
statistics for various sorts of {\it foreground\/} signal.
\subsubsection{Angular scales}
Ignoring foregrounds, how far out in $\ell$ is far enough?
{\sl Planck} seems sufficient for the primary signal. But that may change,
depending on what we learn about foregrounds and the secondary signals,
caused by various astrophysical effects, which conceptually lie in the
`grey-area' between background and foregrounds. There seems to be a growing
interest in these astrophysical signals at small scales, and we see no
reason for that to change. It may be that the smallest
angular scales are ultimately best probed with interferometers.
We expect there to be secondary signal information down to the angular
scales of distant galaxies, i.e. $\ell\simeq{\rm few}\times10^4$.
\subsubsection{A CMB Deep Field}
What might we learn from a CMB deep field? Of course, irrespective of
the answer to that question, it will be done anyway! Non-Gaussian
signals from higher-order effects at small-scales would certainly show
up in such a map. On scales where there has been significant growth
of structure, and certainly on non-linear scales, we would expect
there to be significant non-Gaussianity. There seems little doubt
that at some point, when the instrumentation has matured, it will be
worthwhile to carry out such a CMB Deep Field. Exactly how
non-Gaussian (or in other ways surprising) the small-scale signals
turn out to be will determine how far beyond `cosmic variance' it is
worth integrating.
\subsubsection{Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effects}
We are sure that, motivated by the impressive results of today's
experimenters, investigation of S-Z effects will continue to grow as a
sub-field. Particularly exciting is the idea of `blank sky' searches for
the `S-Z Forest', or ionized gas tracing out the Cosmic Web.
The thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, or inverse Compton scattering of the
CMB photons through hot gas, gives a temperature fluctuation of
roughly $(kT_{\rm e}/m_{\rm e}c^2)\tau$, where $T_{\rm}$ and $m_{\rm e}$ are
the temperature and mass of the electron, respectively, and $\tau$ is
the optical depth through the ionized gas. There is also a spectral shape,
distinct from the CMB blackbody, of a well-known form (see e.g.~Sunyaev \&
Zel'dovich~1980)
Detailed studies of the thermal S-Z effect for particular clusters will
provide constraints on the morphology, clumping, thermal state of the gas
and projected mass, amongst other things. The power spectrum of these
fluctuations peaks at $\ell\simeq2000$ typically, with
$\left\langle Q_{\rm flat}\right\rangle$ amplitude
of a few $\mu$K, although with great variation between models. Detailed
investigation of this power spectrum might further distinguish between
cosmological models, and between ideas for cluster formation. The power
spectrum for the kinematic effect, and for related effects (due to variations
in potential, for example) are generally much smaller.
Several of these
`higher-order' Sunyaev-Zel'dovich type effects are potentially
measurable for {\it individual\/} clusters,
and will doubtless be attempted in the future (see the review
by Birkinshaw~1998). Certainly the kinematic effect (which depends on
the line-of-sight velocity and is $\sim(v_{\parallel}/c)\tau$)
can be measured for some clusters. However, this
effect has the same spectrum as a CMB fluctuation, and so the small-angle
CMB anisotropies act as a source of `noise', making is difficult to
measure the velocities to better than a few hundred ${\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$.
One further effect uses the polarization in the CMB scattered by the
kinematic S-Z effect, which depends on the cluster's transverse velocity
(actually $\sim (v^2/c^2)\tau$).
In principle, together with the kinematic S-Z effect itself, this gives a
means of estimating the full 3 dimensional velocity of clusters. Although
difficult to measure, this polarization signal has a frequency dependence
which may help to disentangle it from other effects (Audit \& Simmons~1999).
There are other spectral signals expected from non-thermal electron
populations, for example in the lobes of radio sources. However,
the utilisation of
such measurements to study the lobe properties will require extremely high
angular resolution.
\subsubsection{Other secondary effects}
There are several other known secondary effects (see, e.g.~Hu et al.~1995,
and other contributions to this volume), and surely many other
{\it unknown\/} ones!
One effect which has been studied in some detail is a second-order
coupling between density and velocity, usually referred to as the Vishniac
effect. In a sense this can be thought of as specific case of the
kinematic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. For Cold Dark Matter type models the
signal is typically $\simeq1\,\mu$K and peaking at
$\ell\simeq{\rm few}\times10^3$ (e.g.~Hu \& White~1996,
Jaffe \& Kamionkowski~1998). Although
certainly difficult to measure, it is nevertheless feasible, and worth
pursuing, since measurement can give direct information about reionization.
Additional structure ar small scales (e.g.~from an isocurvature mode) could
increase the signal. In addition there will be polarization effects,
although these are likely to be {\it really\/} small.
Patchy reionization (discussed elsewhere in this volume) is just another
S-Z effect, and tends to be dominated by the kinematic source from moving
bubbles of gas as the Universe undergoes reionization. The amplitude of
this signal seems likely to be smaller than for the Vishniac effect,
although it is as yet
unclear what the predictions will be for realistic models which include
inhomogeneous reionization (with radiative transfer through
voids etc.), distributions of sources, and other complications. Again
there may be polarization effects, and correlations with other signals,
which, in principle, could be used to pull the signal out.
In addition there may also be a measurable S-Z
signal from the Ly$\,\alpha$ forest, on
scales well below an arcminute, and with amplitude perhaps as high
as a few $\mu$K (Loeb~1996).
Rees-Sciama, or varying potential fluctuations tend to be rather
small in amplitude ($<10^{-6}$ in fractional temperature change), but
not negligibly so. Here again there are a number of effects, in particular
those caused by time-varying potentials in the light-crossing time, and
those caused by potentials moving across the line of sight (e.g.~Tuluie,
Laguna \& Anninos~1996). These will have
CMB-like spectra, and the signal will be dominated by non-linear
structures (meaning that the statistics will be highly non-Gaussian).
The effects may peak at relatively small angles $\ell\simeq{\rm few}\times100$,
but there they will be well below the primary signal, and hard to
disentangle. So the best prospects for detection may be at smaller scales,
where the primary power spectrum is falling off. Detection may also be
easier using correlations with other signals. And certainly such signals
are unlikely to be Gaussian, and so may be teased out of the data by looking
at their statistics (e.g.~Spergel \& Goldberg~1999).
Gravitational lensing affects the CMB power spectrum by smearing the
anisotropies, thereby smoothing out features in the power spectrum. The
temperature field is affected by this smearing, so that combinations of
derivatives can be used to extract the lensing signal directly, at least
in principle (Seljak \& Zaldarriaga~1999).
The projected matter field can be reconstructed through a combination of
this technique and correlations with other signals (Zaldarriaga \&
Seljak~1999). For example, the large angle signal caused by the variation
in gravitational potential (the `ISW effect') may be correlated with the
lensing signal in open or $\Lambda$-dominated models. However, the level
of such a correlated signal is not likely to be large. One can easily
imagine searching for all sorts of other correlations, for example the
lensing signal with S-Z signals, with surveys
at other wavelengths, e.g.~large-scale structure, X-ray maps, etc.
\subsubsection{Spatial-spectral signals}
At the moment the only significant signal which mixes both spatial and
spectral deviations is the S-Z effect. Although we have no specific
ideas, we imagine that other such effects, involving perhaps different
scattering processes, are likely to be developed in the near future.
Although we expect the effect to be quite small, we mention as an
example that Rayleigh scattering, which would spectrally filter
anisotropy signals, has been omitted from calculations. In addition there
could in principle be resonant line scattering from molecules in clouds
at high redshift. Searches for
such mixed spatial-spectral signals seem likely to become more
important as multi-frequency data-sets improve in quality and quantity.
\subsection{Non-anisotropy}
Non-anisotropy measurements are heroically hard to do; certainly such things
are worth pursuing, but the immediate returns are not as obvious as for
the current anisotropy prospects. On the other hand, we expect that effort
will fairly soon return to this direction when the `easy' results have been
mined from the primary power spectrum. Here we simply list a number of
possibilities. Figure~3 shows the form of some of the standard distortions
to the CMB spectrum.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=11cm \epsfbox{halpern_scott_fig3.ps}
\caption{Shapes for some theoretical possibilities for spectral distortions.
The amplitudes here are arbitrary. However, the FIRAS 95\% confidence
limits for the amplitudes of these distortions are that the chemical
potential is less than $15\,$mK at the peak and that free-free is less
than $10\,$mK at $4\,$GHz. At those frequencies the Galaxy is perhaps
100 times brighter. See Smoot (1997) for further discussion.}
\end{figure}
A FIRAS/COBRA style total emission measurement of the spectrum of
the sky will almost entirely be dominated by foregrounds outside of
the 20 to $400\,$GHz frequency window in which the spectrum is already
well measured. The present FIRAS limits allow parametrized spectral
distortions as large as 10s of mK, easily larger than the
measurement uncertainty in a careful experiment, but 100 to 1000 times dimmer
than diffuse galactic emission at those wavelengths! Perhaps a
multi-frequency measurement with appropriate angular resolution and
sky coverage will allow a reliable extrapolation to zero galactic
emission, but it will not be easy. Details for commonly considered
distortions are listed below.
\subsubsection{Compton distortions}
$y$-distortions have essentially already been measured, in the
sense that the sum of all the S-Z detected structure will give the
uniform Compton-distortion over the sky. Certainly this gives a lower limit,
which seems likely to be the bulk of the detectable signal (barring
unforeseen exotic processes). The size of this signal is
estimated to be $y\sim10^{-6}$
(e.g.~Colafrancesco et al.~1997), depending on the cosmology.
After the {\sl Planck}
mission (and S-Z investigations from ground-based interferometers) we will
have a very precise estimate for the uniform $y$-distortion (and indeed
an estimate of its power spectrum as well). Between this underlying
signal, and the FIRAS upper limit on a full-sky distortion, there will
remain only a rather narrow window to search for possible isotropic
$y$-distortions from other sources (such as late energy injection, unrelated
to cluster formation). Since there are no immediate candidates for such
processes, and the window is rather narrow, we don't see this as a
particularly strong motivation for mounting a next generation FIRAS mission.
\subsubsection{Free-free emission}
For late energy releases, free-free emission leads to a distortion in
the CMB spectrum, which increases towards lower frequency.
This seems to be the type of distortion which is most feasible to measure
in the near future for realistic models of the Universe. The best upper
limits at the moment imply free-free optical depths of order
$Y_{\rm ff}\la10^{-5}$ (e.g.~Nordberg \& Smoot~1998).
Since this distortion increases at lower frequencies, then it is best
investigated at the lowest frequency at which foreground signals can be
dealt with, which means somewhere around $5\,$GeV. The expected signal
at these frequencies may be as high as $100\,\mu$K, corresponding to
$Y_{\rm ff}$ only about an order of magnitude below the current limits.
The planned experiments ARCADE and DIMES (Kogut~1996)
may be able to reach into the
parameter space for realistic models, and help us understand more about
the early ionized stages of the intergalactic medium. One nice thing
about free-free is that lowering the temperature of the ionized medium
{\it increases\/} the distortion (approximately
$\propto n_{\rm e}^2/\sqrt{T_{\rm e}}$), even although it decreases the
Compton distortion. Hence good limits on $Y_{\rm ff}$ imply either low
reionization redshifts or high electron temperatures, and limits on
$y$ would restrict $T_{\rm e}$, so that direct limits on $z_{\rm reion}$
could be obtained.
\subsubsection{Chemical potential}
Current limits on $\mu$-type distortions are at the $10^{-5}$ level.
Note that this allows
about $15\,$mK at $1\,$GHz within the error budget of the
measurements, which is about 0.1\% of the galactic signal. So pushing that
limit further down is going to be tricky! The way to do this would
presumably be to make a spectral map of the sky and extrapolate to zero
galaxy (essentially what FIRAS did). So how big could a signal be?
Some amount of $\mu$-distortion is unavoidable, since it is generated by
the damping of small-scale perturbations. For realistic models the value
is likely to be around ${\rm few}\times10^{-8}$ (Hu, Scott \& Silk~1994),
which seems unlikely ever to be measurable. Of course various exotic
processes, including energy injection at redshifts $z\sim10^5$ could give
much higher values of $\mu$. Limits could be set by experiments which
also constrain free-free signals. However, we see no compelling reason
currently to invest heavily in future experiments seeking to measure $\mu$
itself. Of course, if any hint of signal were to turn up then that would be
extremely exciting (since unexpected) -- in that case further investigation
of the turn-off in the distortion at low frequencies would probe an
otherwise unexplored early epoch.
\subsubsection{Recombination lines}
When the Universe recombined, every atom emitted at least one Lyman
photon, or else got from the first excited state to the ground state
via the two-photon process (see Seager, Scott \& Sasselov~1999 for more
details). This is a lot of photons, waiting there
to be discovered! Mere measurement of the background of these photons
would be an unprecedented confirmation of the Big Bang paradigm, that the
Universe became neutral at $z\simeq1000$. Further investigation of these
recombination lines would be a direct probe of the recombination process,
and might provide further cosmological constraints. For example, the
strengths of the residual Ly$\,\alpha$ feature and the two-photon
feature will depend on the baryon density and on the expansion rate, hence
allowing measurements of $\Omega_{\rm B}$ and $H$ at $z\simeq1000$.
The problem is that the main recombination lines lie at wavelengths
$\lambda\simeq150\,\mu$m, where the signal from the galaxy is orders of
magnitude stronger. The way to try to find the signal is then presumably
to have enough spatial information to be able to extrapolate to zero
Galaxy, and at the same time to have adequate spectral information to
distinguish the relatively wide spectral feature. If all else failed
it might be possible to rely on the dipole to extract the cosmological
signal, but that would be even more difficult. So we might envisage an
experiment with reasonable sky coverage, low angular resolution, but at
least 3 spectral channels (say in the range 100--200$\,\mu$m) to extract
the wide line. The spectral resolution would have to be good enough to
distinguish this from a roughly isotropic component of warm interstellar
dust -- but that should be possible given that the spectral shape of the
recombination lines is calculable (Dell'Antonio \& Rybicki~1993,
Boschan \& Biltzinger~1998).
\subsubsection{21\,cm line studies}
If the Universe became reionized at redshifts between 5 and 20 there
should be a spectral feature due to red-shifted $21\,$cm emission from
neutral hydrogen which appears today at $70$ to $240\,$MHz (see
Shaver et al.~1999). This emission can be seen against the CMB provided that
there are spatial or spectral signatures (e.g.~Tozzi, et al.~1999) and
a mechanism which decoupled the electron spin temperature from the
CMB. In principle, such studies, using the proposed Square
Kilometer Array for example, could provide information about the
processes that marked the end of the so-called Dark Ages, i.e.~the
reionization process and the formation of the first structures.
This endeavor is sometimes called `cosmic tomography'.
\subsubsection{Other diagnostics of the `Dark Ages'}
There are of course other ways of probing the end of the Dark Ages, and
even into that epoch, many of which might come from entirely different
wavelengths, for example the near infra-red with {\sl NGST}. However, we
imagine that the microwave band will continue to be important in furnishing
new ideas for exploring the domain between $z=5$ and $z=1000$. One recent
speculative idea involves searching for masers which may come from structures
at either the recombination or reionization epochs (Spaans \& Norman~1997).
There will surely be other such ideas in the coming years.
\subsubsection{Measurements of $T_{\rm CMB}(z)$}
The currently best value for the CMB temperature is
$T_0=2.725\pm0.001\,$K (Mather et al.~1999). It seems unclear why
anyone should care about a more precise measurement than that! Before
the existence of the CMB was even suspected, there was evidence for
excess excitation in line ratios of certain molecules, notably
cyanogen , in the interstellar medium (McKellar,~1941).
This method has more recently been used to
constrain the CMB temperature at high redshifts ($z\sim{\rm few}$)
using line with excitation temperatures of the relevant energy
(e.g.~Songaila et al.~1994, Roth \& Bauer~1999). Measurements of
other line ratios etc.~can be used to set limits on the variation of
fundamental physical constants (e.g.~Webb et al.~1999). In a similar
way, detailed measurement of the blackbody shape indicates that
certain combinations of fundamental constants have not varied much
since $z\sim1000$.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=14cm \epsfbox{halpern_scott_fig4_col.ps}
\caption{A compilation of recent constraints on extragalactic diffuse
background radiation. In terms of total energy the CMB and Far-Infrared
Backgrounds dominate. The data are collected primarily from Ressel \&
Turner~1990, Smoot~1997, Lagache et al.~1999, Hauser et
al.~1998, Dwek \& Arendt~1998, Pozzetti et al.~1998, Leinert
et al.~1998, Miyaji et al.~1998, Sreekumar et al.~1998, and
Kappadath et al.~1999. In this colour version lower limits are shown in
red and upper limits in blue.}
\end{figure}
\section{Epilogue}
Assuming that {\sl MAP} and {\sl Planck} are fully successful, and that the
current suite of ground- and balloon-based experiments also return
exquisite data, what then? Will this be then end of the study of the
CMB?\footnote{Churchill warned that `success is never final'. He also
pointed out that `it is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of
quotations'.}
Eventually we can imagine a time when the primordial anisotropies
have been measured so accurately that there are diminishing returns from
further generations of satellite missions, and when small scale
measurements, involving non-Gaussian signals, mixed spatial-spectral signals,
and other complications, have moved firmly into the regime of `messy
astrophysics'. However, there will be further primordial information to
unlock from ever more ambitious polarization experiments. Certainly the
CMB should not be looked at in isolation -- although it is the dominant
diffuse extragalactic background, there are several others to study
(see Figure~4). And if that
doesn't leave the future still filled with exciting and challenging
possibilities, there's always the cosmic neutrino background!
\acknowledgments
We thank the editors for their patience.
|
\section*{Introduction}
The purpose of the Leiden--Berkeley Deep Survey (hereafter ``the
LBDS'') was to gain a better understanding of the nature of faint
radio galaxies and quasars, and to determine their cosmological
evolution. Several high latitude fields in the selected areas SA28,
SA57, SA68 and an area in Hercules had been selected for the purpose
of faint galaxy and quasar photometry, and a collection of good
multi-color prime focus photographic plates had been acquired. Nine
of these fields were then surveyed with the Westerbork Synthesis Radio
Telescope at 21 cm (1.412 GHz), reaching a 5-$\sigma$ limiting flux
density of 1~mJy \cite{Windhorst84a}.
Following this selection of the radio sample, 171 of the radio sources
(53\%) were identified on the photographic plates, whilst for the
Hercules fields there were 47 out of 73 sources identified
\cite{Windhorst84b,Kron85}. Presented here are the results of an
extensive optical/infrared investigation of the two Hercules fields,
with the aim of completing the identification and redshift content of
this sub-sample\cite{Waddington98}. A cosmology of ${\rm
H_0}=50$~km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_0=1$ and $\Lambda=0$ is assumed throughout.
\section*{The data}
The Hercules field was observed on the 200~inch Hale telescope at
Palomar Observatory between 1984 and 1988. Multiple observations were
made through Gunn $g$, $r$ and $i$ filters over the six runs. After
processing and stacking of the multiple-epoch images, optical
counterparts for 22 of the sources were found, leaving only four
sources unidentified to $r\simeq 26$. Near-infrared observations have
been made of the entire subsample at $K$, yielding 60/73 detections
down to $K\simeq 19$--21. Half of the sources have been observed in
$H$ and approximately one-third in $J$. Observations of the brighter
sources were made by Thuan et~al.~(1984)\cite{Thuan84} and by
Neugebauer et~al.\ and Katgert et~al.\ (priv.\ comm.). $K$-band
observations of the sample were completed by the present authors at
UKIRT.
Figure~1 presents the optical and infrared magnitude distributions.
For those sources without CCD observations, photographic magnitudes
from Kron et~al.~(1985)\cite{Kron85} have been transformed to the Gunn
system\cite{Windhorst91}. It is seen that the distribution turns over
at $r \sim 22$, a consequence of evolution in the redshift and/or
luminosity distributions of the radio sources. The the $r$-band
magnitude distribution is essentially unchanged from this milli-Jansky
survey down to micro-Jansky surveys, a thousand times fainter in radio
flux\cite{Windhorst98}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{%
\epsfig{file=waddington_fig1a.ps,width=7cm,height=8cm} \ \ \ \ \
\epsfig{file=waddington_fig1b.ps,width=7cm,height=8cm}}
\vspace{10pt}
\caption{Magnitude distributions for the LBDS Hercules sample. Shaded
histograms show the sources with $S_{1.4}\ge 2$~mJy. Arrows denote
3-$\sigma$ upper limits at $H$ and $K$.}
\label{figureone}
\end{figure}
Prior to the start of the current work, only 16 of the 73 sources in
the LBDS Hercules fields had redshifts published in the literature.
Another 16 sources had unpublished redshifts. The author and
collaborators have successfully observed a further 17 sources during
the past few years, using both the 4.2~m William Herschel
Telescope\cite{Waddington98} and the 10~m W. M. Keck
Telescope\cite{Dunlop96,Spinrad97,Dey97}. This brings the total
number of redshifts to 49 out of 73 sources (67\%).
Photometric redshifts were calculated for the remaining one-third of
the sample. Using the spectral population synthesis models of Jimenez
et~al.~(1998)\cite{Jimenez98}, synthetic $griJHK$ magnitudes were
computed and fitted to the observed magnitudes, giving the
most-probable redshift and a measure of its uncertainty. Comparison
of the estimated and the true redshifts for those sources with
spectroscopic observations, showed that the average difference was
$\sim 0.1$ in $z$.
\section*{The 1.4~GHz radio luminosity function and the redshift cut-off}
Dunlop and Peacock~(1990)\cite{Dunlop90} used a sample of radio
sources brighter than 0.1~Jy at 2.7~GHz to investigate the radio
luminosity function. They concluded that the comoving density of both
flat- and steep-spectrum sources suffers a cut-off at redshifts
$z\simeq 2$--4. This conclusion was drawn from the behavior of both
free-form and simple parametric models (PLE/LDE), and the
model-independent, banded $V/V_{\rm max}$ test. However, the results
were crucially dependent upon the accuracy of their redshift estimates
in the Parkes Selected Regions (PSR).
\begin{figure}
\centerline{%
\epsfig{file=waddington_fig2a.ps,width=8cm,%
height=8cm} \ \ \ \ \
\epsfig{file=waddington_fig2b.ps,width=6cm,%
height=8cm}}
\vspace{10pt}
\caption{{\bf [Left]} The cumulative redshift distribution of all
sources in the 2-mJy Hercules sample. The bold histogram is computed
from the best-fit photometric redshift distribution, the lighter
histograms correspond to the lower and upper limits to the photometric
redshifts. Lines are the model RLFs of [1]. {\bf [Right]} The
observed radio luminosity function for the 2-mJy Hercules sample, for
each of the three photometric redshift distributions.}
\label{figuretwo}
\end{figure}
With a flux limit $\sim 100\times$ fainter than the PSR, the LBDS is
well-suited to test the reliability of those RLF models and the
redshift cut-off, via its potential to detect powerful radio galaxies
at very high redshifts. In figure~2 [left] the cumulative redshift
distribution of the LBDS Hercules sample (only sources with
$S_{1.4}\ge 2$~mJy) is compared with the predictions of
\cite{Dunlop90}. It is seen that two of the free-form models (FF-4
and FF-5) provide a reasonable fit to the data over all redshifts.
The ``bump'' in the best-fit histogram at $0.4\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower5pt\hbox{${^\sim}$}}}\hbox{\lower0.5pt\hbox{${^<}$}}}} z \mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower5pt\hbox{${^\sim}$}}}\hbox{\lower0.5pt\hbox{${^<}$}}}} 1$ is due to
two spikes in the redshift distribution, that may be the result of
possible large-scale structures (sheets) along the line of sight.
The observed 1.4~GHz luminosity function presented in figure~2 [right]
was also compared with the models. It was found that the two models
which fit the cumulative counts (FF-4 and FF-5) do not predict the
observed {\it luminosity\/} dependence of the data nearly as well as
the overall redshift dependence. The observed RLF shows some
indication that it turns over at $z\simeq 0.5$--1.5, and that the
redshift of this cut-off is a function of the radio luminosity.
However, the small number of sources makes it difficult to separate
the redshift and luminosity dependence of the RLF sufficiently to be
certain of this trend.
The full results of this project are presented in \cite{Waddington98},
and in forthcoming papers by the author and collaborators.
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgments:} Many people have contributed data and knowledge
to this project. In particular, I thank James Dunlop, Rogier
Windhorst and John Peacock for their assistance. The financial
support of the PPARC is acknowledged.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The idea of using a solid elastic sphere as a gravitational wave (GW)
antenna is almost as old as that of using cylindrical bars: as far back
as 1971 Forward published a paper \cite{fo71} in which he assessed some
of the potentialities offered by a spherical solid for that purpose. It
was however Weber's ongoing philosophy and practice of using bars which
eventually prevailed and developped up to the present date, with the highly
sophisticated and sensitive ultracryogenic systems currently in operation
---see \cite{amaldi} and \cite{gr14} for reviews and bibliography. With few
exceptions~\cite{ad75,wp77}, spherical detectors fell into oblivion for
years, but interest in them strongly re-emerged in the early 1990's, and
an important number of research articles have been published since which
address a wide variety of problems in GW spherical detector science. At
the same time, international collaboration has intensified, and prospects
for the actual construction of large spherical GW observatories (in the
range of $\sim$100 tons) are being currently considered in several countries
\footnote{
There are collaborations in Brazil, Holland, Italy and Spain.},
even in a variant {\it hollow\/} shape \cite{vega}.
A spherical antenna is obviously omnidirectional but, most important, it
is also a natural {\it multimode\/} device, i.e., when suitably monitored,
it can generate information on all the GW amplitudes and incidence direction
\cite{nadja}, a capability which possesses no other {\it individual\/} GW
detector, whether resonant or interferometric \cite{dt}. Furthermore, a
spherical antenna could also reveal the eventual existence of {\it monopole\/}
gravitational radiation, or set thresholds on it \cite{maura}. The
theoretical explanation of these facts is to be found in the unique
matching between the GW amplitude structure and that of the sphere
oscillation eigenmodes: a general {\it metric\/} GW generates a
{\it tidal\/} field of forces in an elastic body which is given in terms
of the ``electric'' components $R_{0i0j}(t)$ of the Riemann tensor at its
centre of mass by the following formula \cite{lobo}:
\begin{equation}
{\bf f}_{\rm GW}({\bf x},t)\ \ \ =
\sum_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle l=0\ {\rm and}\ 2}{m=-l,...,l}}\,
{\bf f}^{(lm)}({\bf x})\,g^{(lm)}(t) \label{1.1}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf f}^{(lm)}({\bf x})$ are ``tidal form factors'', while
$g^{(lm)}(t)$ are specific linear combinations of the Riemann tensor
components $R_{0i0j}(t)$ which carry all the {\it dynamical\/} information
on the GW's monopole ($l\/$\,=\,0) and quadrupole ($l\/$\,=\,2) amplitudes.
It is precisely these amplitudes which a GW detector is aimed to measure.
On the other hand, a free elastic sphere has two families of oscillation
eigenmodes, so called {\it toroidal\/} and {\it spheroidal\/} modes, and
modes within either family group into ascending series of $l\/$-pole
harmonics, each of whose frequencies is (2$l\/$+1)-fold degenerate ---see
\cite{lobo} for full details. It so happens that {\it only\/} monopole
and/or quadrupole spheroidal modes can possibly be excited by an incoming
{\it metric\/} GW \cite{bian}, and their GW driven amplitudes are directly
proportional to the wave amplitudes $g^{(lm)}(t)$ of equation (\ref{1.1}).
It is this very fact which makes of the spherical detector such a natural
one for GW observations \cite{lobo}. In addition, a spherical antenna has
a significantly higher absorption {\it cross section\/} than a cylinder of
like fundamental frequency, and also presents good sensitivity at the
{\it second\/} quadrupole harmonic \cite{clo}.
In order to monitor the GW induced deformations of the sphere {\it motion
sensors\/} are required. In cylindrical bars, current state of the art
technology is based upon {\it resonant transducers\/} \cite{pia,hamil}.
A resonant transducer consists in a small (compared to the bar) mechanical
device possessing a resonance frequency accurately tuned to that of
the cylinder. This {\it frequency matching\/} causes back-and-forth
{\it resonant energy transfer\/} between the two bodies (bar and resonator),
which results in turn in {\it mechanically amplified\/} oscillations of the
smaller resonator. The philosophy of using resonators for motion sensing is
directly transplantable to a spherical detector ---only a {\it multiple\/}
set rather than a single resonator is required if its potential capabilities
as a multimode system are to be exploited to satisfaction.
A most immediate question in a multiple motion sensor system is:
{\it where\/} should the sensors be? The answer to this basic question
naturally depends on design and purpose criteria. Merkowitz and Johnson
(M\&J) made a very appealing proposal consisting in a set of 6 identical
resonators coupling to the {\it radial\/} motions of the sphere's surface,
and occupying the positions of the centres of the 6 non-parallel pentagonal
faces of a truncated icosahedron \cite{jm93,jm95}. One of the most remarkable
properties of such layout is that there exist 5 linear combinations of the
resonators' readouts which are directly proportional to the 5 quadrupole
GW amplitudes $g^{(2m)}(t)$ of equation (\ref{1.1}). M\&J call these
combinations {\it mode channels\/}, and they therefore play a fundamental
role in GW signal deconvolution in a real, {\it noisy\/} system
\cite{m98,lms}. In addition, a reduced scale prototype antenna ---called
{\sl TIGA\/}, for {\sl T\/}runcated {\sl I\/}cosahedron {\sl G\/}ravitational
{\sl A}ntenna--- was constructed at Lousiana State University, and its
working experimentally put to test~\cite{phd}. The remarkable success of
this experiment in almost every detail \cite{jm96,jm97,jm98} stands as
a vivid proof of the practical feasibility of a spherical GW detector
\cite{sfera}.
Despite its success, the theoretical model proposed by M\&J to describe the
system dynamics is based upon a simplifying assumption that the resonators
{\it only\/} couple to to the quadrupole vibration modes of the sphere
\cite{jm93,jm95}. While this is seen {\it a posteriori\/} of experimental
measurements to be a very good approximation \cite{phd,jm97}, a deeper
{\it physical\/} reason which explains {\it why\/} this happens is missing
so far. The original motivation for the research we present in this article
was to develop a new and more general approach for the analysis of the
resonator problem, very much in the spirit of the methodology and results
of reference \cite{lobo}; this, we thought, would not only provide the
necessary tools for a rigorous analysis of the system dynamics, but also
contribute to improve our understanding of the physics of the spherical
GW detector.
Pursuing this programme, we succeeded in setting up and solving the equations
of motion for the coupled system of sphere plus resonators. The most important
characteristic of our solution is that it is expressible as a
{\it perturbative series expansion in ascending powers of the small parameter
$\eta^{1/2}$\/}, where $\eta\/$ is the ratio between the average resonator's
mass and the sphere's mass. The dominant (lowest) order terms in this
expansion appear to exactly reproduce Merkowitz and Johnson's equations
\cite{jm95}, whence a quantitative assessment of their degree of accuracy,
as well as of the range of validity of their underlying hypotheses obtains;
if further precision is required then a well defined procedure of going to
next (higher) order terms is unambiguously prescribed by the system equations.
Beyond this, though, the simple and elegant algebra which emerges out of
the general scheme has enabled us to explore different resonator layouts,
alternative to the unique {\sl TIGA\/} of M\&J. In particular we have found
one \cite{ls,lsc} requiring 5 rather than 6 resonators per quadrupole mode
sensed and possessing the remarkable property that {\it mode channels\/} can
be constructed from the system readouts, i.e., five linear combinations of the
latter which are directly proportional to the five quadrupole GW amplitudes.
We have called this distribution {\sl PHC\/} ---see below for full details.
The intrinsically perturbative nature of our approach makes it also
particularly well adapted to assess the consequences of small defects in the
system structure, such as for example symmetry breaking due to suspension
attachments, small resonator mistunings and mislocations, etc.\ We have
applied them with outstanding success to account for the reported frequency
measurements of the {\sl LSU TIGA\/} prototype \cite{phd}, which was
diametrically drilled for suspension purposes; in particular, discrepancies
between measured and calculated values (generally affecting only the
{\it fourth\/} decimal place) are precisely of the theoretically predicted
order of magnitude.
We have also applied our methods to analyse the stability of the spherical
detector to several mistuned parameters, with the result that it is not very
sensitive to small construction errors. This conforms again to experimental
reports \cite{jm98}, but has the advantage that the argument depends on
{\it analytic\/} mathematical work rather than on computer simulated
procedures, the only ones available to this date to our knowledge ---see
e.g.\ \cite{jm98} or \cite{ts}.
The paper is structured as follows: in section~\ref{sec:GE} we present the
main physical hypotheses of the model, and the general equations of motion.
In section~\ref{sec:gff} we set up a Green function approach to solve those
equations, and in section~\ref{sec:srgw} we apply it to assess the system
response to both monopole and quadrupole GW signals. In section~\ref{sec:PHC}
we describe in detail the {\sl PHC\/} layout, including its frequency spectrum
and {\it mode channels\/}. Section~\ref{sec:hs} contains a few brief
considerations on the system response to a hammer stroke calibration signal,
and finally in section~\ref{sec:symdef} we study how the different parameter
mistunings affect the detector's behaviour. The paper closes with a summary
of conclusions, and three appendices where the heavier mathematical details
are made precise for the interested reader.
\section{General equations} \label{sec:GE}
With minor improvements, we shall use the notation of references \cite{lobo}
and \cite{ls}, some of which is now briefly recalled. We consider a solid
sphere of mass $\cal M\/$, radius $R\/$, (uniform) density $\varrho\/$,
and elastic Lam\'e coefficients $\lambda$ and $\mu\/$, endowed with
a set of $J\/$ resonators of masses $M_a\/$ and resonance frequencies
$\Omega_a\/$ ($a\/$\,=\,1,\ldots,$J\/$), respectively. We shall model the
latter as {\it point masses\/} attached to one end of a linear spring,
whose other end is rigidly linked to the sphere at locations~${\bf x}_a\/$
---see Figure \ref{fig1}. The system degrees of freedom are given by the
{\it field\/} of elastic displacements ${\bf u}({\bf x},t)$ of the sphere
plus the {\it discrete\/} set of resonator spring deformations $z_a(t)$;
equations of motion need to be written down for them, of course, and this
is our next concern in this section.
\begin{figure}
\label{fig1}
\psfig{file=fig1.ps,height=17cm,width=12cm,rheight=6.8cm,bbllx=-3cm,bblly=-7.4cm,bburx=14.2cm,bbury=19cm}
\caption{Schematic diagramme of the coupling model between a solid sphere
and a resonator. The notation is that in the text, but subindices have been
dropped for clarity. The dashed-dotted arc line on the left indicates the
position of the {\it undeformed\/} sphere's surface, and the solid arc its
{\it actual\/} position.}
\end{figure}
We shall assume that the resonators only move radially, and also that
Classical Elasticity theory \cite{ll70} is sufficiently accurate for our
purposes\footnote{
We clearly do not expect relativistic motions in extremely small displacements
at typical frequencies in the range of 1 kHz.}.
In these circumstances we have \cite{ls}
\begin{eqnarray}
\varrho\,\frac{\partial^2 {\bf u}}{\partial t^2} & = & \mu\nabla^2 {\bf u}
+ (\lambda+\mu)\,\nabla(\nabla{\bf\cdot}{\bf u}) + {\bf f}({\bf x},t)
\label{2.1.a} \\*[0.7 em]
\ddot{z}_a(t) & = & -\Omega_a^2\,
\left[z_a(t)-u_a(t)\right]+\xi_a^{\rm external}(t)\ , \qquad a=1,\ldots,J
\label{2.1.b}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf n}_a\/$\,$\equiv$\,${\bf x}_a/R\/$ is the outward pointing normal
at the the $a\/$-th resonator's attachment point, and
\begin{equation}
u_a(t)\equiv{\bf n}_a\!\cdot\!{\bf u}({\bf x}_a,t)\ ,\qquad
a=1,\ldots,J \label{3.8}
\end{equation}
is the {\it radial\/} deformation of the sphere's surface at ${\bf x}_a\/$.
A dot (\,$\dot{}$\,) is an abbreviation for time derivative. The term in
square brackets in (\ref{2.1.b}) is thus the spring deformation ---$q(t)$ in
Figure \ref{fig1}.
${\bf f}({\bf x},t)$ in the rhs of (\ref{2.1.a}) contains the
{\it density\/} of all {\it non-internal\/} forces acting on the sphere,
which we expediently split into a component due the resonators' {\it back
action\/} and an external action {\it proper\/}, which can be a GW signal,
a calibration signal, etc. Thus
\begin{equation}
{\bf f}({\bf x},t) = {\bf f}_{\rm resonators}({\bf x},t) +
{\bf f}_{\rm external}({\bf x},t) \label{2.2}
\end{equation}
Finally, $\xi_a^{\rm external}(t)$ in the rhs of (\ref{2.1.b}) is the
force per unit mass (acceleration) acting on the $a\/$-th resonator due
to {\it external\/} agents.
Since we are making the hypothesis that the resonators are point masses the
following holds:
\begin{equation}
{\bf f}_{\rm resonators}({\bf x},t) =
\sum_{a=1}^J M_a\Omega_a^2\,\left[\,z_a(t)-u_a(t)\right]\,
\delta^{(3)}({\bf x}-{\bf x}_a)\,{\bf n}_a
\label{2.3}
\end{equation}
where $\delta^{(3)}\/$ is the three dimensional Dirac density function.
The {\it external\/} forces we shall be considering in this paper will be
{\it gravitational wave\/} signals, and also a simple calibration signal,
a perpendicular {\it hammer stroke\/}. GW driving terms, we recall
from~(\ref{1.1}), can be written
\begin{equation}
{\bf f}_{\rm GW}({\bf x},t) = {\bf f}^{(00)}({\bf x})\,g^{(00)}(t)\ +\
\sum_{m=-2}^2\,{\bf f}^{(2m)}({\bf x})\,g^{(2m)}(t) \label{2.4}
\end{equation}
for a general {\it metric\/} wave ---see \cite{lobo} for explicit
formulas and technical details. While the spatial coefficients
${\bf f}^{(lm)}({\bf x})$ are pure {\it form factors\/} associated to
the {\it tidal\/} character of a GW excitation, it is the time dependent
factors $g^{(lm)}(t)$ which carry the specific information on the
incoming GW. The purpose of a GW detector is to determine the latter
coefficients on the basis of suitable measurements.
If a GW sweeps the observatory then the resonators themselves will also be
affected, of course. They will be driven, relative to the sphere's centre,
by a tidal acceleration which, since they only move radially, is given by
\begin{equation}
\xi_a^{\rm GW}(t) = c^2\,R_{0i0j}(t)\,x_{a,i}n_{a,j}\ ,
\qquad a=1,\ldots,J \label{c.1}
\end{equation}
where $R_{0i0j}(t)$ are the ``electric'' components of the GW Riemann tensor
at the centre of the sphere. These can be easily manipulated to give\footnote{
$Y_{lm}({\bf n})$ are spherical harmonics \protect\cite{Ed60} ---see also the
multipole expansion of $R_{0i0j}(t)$ in reference \cite{lobo}.}
\begin{equation}
\xi_a^{\rm GW}(t) = R\,
\sum_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle l=0\ {\rm and}\ 2}{m=-l,...,l}}\,
Y_{lm}({\bf n}_a)\,g^{(lm)}(t)\ ,\qquad a=1,\ldots,J \label{c.4}
\end{equation}
where $R\/$ is the sphere's radius.
We shall also be later considering in this paper the response of the
system to a particular {\it calibration\/} signal, consisting in a hammer
stroke with intensity ${\bf f}_0$, delivered perpendicularly to the
sphere's surface at point ${\bf x}_0$:
\begin{equation}
{\bf f}_{\rm stroke}({\bf x},t) = {\bf f}_0\,
\delta^{(3)}({\bf x}-{\bf x}_0)\,\delta(t) \label{2.5}
\end{equation}
which we have modeled as an impulsive force in both space and time
variables. Unlike GW tides, a hammer stroke will be applied on the sphere's
surface, so it has no {\it direct\/} effect on the resonators. In other words,
\begin{equation}
\xi_a^{\rm stroke}(t) = 0\ ,\qquad a=1,\ldots,J \label{c.5}
\end{equation}
Our fundamental equations thus finally read:
\begin{eqnarray}
\varrho \frac{\partial^2 {\bf u}}{\partial t^2} & = & \mu\nabla^2 {\bf u}
+ (\lambda+\mu)\,\nabla(\nabla{\bf\cdot}{\bf u}) +
\nonumber \\
& & \sum_{b=1}^J M_b\Omega_b^2\,\left[z_b(t)-u_b(t)\right]\,
\delta^{(3)}({\bf x}-{\bf x}_b)\,{\bf n}_b
+ {\bf f}_{\rm external}({\bf x},t) \label{2.6.a} \\*[0.7 em]
\ddot{z}_a(t) & = & -\Omega_a^2\,
\left[z_a(t)-u_a(t)\right] + \xi_a^{\rm external}(t)\ ,
\qquad a=1,\ldots,J \label{2.6.b}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf f}_{\rm external}({\bf x},t)$ will be given by either (\ref{2.4})
or (\ref{2.5}), as the case may be. Likewise, $\xi_a^{\rm external}(t)$ will
be given by (\ref{c.4}) or (\ref{c.5}), respectively. The remainder of this
paper will be concerned with finding solutions to the system of coupled
differential equations (\ref{2.6.a}) and (\ref{2.6.b}), and with their
meaning and consequences.
\section{Green function formalism} \label{sec:gff}
In order to solve equations~(\ref{2.6.a})-(\ref{2.6.b}) we shall resort to
Green function formalism. The essentials of this procedure in the context
of the present problem can be found in detail in reference~\cite{lobo};
more specific technicalities are given in appendix~\ref{app:a}.
By means of such formalism equations~(\ref{2.6.a})-(\ref{2.6.b}) become
the following integro-differential system:
\begin{eqnarray}
u_a(t) & = & u_a^{\rm external}(t) + \sum_{b=1}^J\,\eta_b\,\int_0^t
K_{ab}(t-t')\,\left[\,z_b(t')-u_b(t')\right]\,dt' \label{3.7.a}\\[1 ex]
\ddot{z}_a(t) & = & \xi_a^{\rm external}(t)
-\Omega_a^2\,\left[\,z_a(t)-u_a(t)\right]\ , \qquad a=1,\ldots,J
\label{3.7.b}
\end{eqnarray}
where $u_a^{\rm external}(t)$\,$\equiv$\,
${\bf n}_a\!\cdot\!{\bf u}^{\rm external}({\bf x}_a,t)$, and
${\bf u}^{\rm external}({\bf x},t)$ is the {\it bare\/} (i.e., without
attached resonators) sphere's response to the external forces
${\bf f}_{\rm external}({\bf x},t)$ in the rhs of~(\ref{2.6.a}).
$K_{ab}(t)$ is a {\it kernel matrix\/} defined by the following weighted
sum of diadic products of wavefunctions\footnote{
We shall often use the capitalised index $N\/$ to imply the multiple index
$\{nlm\}$ which characterises the sphere's wavefunctions.}:
\begin{equation}
K_{ab}(t) = \Omega_b^2\,\sum_N\,\omega_N^{-1}\,
\left[{\bf n}_b\!\cdot\!{\bf u}_N^*({\bf x}_b)\right]
\left[{\bf n}_a\!\cdot\!{\bf u}_N({\bf x}_a)\right]\,\sin\omega_Nt
\label{3.10}
\end{equation}
Finally, we have defined the mass ratios of the resonators to the entire
sphere
\begin{equation}
\eta_b\equiv \frac{M_b}{\cal M}\ ,\qquad b=1,\ldots,J \label{3.11}
\end{equation}
which will be {\it small parameters\/} in a real device.
Before proceeding further, let us briefly pause for a qualitative inspection
of equations~(\ref{3.7.a}) and~(\ref{3.7.b}). Equation (\ref{3.7.a}) shows
that the sphere's surface deformations $u_a(t)$ are made up of two
contributions: one due to the action of {\it external\/} agents (GWs or
other), contained in $u_a^{\rm external}(t)$, and another one due to coupling
to the resonators. The latter is commanded by the small parameters $\eta_b\/$,
and correlates to {\it all\/} of the sphere's spheroidal eigenmodes through
the kernel matrix $K_{ab}(t)$. This has consequences for GW detectors, for
even though GWs may only couple to quadrupole and monopole\footnote{
Monopole modes only exist in scalar-tensor theories of gravity, such as e.g.
Brans--Dicke \protect\cite{bd61}; General Relativity does not belong in this
category.}
spheroidal modes of the {\it free\/} sphere \cite{lobo,bian},
attachment of resonators causes, as we see, coupling between these and the
other modes of the antenna, and conversely, these modes back-act on the
former. As we shall shortly prove, such effects can be minimised by suitable
{\it tuning\/} of the resonators' frequencies.
\subsection{Laplace transform domain equations}
We now take up the problem of solving these equations. Equation (\ref{3.7.a})
is an integral equation belonging in the general category of Volterra
equations \cite{tricomi}, but the usual iterative solution to it by repeated
substitution of $u_b(t)$ into the kernel integral is not viable here due to
the {\it dynamical\/} contribution of $z_b(t)$, which is in turn governed by
the {\it differential\/} equation~(\ref{3.7.b}).
A better suited method to solve this {\it integro-differential\/} system is
to Laplace-transform it. We denote the Laplace transform of a generic function
of time $f(t)$ with a {\it caret\/} (\,$\hat{}$\,) on its symbol, e.g.,
\begin{equation}
\hat{f}(s) \equiv \int_0^\infty f(t)\,e^{-st}\,dt \label{3.12}
\end{equation}
and make the assumption that the system is at rest before an instant of
time, $t\/$\,=\,0, say, or
\begin{equation}
{\bf u}({\bf x},0)={\bf\dot u}({\bf x},0)=z_a(0)=\dot z_a(0) = 0
\label{3.14}
\end{equation}
Equations (\ref{3.7.a}) and (\ref{3.7.b}) then adopt the equivalent form
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat u_a(s) & = & \hat u_a^{\rm external}(s)
- \,\sum_{b=1}^J \eta_b\,\hat K_{ab}(s)\,
\left[\hat z_b(s)-\hat u_b(s)\right]
\label{3.13.a} \\*[0.7 em]
s^2\,\hat{z}_a(s) & = & \hat\xi_a^{\rm external}(s) -
\Omega_a^2\,\left[\hat z_a(s)-\hat u_a(s)\right]\ ,\qquad a=1,\ldots,J
\label{3.13.b}
\end{eqnarray}
for which use has been made of the {\it convolution theorem\/} for Laplace
transforms\footnote{
This theorem states, it is recalled, that the Laplace transform of the
convolution product of two functions is the arithmetic product of their
respective Laplace transforms.}.
A further simplification is accomplished if we consider that we shall
in practice be only concerned with the {\it measurable\/} quantities
\begin{equation}
q_a(t)\equiv z_a(t)-u_a(t) \ ,\qquad a=1,\ldots,J \label{3.15}
\end{equation}
representing the resonators' actual elastic deformations ---cf.\ Figure
\ref{fig1}. It is readily seen that these verify the following:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{b=1}^J \left[\delta_{ab} + \eta_b\,\frac{s^2}{s^2+\Omega_a^2}\,
\hat K_{ab}(s)\right]\,\hat q_b(s) = -\frac{s^2}{s^2+\Omega_a^2}\,
\hat u_a^{\rm external}(s) + \frac{\hat\xi_a^{\rm external}(s)}
{s^2+\Omega_a^2}\ ,\qquad a=1,\ldots,J
\label{3.16}
\end{equation}
Equations (\ref{3.16}) constitute a significant simplification of the
original problem, as they are a set of just $J\/$ {\it algebraic\/} rather
than integral or differential equations. We must solve them for the unknowns
$\hat q_a(s)$, then perform {\it inverse Laplace transforms\/} to revert to
$q_a(t)$. We do this next.
\section{System response to a Gravitational Wave}
\label{sec:srgw}
Our concern now is the actual system response when it is acted upon by
an incoming GW. We shall calculate it by making a number of simplifying
assumptions, more precisely:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\sf i)] The detector is perfectly spherical.
\item[\sf ii)] The resonators have identical masses and resonance frequencies.
\item[\sf iii)] The resonators' frequency is accurately matched to one of
the sphere's oscillation eigenfrequencies.
\end{enumerate}
As we shall see below (section \ref{sec:symdef}), a real system can be
appropriately treated as one which deviates by definite amounts from this
idealised construct. Therefore detailed knowledge of the ideal system
behaviour is essential for all purposes. This is the justification for the
above simplifications.
The wavefunctions ${\bf u}_{nlm}({\bf x})$ of an elastic sphere can be
found in reference~\cite{lobo} in full detail, and we shall keep the
notation of that paper for them. The Laplace transform of the kernel
matrix~(\ref{3.10}) can thus be expressed as ---see equation (\ref{A3.20})
in appendix~\ref{app:a}:
\begin{equation}
\hat K_{ab}(s) = \sum_{nl}\,\frac{\Omega_b^2}{s^2+\omega_{nl}^2}\,
\left|A_{nl}(R)\right|^2\,\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}\,
P_l({\bf n}_a\!\cdot\!{\bf n}_b) \equiv
\sum_{nl}\,\frac{\Omega_b^2}{s^2+\omega_{nl}^2}\,\chi_{ab}^{(nl)}
\label{4.2}
\end{equation}
where the last term simply {\it defines\/} the quantities $\chi_{ab}^{(nl)}$.
Note that the sums here stretch across the {\it entire\/} spectrum of the
solid sphere.
Our next assumption that all the resonators are {\it identical\/} simply
means that
\begin{equation}
\eta_1=\,\ldots\,=\eta_J\equiv\eta\ ,\qquad
\Omega_1=\,\ldots\,=\Omega_J\equiv\Omega
\label{4.5}
\end{equation}
The third hypothesis makes reference to the fundamental idea behind using
resonators, which is to have them tuned to one of the frequencies of the
sphere's spectrum. We express this by
\begin{equation}
\Omega = \omega_{n_0l_0} \label{4.6}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{n_0l_0}$ is a specific and {\it fixed\/} frequency of the
spheroidal spectrum.
In a GW detector it will only make sense to choose $l_0$\,=\,0 or
$l_0$\,=\,2, as only monopole and quadrupole sphere modes couple to the
incoming signal; in practice, $n_0$ will refer to the first or perhaps
second harmonic \cite{clo}. We shall however keep the generic expression
(\ref{4.6}) for the time being in order to encompass all the possibilities
with a unified notation.
Based on the above hypotheses, equation~(\ref{3.16}) can be rewritten in
the form
\begin{equation}
\sum_{b=1}^J\,\left[\delta_{ab} + \eta\,\sum_{nl}\,
\frac{\Omega^2s^2}{(s^2+\Omega^2)(s^2+\omega_{nl}^2)}\,\chi_{ab}^{(nl)}
\right]\,\hat q_b(s) = -\frac{s^2}{s^2+\Omega^2}\,
\hat u_a^{\rm GW}(s) + \frac{\hat\xi_a^{\rm GW}(s)}
{s^2+\Omega^2}\ ,\qquad (\Omega = \omega_{n_0l_0})
\label{4.8}
\end{equation}
where $\hat\xi_a^{\rm GW}(s)$ is the Laplace transform of~(\ref{c.4}), i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\hat\xi_a^{\rm GW}(s) = R\,
\sum_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle l=0\ {\rm and}\ 2}{m=-l,...,l}}\,
Y_{lm}({\bf n}_a)\,\hat g^{(lm)}(s)\ ,\qquad a=1,\ldots,J
\label{4.85}
\end{equation}
As mentioned at the end of the previous section, we must now invert the
matrix in the lhs of~(\ref{4.8}), which will give us an expression for
$\hat q_a(s)$, then find the {\it inverse Laplace transform\/} of these
functions to revert back to the time domain. A simple glance at the
equation suffices however to grasp the unsurmountable difficulties of
accomplishing this {\it analytically\/}.
Thankfully, though, a {\it perturbative\/} approach is applicable when
the masses of the resonators are small compared to the mass of the whole
sphere, i.e., when the inequality
\begin{equation}
\eta\ll 1 \label{4.10}
\end{equation}
holds. We shall henceforth assume that this is the case, as also is with
cylindrical bar resonant transducers. It is shown in appendix~\ref{app:b}
that the perturbative series happens in ascending powers of $\eta^{1/2}$,
rather than $\eta\/$ itself, and that the lowest order contribution has
the form
\begin{equation}
\hat q_a(s) = \eta^{-1/2}\,\sum_{l,m}\,\hat\Lambda_a^{(lm)}(s;\Omega)\,
\hat g^{(lm)}(s) + O(0) \ ,\qquad a=1,\ldots,J
\label{6.8}
\end{equation}
where $O(0)$ stands for terms of order $\eta^0$ or smaller. Here,
$\hat\Lambda_a^{(lm)}(s;\Omega)$ is a {\it transfer function matrix\/}
which relates {\it linearly\/} the system response $\hat q_a(s)$ to the
GW amplitudes $\hat g^{(lm)}(s)$, in the usual sense that $q_a(t)$ is
given by the {\it convolution product\/} of the signal $g^{(lm)}(t)$
with the time domain expression, $\Lambda_a^{(lm)}(t;\Omega)$, of
$\hat\Lambda_a^{(lm)}(s;\Omega)$. The detector is thus seen to act as
a {\it linear filter\/} on the GW signal, whose frequency response is
characterised by the properties of $\hat\Lambda_a^{(lm)}(s;\Omega)$.
More specifically, the filter has a number of characteristic frequencies
which correspond to the {\it imaginary parts of the poles\/} of
$\hat\Lambda_a^{(lm)}(s;\Omega)$. As also shown in appendix~\ref{app:b},
these frequencies are the symmetric pairs
\begin{equation}
\omega_{a\pm}^2 = \Omega^2\,\left(1\pm\sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}}\,
\left|A_{n_0l_0}(R)\right|\,\zeta_a\,\eta^{1/2}\right) + O(\eta)\ ,
\qquad a=1,\ldots,J
\label{5.2}
\end{equation}
where $\zeta_a^2\/$ is the $a\/$-th eigenvalue of the Legendre matrix
\begin{equation}
P_{l_0}({\bf n}_a\!\cdot\!{\bf n}_b)\ ,\qquad a,b=1,\,\ldots,J
\label{5.25}
\end{equation}
associated to the multipole ($l_0$) selected for tuning ---see (\ref{4.6}).
These frequency pairs correspond to {\it beats\/}, typical of resonantly
coupled oscillating systems ---we shall find them again in
section~\ref{sec:hs} in a particularly illuminating example.
Another very important fact is also neatly displayed by equation~(\ref{6.8}):
the resonators' motions are {\it mechanically amplified\/} by a factor
$\eta^{-1/2}$ relative to the driving amplitudes $\hat g^{(lm)}(s)$. This
is the counterpart, in our multimode system, of a similar behaviour known
to happen in monomode cylindrical antennas \cite{pia}.
The specific form of the transfer function matrix
$\hat\Lambda_a^{(lm)}(s;\Omega)$ depends on both the selected mode to
tune the resonator frequency $\Omega$, and on the resonator distribution
geometry. We now come to a discussion of these.
\subsection{Monopole gravitational radiation sensing}
General Relativity, as is well known, forbids monopole GW radiation. More
general {\it metric\/} theories, e.g. Brans-Dicke \cite{bd61}, do however
predict this kind of radiation. It appears that a spherical antenna is
potentially sensitive to monopole waves, so it can serve the purpose of
thresholding, or eventually detecting them. This clearly requires that the
resonator set be tuned to a monopole harmonic of the sphere, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\Omega = \omega_{n0}\ ,\qquad (l_0=0) \label{6.9}
\end{equation}
where $n\/$ tags the chosen harmonic ---most likely the first ($n\/$\,=\,1)
in a thinkable device.
Since $P_0(z)$\,$\equiv$\,1 (for all $z\/$) the eigenvalues of
$P_0({\bf n}_a\!\cdot\!{\bf n}_b)$ are, clearly,
\begin{equation}
\zeta_1^2=J\ ,\qquad \zeta_2^2=\,\ldots\,=\zeta_J^2=0
\label{6.10}
\end{equation}
for {\it any resonator distribution\/}. The tuned mode frequency thus splits
into a {\it single\/} strongly coupled pair:
\begin{equation}
\omega_\pm^2 = \Omega^2\,\left(1\pm\sqrt{\frac{J}{4\pi}}\,
\left|A_{n0}(R)\right|\,\eta^{1/2}\right) + O(\eta)\ ,
\qquad \Omega=\omega_{n0}
\label{6.11}
\end{equation}
The $\Lambda$-matrix of equation (\ref{6.8}) is seen to be in
this case
\begin{equation}
\hat\Lambda_a^{(lm)}(s;\omega_{n0}) = (-1)^J\,\frac{a_{n0}}{\sqrt{J}}\,
\frac{1}{2}\,\left[\left(s^2+\omega_+^2\right)^{-1} -
\left(s^2+\omega_-^2\right)^{-1}\right]\,\delta_{l0}\,\delta_{m0}
\label{6.12}
\end{equation}
whence the system response is
\begin{equation}
\hat q_a(s) = \eta^{-1/2}\,\frac{(-1)^J}{\sqrt{J}}\,a_{n0}\,
\frac{1}{2}\,\left[\left(s^2+\omega_+^2\right)^{-1} -
\left(s^2+\omega_-^2\right)^{-1}\right]\,\hat g^{(00)}(s) + O(0)\ ,
\qquad a=1,\ldots,J
\label{6.13}
\end{equation}
{\it regardless of resonator positions\/}. The overlap coefficient
$a_{n0}$ is calculated by means of formulas given in \cite{lobo}, and
has dimensions of length. By way of example, $a_{10}/R\/$\,=\,0.214,
and $a_{20}/R\/$\,=\,$-$0.038 for the first two harmonics.
A few interesting facts are displayed by equation (\ref{6.13}). First, as
we have already stressed, it is seen that if the resonators are tuned to
a monopole {\it detector\/} frequency then only monopole {\it wave
amplitudes\/} couple strongly to the system, even if quadrupole radiation
amplitudes are significantly high at the observation frequencies
$\omega_\pm\/$. Also, the amplitudes $\hat q_a(s)$ are equal for all $a\/$,
as corresponds to the spherical symmetry of monopole sphere's oscillations,
and are proportional to $J^{-1/2}$, a factor we should indeed expect as an
indication that GW {\it energy\/} is evenly distributed amongst all the
resonators. A {\it single\/} transducer suffices to experimentally
determine the only monopole GW amplitude $\hat g^{(00)}(s)$, of course,
but (\ref{6.13}) provides the system response if more than one sensor is
mounted on the antenna for whatever reasons.
\subsection{Quadrupole gravitational radiation sensing}
We now consider the more interesting case of quadrupole motion sensing.
We thus take
\begin{equation}
\Omega = \omega_{n2}\ ,\qquad (l_0=2) \label{6.14}
\end{equation}
where $n\/$ labels the chosen harmonic ---most likely the first
($n\/$\,=\,1) or the second ($n\/$\,=\,2) in a practical system. The
evaluation of the $\Lambda$-matrix is now considerably more involved
\cite{serrano}, yet a remarkably elegant form is found for it:
\begin{equation}
\hat\Lambda_a^{(lm)}(s;\omega_{n2}) = (-1)^N\,\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{5}}\,
a_{n2}\,\sum_{b=1}^J\,\left\{\sum_{\zeta_c\neq 0}\,\frac{1}{2}\left[
\left(s^2+\omega_{c+}^2\right)^{-1} - \left(s^2+\omega_{c-}^2\right)^{-1}
\right]\,\frac{v_a^{(c)}v_b^{(c)*}}{\zeta_c}\right\}\,
Y_{2m}({\bf n}_b)\,\delta_{l2} \label{6.15}
\end{equation}
where $v_a^{(c)}$ is the $c\/$-th normalised eigenvector of
$P_2({\bf n}_a\!\cdot\!{\bf n}_b)$, associated to the {\it non-null\/}
eigenvalue $\zeta_c^2$. Let us stress that equation (\ref{6.15}) explicitly
shows that at most 5 pairs of modes, of frequencies $\omega_{c\pm}$, couple
strongly to quadrupole GW amplitudes, {\it no matter how many resonators in
excess of 5 are mounted on the sphere\/}. The tidal overlap coefficients
$a_{2n}\/$ can also be calculated, and give for the first two harmonics
\cite{ls}
\begin{equation}
\frac{a_{12}}{R} = 0.328\ ,\qquad\frac{a_{22}}{R} = 0.106 \label{6.16}
\end{equation}
The system response is thus
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat q_a(s) & = & \eta^{-1/2}\,(-1)^J\,\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{5}}\,a_{n2}\,
\sum_{b=1}^J\,\left\{\sum_{\zeta_c\neq 0}\,\frac{1}{2}\left[
\left(s^2+\omega_{c+}^2\right)^{-1} - \left(s^2+\omega_{c-}^2\right)^{-1}
\right]\,\frac{v_a^{(c)}v_b^{(c)*}}{\zeta_c}\right\}\times
\nonumber \\[0.5 em] & & \hspace*{4 cm}
\times\sum_{m=-2}^2\,Y_{2m}({\bf n}_b)\,\hat g^{(2m)}(s) + O(0)\ ,
\qquad a=1\,\ldots,J \label{6.17}
\end{eqnarray}
Equation (\ref{6.17}) is {\it completely general\/}, i.e., it is valid
for any resonator configuration over the sphere's surface, and for any
number of resonators. It describes precisely how all 5 GW amplitudes
$\hat g^{(2m)}(s)$ interact with all 5 strongly coupled system modes;
like before, {\it only quadrupole wave amplitudes\/} are seen in the
detector (to leading order) when $\Omega$\,=\,$\omega_{n2}$, even if
the incoming wave carries significant monopole energy at the frequencies
$\omega_{c\pm}$.
The degree of generality and algebraic simplicity of (\ref{6.17}) is new in
the literature. As we shall now see, it makes possible a systematic search
for different resonator distributions and their properties.
\section{The {\sl PHC\/} configuration}
\label{sec:PHC}
Merkowitz and Johnson's {\sl TIGA\/} \cite{jm93} is highly symmetric, and is
the minimal set with maximum degeneracy, i.e., all the non-null eigenvalues
$\zeta_a\/$ are equal. To accomplish this, however, 6 rather than 5
resonators are required on the sphere's surface. Since there are just
5 quadrupole GW amplitudes one may wonder whether there are alternative
layouts with {\it only\/} 5 resonators. Equation (\ref{6.17}) is completely
general, so it can be searched for an answer to this question. In reference
\cite{ls} we made a specific proposal, which we now describe in more detail.
In pursuing a search for 5 resonator sets we found that distributions having
a sphere diameter as an axis of {\it pentagonal symmetry\/}\footnote{
By this we mean resonators are placed along a {\it parallel\/} of the
sphere every 72$^\circ$.}
exhibit a rather appealing structure. More specifically, let the resonators
be located at the spherical positions
\begin{equation}
\theta_a = \alpha \qquad ({\rm all}\,\ a)\ ,\qquad
\varphi_a = (a-1)\,\frac{2\pi}{5}\ ,\qquad a=1,\ldots,5
\end{equation}
The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $P_2({\bf n}_a\!\cdot\!{\bf n}_b)$ are
easily calculated:
\begin{eqnarray}
& \zeta_0^2 = \frac{5}{4}\,\left(3\,\cos^2\alpha-1\right)^2\ ,\qquad
\zeta_1^2 = \zeta_{-1}^2 = \frac{15}{2}\,\sin^2\alpha\,\cos^2\alpha
\ ,\qquad\zeta_2^2 = \zeta_{-2}^2 = \frac{15}{8}\,\sin^4\alpha &
\label{6.24.a} \\[1 em]
& v_a^{(m)} = \sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{5}}\,\zeta_m^{-1}\,Y_{2m}({\bf n}_a)\ ,
\qquad m=-2,\ldots,2\ ,\ \ a=1,\ldots,5 &
\label{6.24.b}
\end{eqnarray}
so the $\Lambda$-matrix is also considerably simple in structure in this
case:
\begin{equation}
\hat\Lambda_a^{(lm)}(s;\omega_{n2}) = -\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{5}}\,a_{n2}\,
\zeta_m^{-1}\,\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(s^2+\omega_{m+}^2\right)^{-1} -
\left(s^2+\omega_{m-}^2\right)^{-1}\right]\,Y_{2m}({\bf n}_a)\,\delta_{l2}
\qquad ({\sl PHC}) \label{6.25}
\end{equation}
where we have used the notation
\begin{equation}
\omega_{m\pm}^2 = \Omega^2\,\left(1\pm\sqrt{\frac{5}{4\pi}}\,
\left|A_{n2}(R)\right|\,\zeta_m\,\eta^{1/2}\right) + O(\eta)\ ,
\qquad m=-2,\ldots,2
\label{6.26}
\end{equation}
As we see from these formulas, the {\it five\/} expected pairs of
frequencies actually reduce to {\it three\/}, so pentagonal distributions
keep a certain degree of degeneracy, too. The most important distinguishing
characteristic of the general {\it pentagonal\/} layout is best displayed
by the explicit system response:
\begin{eqnarray}
& \hat q_a(s) = -\eta^{-1/2}\,\sqrt\frac{4\pi}{5}\,a_{n2} & \left\{\,
\frac{1}{2\zeta_0}\left[
\left(s^2+\omega_{0+}^2\right)^{-1} - \left(s^2+\omega_{0-}^2\right)^{-1}
\right]\,Y_{20}({\bf n}_a)\,\hat g^{(20)}(s)\right. \nonumber \\
& & + \;\frac{1}{2\zeta_1}\left[
\left(s^2+\omega_{1+}^2\right)^{-1} - \left(s^2+\omega_{1-}^2\right)^{-1}
\right]\,\left[
Y_{21}({\bf n}_a)\,\hat g^{(11)}(s) +
Y_{2-1}({\bf n}_a)\,\hat g^{(1\,-1)}(s)\right] \label{6.27} \\
& & + \left.\frac{1}{2\zeta_2}\left[
\left(s^2+\omega_{2+}^2\right)^{-1} - \left(s^2+\omega_{2-}^2\right)^{-1}
\right]\,\left[
Y_{22}({\bf n}_a)\,\hat g^{(22)}(s) +
Y_{2-2}({\bf n}_a)\,\hat g^{(2\,-2)}(s)\right]\right\}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
This equation indicates that {\it different wave amplitudes selectively
couple to different detector frequencies\/}. This should be considered a
very remarkable fact, for it thence follows that simple inspection of the
system readout {\it spectrum\/}\footnote{
In a noiseless system, of course}
immediately reveals whether a given wave amplitude $\hat g^{2m}(s)$ is
present in the incoming signal or not.
Pentagonal configurations also admit {\it mode channels\/}, which are
easily constructed from (\ref{6.27}) thanks to the orthonormality property
of the eigenvectors (\ref{6.24.b}):
\begin{equation}
\hat y^{(m)}(s)\equiv\sum_{a=1}^5\,v_a^{(m)*}\hat q_a(s) =
\eta^{-1/2}\,a_{n2}\,
\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(s^2+\omega_{m+}^2\right)^{-1} -
\left(s^2+\omega_{m-}^2\right)^{-1}\right]\,\hat g^{(2m)}(s) + O(0)
\ ,\qquad m=-2,\ldots,2
\label{6.28}
\end{equation}
These are almost identical to the {\sl TIGA\/} mode channels \cite{jm95},
the only difference being that each mode channel comes now at a {\it single
specific\/} frequency pair $\omega_{m\pm}$.
{\it Mode channels\/} are fundamental in signal deconvolution algorithms
in noisy systems \cite{m98,lms}. Pentagonal resonator configurations should
thus be considered non-trivial candidates for a real GW detector.
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=fig4.ps,height=15cm,width=12cm,rheight=9.2cm,bbllx=-1.8cm,bblly=-3.8cm,bburx=18.4cm,bbury=24.7cm}
\caption{The three distinct eigenvalues $\zeta_m\/$ ($m\/$\,=\,0,1,2) as
functions of the distance of the resonator parallel's co-latitude $\alpha\/$
relative to the axis of symmetry of the distribution, cf. equation
(\protect\ref{6.24.a}).
\label{fig3}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=fig5a.ps,height=11cm,width=7cm}
\vspace*{-11 cm}
\hspace*{9.7 cm}
\psfig{file=fig5b.ps,height=11cm,width=7cm}
\vspace*{-1.2 cm}
\caption{To the left, the {\it pentagonal hexacontahedron\/} shape. Certain
faces are marked to indicate resonator positions in a specific proposal
---see text--- as follows: a {\it square\/} for resonators tuned to the
first quadrupole frequency, a {\it triangle\/} for the second, and a
{\it star\/} for the monopole. On the right we see the (pentagonal) face
of the polyhedron. A few details about it: the confluence point of the
dotted lines at the centre is the tangency point of the {\it inscribed\/}
sphere to the {\sl PHC\/}; the labeled angles have values
$\alpha\/$\,=\,61.863$^\circ$, $\beta\/$\,=\,87.205$^\circ$; the angles at
the $T\/$-vertices are all equal, and their value is 118.1366$^\circ$,
while the angle at $P\/$ is 67.4536$^\circ$; the ratio of a long edge
(e.g. $PT_1$) to a short one (e.g. $T_1T_2$) is 1.74985, and the radius of
the inscribed sphere is {\it twice\/} the long edge of the pentagon,
$R\/$\,=\,2\,$PT_1$. \label{fig4}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=fig6.ps,height=12cm,width=15cm,rheight=9.7cm,bbllx=-1cm,bblly=-5cm,bburx=20cm,bbury=25.8cm}
\caption{Compared line spectrum of a coupled {\sl TIGA\/} and a {\sl PHC\/}
resonator layout in an ideally spherical system. The weakly coupled central
frequency in the {\sl TIGA\/} is drawn dashed. The frequency pair is 5-fold
degenerate for this layout, while the two outer pairs of the {\sl PHC\/}
are doubly degenerate each, and the inner pair is non-degenerate. Units in
abscissas are $\eta^{1/2}\Omega$, and the central value, labeled 0.0,
corresponds to $\Omega$.
\label{fig5}}
\end{figure}
Based on these facts one may next ask which is a suitable transducer
distribution with an axis of pentagonal symmetry. In Figure \ref{fig3} we
give a plot of the eigenvalues (\ref{6.24.a}) as a function of $\alpha\/$,
the angular distance of the resonator set from the symmetry axis. Several
criteria may be adopted to select a specific choice in view of this graph.
An interesting one was proposed by us in reference \cite{ls} with the
following argument. If for ease of mounting, stability, etc., it is
desirable to have the detector milled into a close-to-spherical
{\it polyhedric\/} shape\footnote{
This is the philosophy suggested and experimentally implemented by
Merkowitz and Johnson at {\sl LSU\/}.}
then polyhedra with axes of pentagonal symmetry must be searched. The
number of quasi regular {\it convex\/} polyhedra is of course finite
---there actually are only 18 of them \cite{pacoM,tsvi}---, and we found
a particularly appealing one in the so called {\it pentagonal
hexacontahedron\/} ({\sl PHC\/}), which we see in Figure \ref{fig4}, left.
This is a 60 face polyhedron, whose faces are the identical {\it irregular
pentagons\/} of Figure \ref{fig4}, right. The {\sl PHC\/} admits an
{\it inscribed sphere\/} which is tangent to each face at the central
point marked in the Figure. It is clearly to this point that a resonator
should be attached so as to simulate an as perfect as possible spherical
distribution.
The {\sl PHC\/} is considerably spherical: the ratio of its volume to that
of the inscribed sphere is 1.057, which quite favourably compares to the
value of 1.153 for the ratio of the circumscribed sphere to the TI volume.
If we now request that the frequency pairs $\omega_{m\pm}$ be as
{\it evenly spaced\/} as possible, compatible with the {\sl PHC\/} face
orientations, then we must choose $\alpha\/$\,=\,67.617$^\circ$, whence
\begin{equation}
\omega_{0\pm} = \omega_{12}\,\left(1\pm 0.5756\,\eta^{1/2}\right)\ ,\ \ \
\omega_{1\pm} = \omega_{12}\,\left(1\pm 0.8787\,\eta^{1/2}\right)\ ,\ \ \
\omega_{2\pm} = \omega_{12}\,\left(1\pm 1.0668\,\eta^{1/2}\right)
\label{6.29}
\end{equation}
for instance for $\Omega$\,=\,$\omega_{12}$, the first quadrupole harmonic.
In Figure \ref{fig5} we display this frequency spectrum together with the
multiply degenerate {\it TIGA\/} for comparison.
The criterion leading to the {\sl PHC\/} proposal is of course not unique,
and alternatives can be considered. For example, if the 5 faces of a
regular icosahedron are selected for sensor mounting
($\alpha\/$\,=\,63.45$^\circ$) then a four-fold degenerate pair plus a
single non-degenerate pair is obtained; if the resonator parallel is
50$^\circ$ or 22.6$^\circ$ away from the ``north pole'' then the three
frequencies $\omega_{0+}$, $\omega_{1+}$, and $\omega_{2+}$ are equally
spaced; etc. The number of choices is virtually infinite if the sphere is
not milled into a polyhedric shape \cite{ts,grg}.
Let us finally recall that the complete {\sl PHC\/} proposal \cite{ls} was
made with the idea of building an as complete as possible spherical GW
antenna, which amounts to making it sensitive at the first {\it two\/}
quadrupole frequencies {\it and\/} at the first monopole one. This would
take advantage of the good sphere cross section at the second quadrupole
harmonic \cite{clo}, and would enable measuring (or thresholding)
eventual monopole GW radiation. Now, the system {\it pattern matrix\/}
$\hat\Lambda_a^{(lm)}(s;\Omega)$ has {\it identical structure\/} for all the
harmonics of a given $l\/$ series ---see (\ref{6.12}) and (\ref{6.15})---,
and so too identical criteria for resonator layout design apply to either
set of transducers, respectively tuned to $\omega_{12}$ and $\omega_{22}$.
The {\sl PHC\/} proposal is best described graphically in Figure \ref{fig4},
left: a {\it second\/} set of resonators, tuned to the second quadrupole
harmonic $\omega_{22}$ can be placed in an equivalent position in the
``southern hemisphere'', and an eleventh resonator tuned to the first
monopole frequency $\omega_{10}$ is added at an arbitrary position. It is not
difficult to see, by the general methods outlined earlier on in this paper,
that cross interaction between these three sets of resonators is only
{\it second order\/} in $\eta^{1/2}\/$, therefore weak.
A spherical GW detector with such a set of altogether 11 transducers would
be a very complete multi-mode multi-frequency device with an unprecedented
capacity as an individual antenna. Amongst other it would practically enable
monitoring of coalescing binary {\it chirp\/} signals by means of a rather
robust double passage method \cite{cf}, a prospect which was considered
so far possible only with broadband long baseline laser interferometers
\cite{klm1,klm2}, and is almost unthinkable with currently operating
cylindrical bars.
\section{A calibration signal: hammer stroke}
\label{sec:hs}
This section is a brief digression from the main streamline of the paper.
We propose to assess now the system response to a particular, but useful,
calibration signal: a perpendicular {\it hammer stroke\/}.
We first go back to equation (\ref{3.16}) and replace
$\hat u_a^{\rm external}(s)$ in its rhs with that corresponding to a
hammer stroke, which is easily calculated ---cf.\ appendix~\ref{app:a}:
\begin{equation}
\hat u_a^{\rm stroke}(s) = -\sum_{nl}\,\frac{f_0}{s^2+\omega_{nl}^2}\,
\left|A_{nl}(R)\right|^2\,P_l({\bf n}_a\!\cdot\!{\bf n}_0)\ ,\qquad
a=1,\ldots,J \label{7.1}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf n}_0$ are the spherical coordinates of the hit point on the
sphere, and $f_0$\,$\equiv$\,${\bf n}_0\!\cdot\!{\bf f}_0/{\cal M\/}$.
Clearly, the hammer stroke excites {\it all\/} of the sphere's vibration
eigenmodes, as it has a completly flat spectrum.
The coupled system resonances are again those calculated in
appendix~\ref{app:b}. The same procedures described in section~\ref{sec:srgw}
for a GW excitation can now be pursued to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat q_a(s) & = & \eta^{-1/2}\,(-1)^{J-1}\,\sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}}
\,f_0\,\left|A_{nl}(R)\right|\,\times \nonumber \\
& \times & \sum_{b=1}^J\,\left\{\sum_{\zeta_c\neq 0}\,\frac{1}{2}\left[
\left(s^2+\omega_{c+}^2\right)^{-1}-\left(s^2+\omega_{c-}^2\right)^{-1}
\right]\,\frac{v_a^{(c)}v_b^{(c)*}}{\zeta_c}\right\}\,
P_l({\bf n}_b\!\cdot\!{\bf n}_0) + O(0)\ ,
\qquad a=1\,\ldots,J \label{7.2}
\end{eqnarray}
when the system is tuned to the $nl\/$-th spheroidal harmonic, i.e.,
$\Omega$\,=\,$\omega_{nl}$. It is immediately seen from here that the
system response to this signal when the resonators are tuned to a
{\it monopole\/} frequency is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat q_a(s) = \eta^{-1/2}\,(-1)^{J-1}\,\frac{f_0}{\sqrt{4\pi J}}\,
\left|A_{n0}(R)\right|\,\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(
s^2+\omega_+^2\right)^{-1}-\left(s^2+\omega_-^2\right)^{-1}\right]
\ ,\qquad \Omega=\omega_{n0}
\label{7.3}
\end{equation}
an expression which holds for all $a\/$, and is independent of either the
resonator layout or the hit point, which in particular prevents any
determination of the latter, as obviously expected. The frequencies
$\omega_\pm$ are those of (\ref{6.11}), and we find here again a global
factor $J^{-1/2}$, as also expected.
We consider next the situation when quadrupole tuning is implemented,
$\Omega$\,=\,$\omega_{n2}$. We shall however do so only for the {\sl PHC\/}
and {\sl TIGA\/} configurations, as more general considerations are not
quite as interesting at this point.
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=fig8.ps,height=22cm,width=15cm,rheight=23cm,bbllx=1.1cm,bblly=3.3cm,bburx=17.5cm,bbury=27cm}
\caption{Simulated response of a {\sl PHC\/} to a hammer stroke: the time
series and their respective spectra, both for direct resonator readouts and
mode channels. Note that while the former are {\it not\/} simple beats, the
latter are. \label{fig7}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{{\sl PHC\/} and {\sl TIGA\/} response to a hammer stroke}
Expanding equation \ref{7.2} by substitution of the eigenvalues $\zeta_m\/$
and eigenvectors $v^{(m)}_a\/$ of the {\sl PHC\/}, one readily finds that
the system response is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat q_a(s) = \eta^{-1/2}\,f_0\,\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{5}}\,
\left|A_{n2}(R)\right|\,\sum_{m=-2}^2\,\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(
s^2+\omega_{m+}^2\right)^{-1}-\left(s^2+\omega_{m-}^2\right)^{-1}\right]
\,\zeta_m^{-1}\,Y_{2m}({\bf n}_a)\,Y_{2m}^*({\bf n}_0)
\ ,\qquad a=1,\ldots,5
\label{7.7}
\end{equation}
and the mode channels by
\begin{equation}
\hat y^{(m)}(s) = \eta^{-1/2}\,f_0\,\left|A_{n2}(R)\right|
\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(s^2+\omega_{m+}^2\right)^{-1} -
\left(s^2+\omega_{m-}^2\right)^{-1}\right]\,Y_{2m}^*({\bf n}_0)
\ ,\ \ m=-2,\ldots,2 \label{7.8}
\end{equation}
These equations indicate that the system response $q_a(t)$ is a
{\it superposition of three different beats\/}\footnote{
A {\it beat\/} is a modulated oscillation of the form
$\sin\frac{1}{2}(\omega_+-\omega_-)t\,\cos\Omega t$, where $\omega_+$
and $\omega_-$ are nearby frequencies, and
$\omega_+$\,$+$\,$\omega_-$\,=\,2\,$\Omega$. The Laplace transform of such
function of time is precisely $(\Omega/2)$\,$\left[\left(
s^2+\omega_+^2\right)^{-1}-\left(s^2+\omega_-^2\right)^{-1}\right]$, up to
higher order terms in the difference $\omega_+$\,$-$\,$\omega_-$, which in
our case is proportional to $\eta^{1/2}$.},
while the mode channels are {\it single\/} beats each, but with {\it differing
modulation frequencies\/}. This is represented graphically in Figure
\ref{fig7}, where we see the result of a numerical simulation of the
{\sl PHC\/} response to a hammer stroke, delivered to the solid at a given
location. The readouts $q_a(t)$ are somewhat complex time series, whose
frequency spectrum shows {\it three pairs of peaks\/} ---in fact, the
{\it lines\/} in the ideal spectrum of Figure \ref{fig5}. The mode channels
on the other hand are {\it pure beats\/}, whose spectra consist of the
{\it individually separate\/} pairs of the just mentioned peaks.
The response of the {\sl TIGA\/} layout to a hammer stroke has been described
in detail by Merkowitz and Johnson ---see e.g.\ reference \cite{jm97}. Our
formalism does of course recover the results obtained by those authors; in
the notation of this paper, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat q_a(s) & = & -\eta^{-1/2}\,\frac{5}{\sqrt{24\pi}}\,
f_0\,\left|A_{n2}(R)\right|\,\frac{1}{2}\left[
\left(s^2+\omega_+^2\right)^{-1}-\left(s^2+\omega_-^2\right)^{-1}\right]
\,P_2({\bf n}_a\!\cdot\!{\bf n}_0)\ ,\qquad {\sl TIGA}
\label{7.4.a} \\
\hat y^{(m)}(s) & = & -\eta^{-1/2}\,f_0\,\left|A_{n2}(R)\right|
\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(s^2+\omega_+^2\right)^{-1} -
\left(s^2+\omega_-^2\right)^{-1}\right]\,Y_{2m}^*({\bf n}_0)
\ ,\ \ m=-2,\ldots,2 \label{7.5}
\end{eqnarray}
for the system response and the mode channels, respectively, where
\begin{equation}
\omega_\pm^2 = \omega_{n2}^2\,\left(1\pm\sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi}}\,
\left|A_{n2}(R)\right|\eta^{1/2}\right) + O(\eta)\ ,
\qquad a=1,\ldots,6
\label{6.19}
\end{equation}
are the five-fold degenerate frequency pairs corresponding to the {\sl TIGA\/}
distribution. Comparison of the mode channels shows that they are identical
for {\sl PHC\/} and {\sl TIGA\/}, except that the former come at different
frequencies depending on the index $m\/$. One might perhaps say that the
{\sl PHC\/} gives rise to a sort of ``Zeeman splitting'' of the {\sl TIGA\/}
degenerate frequencies, which can be attributed to an {\it axial symmetry
breaking\/} of that resonator distribution: the {\sl PHC\/} mode channels
partly split up the otherwise degenerate multiplet into its components.
\section{Symmetry defects}
\label{sec:symdef}
So far we have made the assumption that the sphere is perfectly symmetric,
that the resonators are identical, that their locations on the sphere's
surface are ideally accurate, etc. This is of course unrealistic. So we
propose to address now how such departures from ideality affect the
system behaviour. As we shall see, the system is rather {\it robust\/},
in a sense to be made precise shortly, against a number of small defects.
In order to {\it quantitatively\/} assess ideality failures we shall adopt
a philosophy which is naturally suggested by the results already obtained
in an ideal system. It is as follows.
As we have seen in previous sections, the solution to the general equations
(\ref{3.16}) must be given as a {\it perturbative\/} series expansion in
ascending powers of the small quantity $\eta^{1/2}$. This is clearly a fact
{\it not\/} related to the system's symmetries, so it will survive symmetry
breakings. It is therefore appropriate to {\it parametrize\/} deviations
from ideality in terms of suitable powers of $\eta^{1/2}$, in order to
address them {\it consistently with the order of accuracy of the series
solution to the equations of motion\/}. An example will better illustrate
the situation.
In a {\it perfectly ideal\/} spherical detector the system frequencies
are given by equations (\ref{5.2}). Now, if a small departure from e.g.
spherical symmetry is present in the system then we expect that a
correspondingly small correction to those equations will be required.
Which specific correction to the formula will actually happen can be
{\it qualitatively\/} assessed by a {\it consistency\/} argument: if
symmetry defects are of order $\eta^{1/2}$ then equations (\ref{5.2}) will
be significantly altered in their $\eta^{1/2}$ terms; if on the other hand
such defects are of order $\eta\/$ or smaller then any modifications to
equations (\ref{5.2}) will be swallowed into the $O(0)$ terms, and the
more important $\eta^{1/2}$ terms will remain unaffected by the symmetry
failure. We will say in the latter case that the system is {\it robust\/}
to that ideality breaking.
More generally, this argument can be extended to see that the only system
defects standing a chance to have any influences on lowest order ideal
system behaviour are defects of order $\eta^{1/2}$ relative to an ideal
configuration. Defects of such order are however {\it not necessarily
guaranteed\/} to be significant, and a specific analysis is required for
each specific parameter in order to see whether or not the system response
is {\it robust\/} against the considered parameter deviations.
We therefore proceed as follows. Let $P\/$ be one of the system parameters,
e.g. a sphere frequency, or a resonator mass or location, etc. Let
$P_{\rm ideal}$ be the {\it numerical value\/} this parameter has in an
ideal detector, and let $P_{\rm real}$ be its value in the real case. These
two will be assumed to differ by terms of order $\eta^{1/2}$, or
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm real} = P_{\rm ideal}\,(1+p\,\eta^{1/2}) \label{8.1}
\end{equation}
For a given system, $p\/$ is readily determined adopting (\ref{8.1}) as the
{\it definition\/} of $P_{\rm real}$, once a suitable {\it hypothesis\/}
has been made as to which is the value of $P_{\rm ideal}$. In order for
the following procedure to make sensible sense it is clearly required that
$p\/$ be of order 1 or, at least, appreciably larger than $\eta^{1/2}$.
Should $p\/$ thus calculated from (\ref{8.1}) happen to be too small, i.e.,
of order $\eta^{1/2}$ itself or smaller, then the system will be considered
{\it robust\/} as regards the affected parameter.
We now apply this criterion to various departures from ideality.
\subsection{The suspended sphere \label{s8.1}}
An earth based observatory obviously requires a {\it suspension
mechanism\/} for the large sphere. If a {\it nodal point\/} suspension
is e.g.\ selected then a diametral {\it bore\/} has to be drilled across
the sphere \cite{phd}. The most immediate consequence of this is that
spherical symmetry is broken, what in turn results in {\it degeneracy
lifting\/} of the free spectral frequencies $\omega_{nl}\/$, which now
{\it split\/} up into multiplets $\omega_{nlm}\/$
($m\/$\,=\,$-l\/$,...,$l\/$). The resonators' frequency $\Omega$
{\it cannot\/} therefore be matched to {\it the\/} frequency
$\omega_{n_0l_0}$, but at most to {\it one\/} of the
$\omega_{n_0l_0m}\/$'s. In this subsection we keep the hypothesis that
all the resonators are identical ---we shall relax it later---, and
assume that $\Omega$ falls {\it within\/} the span of the multiplet
of the $\omega_{n_0l_0m}\/$'s. Then we write
\begin{equation}
\omega_{n_0l_0m}^2 = \Omega^2\,(1+p_m\,\eta^{1/2})\ ,\qquad
m=-l_0,\ldots,l_0 \label{8.2}
\end{equation}
We now search for the coupled frequencies, i.e., the roots of equation
(\ref{3.18}). The kernel matrix $\hat K_{ab}(s)$ is however no longer
given by (\ref{4.2}), due the removed degeneracy of $\omega_{nl}\/$, and
we must stick to its general expression (\ref{3.17}), or
\begin{equation}
\hat K_{ab}(s) = \sum_{nlm}\,\frac{\Omega_b^2}{s^2+\omega_{nlm}^2}\,
\left|A_{nl}(R)\right|^2\,\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}\,
Y_{lm}^*({\bf n}_a)\,Y_{lm}({\bf n}_b) \equiv
\sum_{nlm}\,\frac{\Omega_b^2}{s^2+\omega_{nlm}^2}\,\chi_{ab}^{(nlm)}
\label{8.3}
\end{equation}
Following the steps of appendix \ref{app:a} we now seek the roots of the
equation
\begin{equation}
\det\,\left[\delta_{ab} + \eta\,\sum_{m=-l_0}^{l_0}\,
\frac{\Omega^2s^2}{(s^2+\Omega^2)(s^2+\omega_{n_0l_0m}^2)}
\,\chi_{ab}^{(n_0l_0m)} + \eta\,\sum_{nl\neq n_0l_0,m}\,
\frac{\Omega^2s^2}{(s^2+\Omega^2)(s^2+\omega_{nlm}^2)}\,
\chi_{ab}^{(nlm)}\right] = 0
\label{8.4}
\end{equation}
Since $\Omega$ relates to $\omega_{n_0l_0m}\/$ through equation (\ref{8.2})
we see that the roots of (\ref{8.4}) fall again into either of the two
categories (\ref{4.11.a})-(\ref{4.11.b})(see Appendix~\ref{app:b}), i.e.,
roots close to $\pm i\Omega$ and roots close to $\pm i\omega_{nlm}\/$
($nl\/$\,$\neq$\,$n_0l_0$). We shall exclusively concentrate on the former
now. Direct substitution of the series (\ref{4.11.a}) into (\ref{8.4}) yields
the following equation for the coefficient $\chi_{\frac{1}{2}}$:
\begin{equation}
\det\left[\delta_{ab} - \frac{1}{\chi_\frac{1}{2}}\,\sum_{m=-l_0}^{l_0}
\,\frac{\chi_{ab}^{(n_0l_0m)}}{\chi_\frac{1}{2}-p_m}\right] = 0
\label{8.5}
\end{equation}
This is a variation of (\ref{5.1}), to which it reduces when
$p_m\/$\,=\,0, i.e., when there is full degeneracy.
The solutions to (\ref{8.5}) no longer come in symmetric pairs, like
(\ref{5.2}). Rather, there are 2$l_0$+1+$J\/$ of them, with a
{\it maximum\/} number of 2(2$l_0$+1) non-identically zero roots if
$J\/$\,$\geq$\,2$l_0$+1\footnote{
This is a {\it mathematical fact\/}, whose proof is relatively cumbersome,
and will be omitted here; we just mention that it has its origin in the
linear dependence of more than 2$l_0$+1 spherical harmonics of order $l_0$.}.
For example, if we choose to select the resonators' frequency close to a
quadrupole multiplet ($l_0$\,=\,2) then (\ref{8.5}) has at most 5+$J\/$
non-null roots, {\it with a maximum ten\/} no matter how many resonators
in excess of 5 we attach to the sphere. Modes associated to null roots of
(\ref{8.5}) can be seen to be {\it weakly coupled\/}, just like in a free
sphere, i.e., their amplitudes are smaller than those of the strongly
coupled ones by factors of order $\eta^{1/2}$.
In order to assess the reliability of this method we have applied it to
see what are its predictions for a {\it real system\/}. To this end, data
taken with the {\sl TIGA\/} prototype at {\sl LSU\/}\footnote{
These data are contained in reference \protect\cite{phd}, and we want to
express our gratitude to Stephen Merkowitz for kindly handing them to us.}
were used to confront with. The {\sl TIGA\/} was drilled and suspended
from its centre, so its first quadrupole frequency split up into a
multiplet of five frequencies. Their reportedly measured values are
\begin{equation}
\omega_{120} = 3249\ {\rm Hz}\ ,\ \
\omega_{121} = 3238\ {\rm Hz}\ ,\ \
\omega_{12\,-1} = 3236\ {\rm Hz}\ ,\ \
\omega_{122} = 3224\ {\rm Hz}\ ,\ \
\omega_{12\,-2} = 3223\ {\rm Hz}\ ,\ \
\label{8.6}
\end{equation}
All 6 resonators were equal, and had the following characteristic
frequency and mass, respectively:
\begin{equation}
\Omega = 3241\ {\rm Hz}\ ,\qquad\eta = \frac{1}{1762.45}
\label{8.7}
\end{equation}
Substituting these values into (\ref{8.2}) it is seen that
\begin{equation}
p_0=0.2075\ ,\ \ p_1=-0.0777\ ,\ \ p_{-1}=-0.1036\ ,\ \
p_2=-0.4393\ ,\ \ p_{-2}=-0.4650
\label{8.8}
\end{equation}
\begin{table}
\label{t1}
\caption{Numerical values of measured and theoretically predicted
frequencies (in Hz) for the {\sl TIGA\/} prototype with varying number of
resonators. Percent differences are also shown. The {\it calculated\/}
values of the tuning and free multiplet frequencies are taken {\it by
definition\/} equal to the measured ones, and quoted in brackets. In
square brackets the frequency of the {\it weakly coupled\/} sixth mode
in the full, 6~resonator {\sl TIGA\/} layout. These data are plotted in
Figure \protect\ref{fig8}.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccc||lccc}
Item & Measured & Calculated & \% difference &
Item & Measured & Calculated & \% difference \\
\hline Tuning & 3241 & (3241) & (0.00) &
4 resonators & 3159 & 3155 & $-0.12$ \\
Free multiplet & 3223 & (3223) & (0.00) &
& 3160 & 3156 & $-0.11$ \\
& 3224 & (3224) & (0.00) &
& 3168 & 3165 & $-0.12$ \\
& 3236 & (3236) & (0.00) &
& 3199 & 3198 & $-0.05$ \\
& 3238 & (3238) & (0.00) &
& 3236 & 3236 & $ 0.00$ \\
& 3249 & (3249) & (0.00) &
& 3285 & 3286 & $ 0.03$ \\
1 resonator & 3167 & 3164 & $-0.08$ &
& 3310 & 3310 & $ 0.00$ \\
& 3223 & 3223 & $ 0.00$ &
& 3311 & 3311 & $ 0.00$ \\
& 3236 & 3235 & $-0.02$ &
& 3319 & 3319 & $ 0.00$ \\
& 3238 & 3237 & $-0.02$ &
5 resonators & 3152 & 3154 & $ 0.08$ \\
& 3245 & 3245 & $ 0.00$ &
& 3160 & 3156 & $-0.14$ \\
& 3305 & 3307 & $ 0.06$ &
& 3163 & 3162 & $-0.03$ \\
2 resonators & 3160 & 3156 & $-0.13$ &
& 3169 & 3167 & $-0.08$ \\
& 3177 & 3175 & $-0.07$ &
& 3209 & 3208 & $-0.02$ \\
& 3233 & 3233 & $ 0.00$ &
& 3268 & 3271 & $ 0.10$ \\
& 3236 & 3236 & $ 0.00$ &
& 3304 & 3310 & $ 0.17$ \\
& 3240 & 3240 & $ 0.00$ &
& 3310 & 3311 & $ 0.03$ \\
& 3302 & 3303 & $ 0.03$ &
& 3313 & 3316 & $ 0.10$ \\
& 3311 & 3311 & $ 0.00$ &
& 3319 & 3321 & $ 0.06$ \\
3 resonators & 3160 & 3155 & $-0.15$ &
6 resonators & 3151 & 3154 & $ 0.11$ \\
& 3160 & 3156 & $-0.13$ &
& 3156 & 3155 & $-0.03$ \\
& 3191 & 3190 & $-0.02$ &
& 3162 & 3162 & $ 0.00$ \\
& 3236 & 3235 & $-0.02$ &
& 3167 & 3162 & $-0.14$ \\
& 3236 & 3236 & $ 0.00$ &
& 3170 & 3168 & $-0.07$ \\
& 3297 & 3299 & $ 0.08$ &
& [3239] & [3241] & [0.06] \\
& 3310 & 3311 & $ 0.02$ &
& 3302 & 3309 & $ 0.23$ \\
& 3311 & 3311 & $ 0.00$ &
& 3308 & 3310 & $ 0.06$ \\
& & & &
& 3312 & 3316 & $ 0.12$ \\
& & & &
& 3316 & 3317 & $ 0.02$ \\
& & & &
& 3319 & 3322 & $ 0.10$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Equation (\ref{8.5}) can now be readily solved once the resonator
positions are fed into the matrices $\chi_{ab}^{(12m)}$. Such positions
correspond to the pentagonal faces of a truncated icosahedron. Merkowitz
\cite{phd} gives a complete account of all the measured system frequencies
as resonators are progressively attached to the selected faces, beginning
with one and ending with six. In Figure \ref{fig8} we present a graphical
display of the experimentally reported frequencies along with those
calculated theoretically by solving equation (\ref{8.5}). In Table 1 we
give the numerical values. As can be seen, coincidence between our
theoretical predictions and the experimental data is remarkable: the
worst error is 0.2\%, while for the most part it is below 0.1\%. Thus
{\it discrepancies between our theoretical predictions and experiment are
of order $\eta$\/}, as indeed expected ---see (\ref{8.7}). In addition, it
is also reported in reference \cite{jm97} that the 11-th, weakly coupled
mode of the {\sl TIGA\/} (enclosed in square brackets in Table 1) has a
practically zero amplitude, again in excellent agreement with our general
theoretical predictions about modes beyond the tenth ---see paragraph
after equation~(\ref{8.5}).
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=fig9.ps,height=22cm,width=15cm,rheight=22cm
\caption{The frequency spectrum of the {\sl TIGA\/} distribution as
resonators are progressively added from none to 6. Continuous lines
correspond to measured values, and dashed lines correspond to their
$\eta^{1/2}$ theoretical estimates with equation~(\protect\ref{8.5}).
\label{fig8}}
\end{figure}
This is an encouraging result which motivated us to try a better fit by
estimating the {\it next order\/} corrections, i.e., $\chi_1$ of
(\ref{4.11.a}). As it turned out, however, matching between theory and
experiment did not consistently improve. This is not really that surprising,
though, as M\&J explicitly state \cite{jm97} that control of the general
experimental conditions in which data were obtained had a certain degree of
tolerance, and they actually show satisfaction that $\sim$1\% coincidence
between theory and measurement is comfortably accomplished. But 1\% is
{\it two orders of magnitude larger than $\eta\/$} ---cf. equation
(\ref{8.7})---, so failure to refine our frequency estimates to order
$\eta\/$ is again fully consistent with the accuracy of available real data.
A word on a technical issue is in order. Merkowitz and Johnson's equations
for the {\sl TIGA\/} \cite{jm93,jm95} are identical to ours to lowest order
in $\eta\/$. Remarkably, though, their reported theoretical estimates of
the system frequencies are not quite as accurate as ours \cite{jm97}.
The reason for this is probably the following: in M\&J's model these
frequencies appear within an algebraic system of 5+$J\/$ linear equations
with as many unknowns which has to be solved; in our model the algebraic
system has only $J\/$ equations and unknowns, actually equations
(\ref{3.16}). This is a very appreciable difference for the range
of values of $J\/$ under consideration. While the roots for the frequencies
can be seen to {\it mathematically\/} coincide in both approaches, in
actual practice these roots are {\it estimated\/}, generally by means of
computer programmes. It is here that problems most likely arise, for the
numerical reliability of an algorithm to solve matrix equations normally
decreases as the rank of the matrix increases. The significant algebraic
simplification of our model's equations should therefore be considered
one of real practical value.
\subsection{Other mismatched parameters}
We now assess the system sensitivity to small mismatches in resonators'
masses, locations and frequencies.
\subsubsection{Resonator mass mismatches}
If the {\it masses\/} are slightly non-equal then we can write
\begin{equation}
M_a = \eta{\cal M}\,(1+\mu_a\,\eta^{1/2})\ ,\qquad a=1,\ldots,J
\label{8.9}
\end{equation}
where $\eta\/$ can be defined e.g. as the ratio of the {\it average\/}
resonator mass to the sphere's mass. It is immediately obvious from
equation (\ref{8.9}) that mass non-uniformities of the resonators only
affect our equations in {\it second order\/}, since resonator mass
non-uniformities result, as we see, in corrections of order $\eta^{1/2}$
to $\eta^{1/2}$ itself, which is the very parameter of the perturbative
expansions. The system is thus clearly {\it robust\/} to mismatches in
the resonator masses of the type (\ref{8.9}).
\subsubsection{Errors in resonator locations}
The same happens if the {\it locations\/} of the resonators have tolerances
relative to a {\it pre-selected\/} distribution. For let ${\bf n}_a\/$ be a
set of resonator locations, for example the {\sl TIGA\/} or the {\sl PHC\/}
positions, and let ${\bf n'}_a\/$ be the real ones, close to the former:
\begin{equation}
{\bf n'}_a = {\bf n}_a + {\bf v}_a\,\eta^{1/2}\ ,\qquad a=1,\ldots,J
\label{8.10}
\end{equation}
The values ${\bf n}_a$ determine the eigenvalues $\zeta_a\/$ in equation
(\ref{5.2}), and also they appear as arguments to the spherical harmonics
in the system response functions of sections~\ref{sec:srgw}--\ref{sec:hs}.
It follows from~(\ref{8.10}) by continuity arguments that
\begin{eqnarray}
Y_{lm}({\bf n'}_a) & = & Y_{lm}({\bf n}_a) + O(\eta^{1/2})
\label{8.105.a} \\
\zeta'_a & = & \zeta_a + O(\eta^{1/2})
\label{8.105.b}
\end{eqnarray}
Inspection of the equations of sections~\ref{sec:srgw}--\ref{sec:hs} shows
that both $\zeta_a\/$ and $Y_{lm}({\bf n}_a)$ {\it always\/} appear within
lowest order terms, and hence that corrections to them of the
type~(\ref{8.105.a})-(\ref{8.105.b}) will affect those terms in {\it second
order\/} again. We thus conclude that the system is also {\it robust\/} to
small misalignments of the resonators relative to pre-established positions.
\subsubsection{Resonator frequency mistunings}
The resonator {\it frequencies\/} may also differ amongst them, so let
\begin{equation}
\Omega_a = \Omega\,(1+\rho_a\,\eta^{1/2})\ ,\qquad a=1,\ldots,J
\label{8.11}
\end{equation}
To assess the consequences of this, however, we must go back to equation
(\ref{3.18}) and see what the coefficients in its series solutions of the
type (\ref{4.11.a}) are. The procedure is very similar to that of section
\ref{s8.1}, and will not be repeated here; the lowest order coefficient
$\chi_\frac{1}{2}$ is seen to satisfy the algebraic equation
\begin{equation}
\det\left[\delta_{ab} - \frac{1}{\chi_\frac{1}{2}}\,\sum_{c=0}^{J}\,
\frac{\chi_{ac}^{(n_0l_0)}\,\delta_{cb}}{\chi_\frac{1}{2}-\rho_c}\right]
= 0 \label{8.12}
\end{equation}
which reduces to (\ref{5.1}) when all the $\rho\/$'s vanish, as expected.
This appears to potentially have significant effects on our results to
lowest order in $\eta^{1/2}$, but a more careful consideration of the facts
shows that it is probably unrealistic to think of such large tolerances in
resonator manufacturing as implied by equation (\ref{8.11}) in the first
place. In the {\sl TIGA\/} experiment, for example \cite{phd}, an error of
order $\eta^{1/2}$ would amount to around 50 Hz of mistuning between
resonators, an absurd figure by all means. In a full scale sphere
($\sim$40 tons, $\sim$3 metres in diameter, $\sim$800 Hz fundamental
quadrupole frequency, $\eta\/$\,$\sim$\,10$^{-5}$) the same error would
amount to between 5 Hz and 10 Hz in resonator mistunings for the lowest
frequency. This is probably excessive for a capacitive transducer, but may
be realistic for an inductive one. With this exception, it is thus more
appropriate to consider that resonator mistunings are at least of order
$\eta\/$. If this is the case, though, we see once more that the system
is quite insensitive to such mistunings.
Summing up the results of this section, we can say that the resonator
system dynamics is quite {\it robust\/} to small (of order $\eta^{1/2}$)
changes in its various parameters. The important exception is of course
the effect of suspension drillings, which do result in significant changes
relative to the ideally perfect device, but which can be relatively easily
calculated. This theoretical picture is fully supported by experiment, as
{\it robustness\/} in the parameters here considered has been reported in
reference \cite{jm97}.
\section{Conclusions}
A spherical GW antenna is a natural multimode device with very rich
potential capabilities to detect GWs on earth. But such detector is not
just a bare sphere, it requires a set of {\it motion sensors\/} to be
practically useful. It appears that transducers of the {\it resonant\/}
type are the best suited ones for an efficient performance of the detector.
Resonators however significantly interact with the sphere, and they affect
in particular its frequency spectrum and vibration modes in a specific
fashion, which has to be properly understood before reliable conclusions
can be drawn from the system readout.
The main objective of this paper has been the construction and development
of an elaborate theoretical model to describe the joint dynamics of a solid
elastic sphere and a set of {\it radial motion\/} resonators attached to
its surface at arbitrary locations, with the purpose to make predictions
of the system characteristics and response, in principle with arbitrary
mathematical precision.
We have shown that the solutions to our equations of motion are expressible
as an ascending series in powers of the small ``coupling constant''
$\eta\/$, the ratio of the average resonator mass to the mass of the large
sphere. The {\it lowest order\/} approximation corresponds to terms of order
$\eta^{1/2}$ and, to this order, we recover, and widely generalise, other
authors' results \cite{jm97,ts,grg}, obtained by them on the basis of
certain simplifying assumptions. This has in particular enabled us to assess
the system response for arbitrary resonator layouts, and to search the
equations for configurations other than the highly symmetric {\sl TIGA\/}.
This search has led us to make a specific proposal, the {\sl PHC\/}, which
is based on a pentagonally symmetric set of 5 rather than 6 resonators per
quadruopole mode sensed. The {\sl PHC\/} distribution has the very interesting
property that {\it mode channels\/} can be constructed from the resonators'
readouts, much in the same way as in the {\it TIGA\/} \cite{jm95}. In the
{\sl PHC\/} however a new and distinctive characteristic is present: different
{\it wave amplitudes\/} selectively couple to different {\it detector modes\/}
having different frequencies, so that the antenna's mode channels come at
different rather than equal frequencies. The {\sl PHC\/} philosophy can be
extended to make a {\it multifrequency\/} system by using resonators tuned
to the first two quadrupole harmonics of the sphere {\it and\/} to the first
monopole, an altogether 11 transducer set \cite{ls}.
The assessment of {\it symmetry failure\/} effects, as well as other
parameter departures form ideality, has also interested us here. This is
seen to receive a particularly clear treatment in our general scheme: the
theory transparently shows that the system is {\it robust\/} against
relative disturbances of order $\eta\/$ or smaller in any system parameters,
and provides a systematic procedure to assess larger tolerances ---up to
order $\eta^{1/2}$. The system is shown to still be robust to tolerances of
this order in some of its parameters, whilst it is not to others. Included
in the latter group is the effect of spherical symmetry breaking due to
system suspension in the laboratory, which causes {\it degeneracy lifting\/}
of the sphere's eigenfrequencies, now split up into multiplets. By using
our algorithms we have succeeded in numerically reproducing the reportedly
measured frequencies of the {\sl LSU\/} prototype antenna \cite{phd} with
a fully satisfactory precision of four decimal places. The experimentally
reported robustness of the system to resonator mislocations \cite{jm97} is
also in full agreement with our theoretical predictions.
The perturbative approach we have adopted is naturally open to refined
analysis of the system response in higher orders in $\eta\/$. For example,
we can systematically address the weaker coupling of non-quadrupole modes.
It appears however that such refinements will be largely masked by
{\it noise\/} in a real system, as shown by Merkowitz and Johnson \cite{jm98},
and this must therefore be considered first. So our next step is to include
noise in the model and see its effect. Stevenson \cite{ts} has already made
some progress in this direction, and partly assessed the characteristics of
{\sl TIGA\/} and {\sl PHC\/}, but more needs to be done since not too high
signal-to-noise ratios should realistically be be considered in an actual
GW detector. In particular, the discovery of {\it mode channels\/} also for
the {\sl PHC\/} distribution opens the possibility of analysis of noise
correlations and dependencies, as well as the errors in GW parameter
estimation. These are natural extensions of this research, and some of them
are currently underway \cite{lms}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We are indebted with Stephen Merkowitz for his kind supply of the
{\sl TIGA\/} prototype data, without which a significant part of this
work would have been speculative. Fruitful discussions with him are also
gratefully acknowledged. We thank Eugenio Coccia for interaction and
encouragement throughout the development of this research, and also Curt
Cutler for pointing out to us an initial error in equation~(\ref{2.1.b}).
We have received financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Education
through contract number PB96-0384, and from the Institut d'Estudis
Catalans.
|
\section{Introduction}
Oscillations are ubiquitous in neural systems and have been the focus
of several recent studies (for reviews see e.g.~Gray 1994, Singer and
Gray 1995, Buzs{\'a}ki and Chrobak 1995, Ritz and Sejnowski 1997). In
particular, fast global oscillations in the gamma frequency range ($>
30$ Hz) have been reported in the visual cortex (Gray et al 1989, Eckhorn
et al 1993, Kreiter and Singer 1996), in the olfactory cortex (Laurent and
Davidowitz 1994) and in the hippocampus (Bragin et al 1995). Even
faster oscillations (200Hz) occur in the hippocampus of the rat
(Buzs{\'a}ki et al 1992, Ylinen et al 1995). In some experimental data,
(see e.g.~Eckhorn et al 1993, Csicsvari et al 1998, Fisahn et al 1998)
individual neuron recordings show irregular spike emission, at a rate
which is low compared to the global oscillation frequency\footnote{
Fast oscillations may be due in some cases to a synchronized subset of
cells with high firing rates. The observation of cells with the
required property has been recently reported in (Gray and McCormick
1996).}. This raises the question of whether a network composed
of neurons firing irregularly at low rates can exhibit fast collective
oscillations, which theoretical analyses and modelling studies may
help to answer.
Previous studies of networks of spiking neurons have mostly analyzed,
or simulated, synchronized oscillations in regimes in which neurons
behave themselves as oscillators, with interspike intervals strongly
peaked around their average value (see e.g.~Mirollo and Strogatz 1990,
Abbott and van Vreeswijk 1993, van Vreeswijk et al 1994, Gerstner
1995, Hansel et al 1995, Gerstner et al 1996, Wang and Buzs{\'a}ki 1996,
Traub et al 1996). Several oscillatory regimes have been found with
either full or partial synchronization. A regime particular to
globally coupled systems has been described where the network breaks
into a few fully synchronized clusters (Golomb and Rinzel 1994, van
Vreeswijk 1996). In some simulations of networks with detailed
biophysical characteristics, cells fire sparsely and irregularly
during a global oscillation (Traub et al 1989, Kopell and LeMasson
1994, Wang et al 1995), but the complexity of individual neurons in
these models makes it difficult to clearly understand of the origin of
the phenomenon. The possible appearance of fast oscillations in a
network where all neurons fire irregularly with an average frequency
which is much lower than the population frequency therefore remains an
intriguing question. It is the focus of the present work.
Recurrent inhibition plays an important role in the generation of
synchronized oscillations as shown by in vivo (McLeod and Laurent
1996) and in vitro experiments (Whittington et al 1995) in different
systems. This has been confirmed by several modelling studies (van
Vreeswijk et al 1994, Gerstner et al 1996, Wang and Buzs{\'a}ki 1996,
Traub et al 1996). It has also been recently shown using simple
models that networks in which inhibition balance excitation (Tsodyks
and Sejnowski 1995, Amit and Brunel 1997a, van Vreeswijk and
Sompolinsky 1996) are naturally composed of neurons with low and
irregular firing. Simulations (Amit and Brunel 1997b) have shown
that, in one such model composed of sparsely connected
integrate-and-fire (IF) neurons, the highly irregular single neuron
activity is accompanied by damped fast oscillations of the global
activity.
In order to study the coexistence of individual neurons with low
firing rates and fast collective oscillations in its simplest setting,
we analyze in the present paper a sparsely connected network entirely
composed of identical inhibitory IF neurons. Our aim is to provide a
clear understanding of this type of synchrony and to precisely
determine :\\ - i) under which conditions collective excitations of
high frequencies arise in such networks\\ - ii) what controls the
different characteristics (amplitude, frequency, coherence time,...)
of the global oscillation.
Simulation results are presented first which shows that the essence of
the phenomenon is present even in this simple system. Both the neurons
firing rates and the auto-correlation of the global activity are very
similar to those reported in (Amit and Brunel 1997b).
We begin by presenting simple arguments which give an estimation of
the firing rate of individual neurons and the frequency of the global
oscillation and which lead to think that the global oscillation only
appears above a well-defined parameter threshold.
In order to make the analysis more precise and complete,
we then generalize the analytic approach of Amit and Brunel (1997a)
which was restricted to the computation of firing rates in stationary
states. The sparse random network connectivity leads
the firing patterns of different neurons to be only weakly
correlated.
As a consequence, the network state can be described by the
instantaneous distribution of membrane potentials of the neuronal
population, together with the firing probability in this
population.
We obtain the coupled temporal evolution equations for
these quantities, the time-independent solution of which coincides
with the stationary solution of (Amit and Brunel 1997a).
A linear stability analysis shows that this time-independent solution
becomes unstable only when the strength of recurrent inhibition exceeds a
critical level, in agreement with our simple arguments.
When this critical level is reached, the stationary
solution becomes unstable and an oscillatory solution develops (via a
Hopf bifurcation). The time scale of the period of the corresponding
global oscillations is set by a synaptic time,
independently of the firing rate of individual neurons, but the period
precise value also depends on the characteristics of the external input.
The analysis is then pushed to higher orders. We obtain a reduced
evolution equation describing the network collective dynamics. The
effects coming from the finite size of the network are also discussed.
We show that having a large but finite number of neurons gives a small
stochastic component to the collective evolution equation. As a
result, it is shown that cross-correlations in a finite network
present damped oscillations both above and below the critical
inhibition level. Below the critical level, the noise controls the
oscillation amplitude which decreases as the number of neurons is
increased (at a fixed number of connections per neuron). Above the
critical level, the main effect of the noise is to produce a phase
diffusion of the global oscillation. An increase in the number of
neurons results in an increase of the global oscillation coherence
time and in a reduced damping in average cross-correlations.
Finally, the effect of some of our simplifying assumptions is studied.
We shortly discuss the effect of allowing variability in synaptic
times and number of synaptic connections from neuron to neuron. We
also consider the effect of introducing a more detailed description of
postsynaptic currents into the model. The technical aspects of our
computations are detailed in several appendices.
\section{Description of the network and simulations}
We analyse the dynamics of a network composed of $N$ identical
inhibitory single compartment integrate-and-fire (IF) neurons. Each
neuron receives $C$ randomly chosen connections from other neurons in
the network. It also receives $C_{ext}$ connections from excitatory
neurons outside the network (see Fig.~\ref{networkmap}). We consider a
sparsely connected case with $\epsilon=C/N \ll 1$.
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(14,7)
\put(-2,-8){\special{psfile="testfig.ps"}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Schematic diagram of the connections in the network of $N$
neurons; each neuron (indicated as an open disk) receives $C$
inhibitory connections (indicated as black) from within the network
and $C_{ext}$ excitatory connections (indicated as grey) from neurons
outside the network.}
\label{networkmap}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(14,6)
\put(0,-2){\special{psfile="IPSP.ps"}}
\put(0,5){Presynaptic spike}
\put(0,3.1){PSC ($RI(t)$)}
\put(0,1.3){PSP ($V(t)$)}
\end{picture}
\caption{Comparison of the synaptic response characteristics in our
model and in a more realistic model. The top trace shows the
presynaptic spike. The middle trace shows the corresponding
postsynaptic current (PSC). The bottom trace shows the corresponding
postsynaptic potential (PSP) for a neuron initially at resting
potential. Full lines: our model, in which the synaptic current is
described by a delta function a time $\delta$ after the presynaptic
spike. Dashed lines: a more realistic synaptic response, in which the
PSC is described by an $\alpha$-function with latency (transmission
delay) $\tau_L$ and synaptic time constant $\tau_S$
$(t-\tau_L)\exp(-(t-\tau_L)/\tau_S)/\tau_S$. Our synaptic
characteristic time $\delta$ can roughly be identified with the sum of
latency and synaptic decay time, $\tau_L+\tau_S$. See the discussion
in Section \ref{section:synaptic}.}
\label{IPSP}
\end{figure}
Each neuron is simply described by its membrane potential. Let us
suppose that neuron $i$ receives an inhibitory (excitatory) connection
from neuron $j$. When the presynaptic neuron $j$ emits a spike at time
$t$, the potential of the postsynaptic neuron $i$ is decreased
(increased) by $J$ at time $t+\delta$ and returns exponentially to the
resting potential in a time $\tau$ which represents the integration
time constant of the membrane. In this simple model, the single time
$\delta$ is meant to represent the transmission delays but also and
most importantly, the longer time needed to obtain the full
hyperpolarization of the post-synaptic neuron corresponding to a given
presynaptic spike. Therefore, finding the correspondence between
$\delta$ and the different synaptic time scales of a more realistic
description needs some care. As pictorially shown in Fig.~\ref{IPSP},
$\delta$ should roughly be identified to the characteristic duration
of the synaptic currents. In the following, we thus refer to $\delta$,
which plays a crucial role in the generation of global oscillations,
as the "synaptic time". The correspondence between $\delta$ and the
different synaptic time scales of a more realistic description is
further elaborated in Section \ref{section:synaptic} where synaptic
current of finite duration are considered.
Mathematically, the depolarization $V_i(t)$ of neuron $i$
($i=1,\ldots,N$) at its soma obeys the equation,
\begin{equation} \tau
\dot{V}_i(t) = -V_i(t) + R I_i(t)
\label{potdyn}
\end{equation}
where $I_i(t)$ are the synaptic currents arriving at the soma.
These synaptic currents are the sum of the contributions of spikes
arriving at different synapses (both local and external). These spike
contributions are modelled as delta functions in our basic IF model:
\begin{equation}
\label{ispikes}
R I_i(t)= \tau \sum_j J_{ij} \sum_k \delta(t - t_j^k-\delta)
\end{equation}
where the first sum on the r.h.s is a sum on different synapses
($j=1,\ldots,C+C_{ext}$), with postsynaptic potential (PSP) amplitude
(or efficacy) $J_{ij}$, while the second sum represents a sum on
different spikes arriving at synapse $j$, at time $t=t_j^k +\delta$,
where $t_j^k$ is the emission time of $k$-th spike at neuron $j$. For
simplicity, we take PSP amplitudes equal at each synapse, i.e.~$J_{ij}
= J_{ext}>0$ for excitatory synapses and $J_{ij} =- J$ for inhibitory
ones. External synapses are activated by independent Poisson
processes with rate $\nu_{ext}$.
A firing threshold $\theta$, completes the description of the IF
neuron : when $V_i(t)$ reaches $\theta$, an action potential is
emitted by neuron $i$, and the depolarization is reset to $V_r<\theta$
after a refractory period $\tau_{rp}$ during which the potential is
insensitive to stimulation. A typical value would be $\tau_{rp}\sim
2$ms. We are interested here in network states in which the frequency
is much lower than the corresponding maximal frequency
$1/\tau_{rp}\sim 500$Hz. In this regime, we have checked that the
exact value of $\tau_{rp}$ does not play any role. Thus in the
following we set $\tau_{rp}$ to zero, for the sake of simplicity.
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(15,20)
\put(1.,0){
\put(-3,-1.5){\special{psfile="lfp1.ps"}}\put(1,3){LFP}
\put(-3,5.75){\special{psfile="lfp25.ps"}}\put(1,10.25){LFP}
\put(-3,13.){\special{psfile="lfp5.ps"}}\put(1,17.5){LFP}
\put(-3,1.3){\special{psfile="raster10L.ps"}}
\put(-3,8.55){\special{psfile="raster25L.ps"}}
\put(-3,15.8){\special{psfile="raster50L.ps"}}
\put(7,-1.5){\special{psfile="cc10.ps"}}\put(12.5,3){AC}
\put(7,5.75){\special{psfile="cc25.ps"}}\put(12.5,10.25){AC}
\put(7,13.){\special{psfile="cc50.ps"}}\put(12.5,17.5){AC}
\put(7,2.2){\special{psfile="isi10.ps"}}\put(12.5,6.7){ISI}
\put(7,9.45){\special{psfile="isi25.ps"}}\put(12.5,13.95){ISI}
\put(7,16.7){\special{psfile="isi50.ps"}}\put(12.5,21.2){ISI}
\put(4.,-0.1){time(ms)}
\put(11.2,-0.1){time(ms)}
}
\put(0,21){A}
\put(0,13.75){B}
\put(0,6.5){C}
\end{picture}
\caption{Left: Time evolution of the global activity (LFP) during a
100ms interval of the dynamics of a network of 5,000 neurons (total
number of firing neurons in 0.4ms bins), together with spike rasters
of 50 neurons, for different values of the external noise:
$\sigma_{ext}=5$mV (A), 2.5mV (B), and 1 mV (C). Right:
autocorrelation of the global activity (AC) and inter-spike interval
(ISI) histogram averaged over 1000 neurons, corresponding to the left
pictures. Note the different time scales of AC and ISI in abscissa.
Parameters: $\theta=20$mV, $V_r=10$mV, $\tau=20$ms, $\delta=2$ms,
$C=1000$, $J=0.1$mV, $\mu _{ext}=25$mV.}
\label{figuresim1}
\end{figure}
The outcome of a typical simulation is shown in
Figs.~\ref{figuresim1}. Neurons are driven by the random external
excitatory input above threshold; however, since feedback interactions
are inhibitory, the global activity stays at rather low levels (about
5Hz for the parameters indicated in Fig.~\ref{figuresim1}). For weak
external noise levels ($\sigma_{ext}=1$mV), the global activity (total
number of firing neurons in 0.4ms bins) is strongly oscillatory with a
period of about 7 ms, as testified by Fig.~\ref{figuresim1}C. On the
other hand, increasing the external noise level strongly damps and
decreases the amplitude of the global oscillation. Note that the
global activity should roughly correspond to the local field potential
(LFP) often recorded in neurophysiological experiments. On the other
hand, even when the global activity is strongly oscillatory,
individual firing is extremely irregular as shown in the rasterfile of
50 neurons, Fig.~\ref{figuresim1}C (above the LFP), and in the
inter-spike interval histogram (to the right of the spike rasters).
In each oscillatory event only a small fraction of the neurons fire.
This oscillatory collective behavior is also shown by fast
oscillations in the temporal autocorrelation (AC) of the global
activity which are damped on a longer time scale
(Fig.~\ref{figuresim1}, to the right of the LFP). It is also
reflected in the cross-correlations (CC) between the spike trains of a
pair of neurons, which are typically equal to the AC of the global
activity.
These simulation results raise several questions on the origin and
characteristics of the observed oscillations. What is the mechanism of
the fast oscillation? In which parameter region is the network
oscillating? What are the network parameters which control the
amplitude and the different time scales (frequency, damping time
constant) of the global oscillation? How do they scale with the
network size? The model is simple enough and an analytical study gives
precise answers to these questions as shown in the following sections.
\section{An analysis of the network dynamics}
\label{sec:an:analysis}
Several features simplify the analysis as noted in a previous study
(Amit and Brunel 1997a) of the neuron mean firing rates. First, as a
consequence of the network sparse random connectivity ($C\ll N$), two
neurons share a small number of common inputs and pair correlations
can be neglected in the limit $C/N \rightarrow 0$. Second, we
consider a regime where individual neurons have a firing rate $\nu$
low compared to their inverse integration time $1/\tau$ and receive a
large number of inputs per integration time $\tau$, each input making
a contribution small compared to the firing threshold ($J \ll
\theta$)\footnote{Typical numbers in cortex are $C=5000$, $\tau=20$ms,
$\nu=5$Hz, $J=0.1$mV, $\theta=20$mV so that $C\nu\tau$ is typically
several hundreds while $\theta/J$ is of order 100 (Abeles 1991,
Braitenberg and Shutz 1991). In the simulation shown in
Fig.~\ref{figuresim1} $C\nu\tau\sim 100$, $\theta/J\sim 200$.}. In
this situation, the synaptic current of a neuron can be approximated
by an average part plus a fluctuating gaussian part, and the spike
trains of all neurons in the network can be self consistently
described by Poisson processes with a common instantaneous firing rate
$\nu(t)$ but otherwise uncorrelated from neuron to neuron (that is,
between $t$ and $t+dt$, a spike emission has a probability $\nu(t) dt$
of occurring for each neuron but these events occur statistically
independently in different neurons)
The synaptic current at the soma of a neuron (neuron $i$)
can thus be written as,
\begin{equation}
R I_i(t) = \mu (t) + \sigma\sqrt{\tau} \eta_i(t)
\label{idiffusion}
\end{equation}
The average part $\mu (t)$ is related to the firing rate
at time $t-\delta$ and is a sum of local and external inputs
\begin{equation}
\mu = \mu _l + \mu _{ext} \,\,\mbox{ with }\,\,
\mu _l = - CJ\nu(t-\delta)\tau, \;\;\;\; \mu _{ext}= C_{ext}J_{ext}\nu_{ext}\tau
\label{mu}
\end{equation}
Similarly the fluctuating part,
$\sigma\sqrt{\tau} \eta_i(t)$, is given by the fluctuation in the sum of
internal and external poissonian inputs of rate $C\nu$
and $C_{ext}\nu_{ext}$. Its magnitude is given by
\begin{equation}
\sigma^2 = \sigma^2_l+\sigma^2_{ext} \,\,\mbox{ with }\,\,
\sigma_l = J\sqrt{C\nu(t-\delta)\tau}, \;\;\;\; \sigma_{ext}=
J_{ext}\sqrt{C_{ext}\nu_{ext}\tau}
\label{sigma}
\end{equation}
and $\eta_i(t)$ is a gaussian white noise uncorrelated from neuron
to neuron,
$\langle \eta_i(t)\rangle =0$
and $\langle \eta_i(t) \eta_j(t')\rangle = \delta_{i,j}\delta(t-t')$.
Before describing our precise results, it may be useful to give simple
estimates which show how the neuron firing rates, the collective
oscillation frequency and the oscillatory threshold can be obtained
from Eqs.(\ref{idiffusion}-\ref{sigma}).
Let us first consider the stationary case. The case of
interest corresponds to $\mu <\theta$. When expression
(\ref{idiffusion}) is used for the synaptic current, the dynamics of
the neuron depolarization (\ref{potdyn}) is a stochastic motion
in the harmonic potential $(V-\mu )^2$ truncated at the firing
threshold $V=\theta$. The neuron firing rate $\nu_0$ is the
escape rate from this potential. For a weak noise, it is given by the
inverse of the time scale of the motion $1/\tau$ diminished by an
Arrhenius activation factor. So, one obtains the simple estimate (up
to an algebraic prefactor),
\begin{equation}
\nu_0\sim\frac{1}{\tau}\exp\left(-\frac{(\theta-\mu )^2}{\sigma^2}\right)
\label{simpstatrate}
\end{equation}
This becomes a self-consistent equation for $\nu_0$ once $\mu $ and
$\sigma$ are expressed in terms of $\nu_0$ using
Eq.~(\ref{mu},\ref{sigma}). The simple estimate (\ref{simpstatrate})
is made precise below by following Kramers's classic treatment of the
thermal escape over a potential barrier (Chandrasekhar 1943).
The origin of the collective oscillation can also be simply
understood. An increase of activity in the network due to a
fluctuation provokes an increase in the average feedback inhibitory
input. Thus after a period of about one synaptic time the activity
should decrease due to the increase of the inhibitory input. This
decrease will itself provoke a decrease in the inhibitory input, and a
corresponding increase in the activity after a new period equal to the
synaptic time. This simple argument
predicts a global oscillation
period of about a couple of times the synaptic time $\delta$, not too
far from the period observed in the simulations. However, it does not
seem to have been noted previously that a global oscillation
of period $\delta$ can in fact occur only if it is not masked by the
intrinsic noise in the system. The resulting oscillation threshold can
be simply estimated in the limit where $\delta$ is short compared to
the time scale of the depolarization dynamics. During a short time
interval $\delta$, a neuron membrane potential receives from the local
network an average input of magnitude $C\nu_0 \delta J$. The
fluctuation in its membrane potential in the same time interval (due
to intrinsic fluctuations in the total incoming current) is $\sigma
\sqrt{\delta/\tau}$. The change in the average local input can be
detected only if it is larger than the intrinsic potential
fluctuations. A global oscillation can therefore occur only when
$$\frac{CJ\nu_0\tau}{\sigma} = -\frac{\mu _l}{\sigma}\,\stackrel{>}{\sim}\,
\sqrt{\frac{\tau}{\delta}}.$$
These simple estimations are confirmed by the analysis presented below
and replaced by precise formulas.
\subsection{Dynamics of the distribution of neuron potentials}
When pair correlations are neglected, the system can be described by
the distribution of the neuron depolarization $P(V,t)$, i.e.~the
probability of finding the depolarization of a randomly chosen neuron
at $V$ at time $t$. This distribution is the (normalized)
histogram of the depolarization of all neurons at time $t$ in the
large $N$ limit $N\rightarrow\infty$. The stochastic equation
(\ref{potdyn},\ref{idiffusion}) for the dynamics of a neuron
depolarization can be transformed into a Fokker-Planck equation
describing the evolution of their probability distribution
(Chandrasekhar 1943)
\begin{equation}
\label{fp}
\tau\frac{\partial P(V,t)}{\partial t} = \frac{\sigma^2(t)}{2}
\frac{\partial^2 P(V,t)}{\partial V^2}+ \frac{\partial}{\partial
V}\left[ (V-\mu (t)) P(V,t)\right] \end{equation}
The two terms in the r.h.s.~of
(\ref{fp}) correspond respectively to a diffusion term coming from the
current fluctuations and a drift term coming from the average part of
the synaptic input. $\sigma(t)$ and $\mu (t)$ are related to
$\nu(t-\delta)$, the probability per unit time of spike emission at
time $t-\delta$, by Eq.~(\ref{mu},\ref{sigma}). Note that the
Fokker-Planck equation has been used previously in studies of globally
coupled oscillators (Sakaguchi et al 1988, Strogatz and Mirollo 1991,
Abbott and van Vreeswijk 1993, Treves 1993).
The resetting of the potential at the firing threshold ($V=\theta$)
imposes the absorbing boundary condition $P(\theta,t)=0$. Moreover,
the probability current through $\theta$ gives the probability of
spike emission at $t$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial P}{\partial V}(\theta,t) = -\frac{2\nu(t)\tau}{\sigma^2(t)}
\label{bcth}
\end{equation}
At the reset potential
$V=V_r$, $P(V,t)$ is continuous but the entering probability current
imposes the following derivative discontinuity,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial P}{\partial V}(V_r^+,t) -
\frac{\partial P}{\partial V}(V_r^-,t) = -\frac{2\nu(t)\tau}{\sigma^2(t)}
\label{bcv}
\end{equation}
At $V= -\infty$,
$P$ should tend sufficiently quickly toward zero to be integrable, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\lim_{V\rightarrow -\infty} P(V,t)=0 \;\;\;
\lim_{V\rightarrow -\infty} V P(V,t)=0.
\label{bci}
\end{equation}
Last, $P(V,t)$ is a probability distribution and should satisfy
the normalization condition
\begin{equation}
\int_{-\infty}^{\theta} P(V,t) dV = 1
\label{norm}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Stationary states}
We first consider stationary solutions $P(V,t)=P_0(V)$. Time independent
solutions of
Eq.~(\ref{fp}) satisfying the
boundary conditions (\ref{bcth},\ref{bcv},\ref{bci}) are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{statdistr}
P_0(V) =
2\frac{\nu_0\tau}{\sigma_0} \exp\left(-\frac{(V-\mu _0)^2}{\sigma_0^2}
\right)\int_{\frac{V-\mu _0}{\sigma_0}}^{\frac{\theta-\mu _0}{\sigma_0}}
\Theta\left(u - \frac{V_r-\mu _0}{\sigma_0}\right) e^{u^2}du
\label{p0}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\mu _0 =-CJ\nu_0 \tau +\mu _{ext}, \;\;\;\;\sigma_0^2 = CJ^2\nu_0\tau +
\sigma_{ext}^2
\end{equation}
(in (\ref{p0}), $\Theta(x)$ denotes the Heaviside function,
$\Theta(x)=1\,$ for $x>0$ and $\Theta(x)=0$ otherwise).
The normalization condition (\ref{norm}) provides the self-consistent
condition which determines
$\nu_0$
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{\nu_0\tau} &=& 2
\int_{\frac{V_r-\mu _0}{\sigma_0}}^{\frac{\theta-\mu _0}{\sigma_0}}
du e^{u^2}\int_{-\infty}^{u}dv e^{-v^2}
\nonumber\\
&=& \int_0^{+\infty} du e^{-u^2}\left[\frac{e^{2y_{\theta} u}
-e^{2y_r u}}{u}
\right]
\label{kraex}
\end{eqnarray}
with $y_{\theta}=\frac{\theta-\mu _0}{\sigma_0}, y_r=
\frac{V_r-\mu _0}{\sigma_0}$.
In the regime $(\theta-\mu _0)\gg \sigma_0$, Eq.~(\ref{kraex}) becomes
\begin{equation}
\nu_0\tau\simeq\frac{(\theta-\mu _0)}{\sigma_0\sqrt{\pi}}
\exp\left(-\frac{(\theta-\mu _0)^2}{\sigma_0^2}\right)
\label{kraas}
\end{equation}
In Fig.~(\ref{nurates}), the firing rates obtained by solving
Eq.~(\ref{kraex}) and (\ref{kraas})
are compared with those obtained from simulations of the
network. It shows an almost linear increase in the rates as a function
of $\sigma_{ext}$ in the
range 3-6Hz and a good agreement between Eq.~(\ref{kraex})
and the results of simulations. The asymptotic expression (\ref{kraas})
is also rather close to the simulation results in this range of $\sigma$.
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(14,6)
\put(0,-1){\special{psfile="figurev.ps"}}
\end{picture}
\caption[]{The neuron firing rate vs $\sigma_{ext}$: simulation
($\diamond$); solution of Eq.~(\ref{kraex})(full line); solution of
the approximate asymptotic form (\ref{kraas}) (dashed line). Others
parameters are fixed as in Fig.~2 : $\tau=20$ms, $J=0.1$mV, $C=1000$,
$N=5000$, $\theta=20$mV, $V_r=10$mV, $\mu _{ext}=25$mV, $\delta=2$ms.}
\label{nurates}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Linear stability of the stationary states}
We can now investigate in which parameter regime the time independent
solution $(P_0(V),\nu_0)$ is stable.
To simplify the study of the Fokker-Planck equation (\ref{fp}), it is
convenient to
rescale $P$, $V$
and $\nu$ by
\begin{equation}
P=\frac{2\tau\nu_0}{\sigma_0}Q,\,\,\,
y=\frac{V-\mu _0}{\sigma_0},\,\,\,
\nu=\nu_0(1+n(t))
\label{pytrntext}
\end{equation}
$y$ is the difference between the membrane potential and
the average input in the stationary state, in units of the average fluctuation of the input in the stationary state.
$n(t)$ corresponds to the relative variation of the instantaneous frequency
around the stationary frequency.
After these rescalings, Eq.(\ref{fp})
becomes
\begin{equation}
\tau \frac{\partial Q}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial^2 Q}{\partial y^2} +
\frac{\partial}{\partial y}(yQ) + n(t-\delta)
\left(G \frac{\partial Q}{\partial y} +\frac{H}{2}
\frac{\partial^2 Q}{\partial y^2}\right),
\label{Eq}
\end{equation}
where $G$ is the ratio between the mean local
inhibitory inputs and $\sigma_0$, and $H$ is the ratio between the variance
of the local inputs and the total variance (local plus external):
\begin{equation}
G=\frac{C J\tau\nu_0}{\sigma_0}=\frac{-\mu _{0,l}}{\sigma_0},\,\,\,
H=\frac{C J^2\tau\nu_0}{\sigma_0^2}=\frac{\sigma_{0,l}^2}{\sigma_0^2},
\label{ghtext}
\end{equation}
These parameters are a measure of the relative strength of the recurrent
inhibitory interactions.
Eq.~(\ref{Eq}) holds on the two intervals $-\infty<y<y_r$ and
$y_r<y<y_{\theta}$.
The boundary conditions on $Q$ are imposed at
$y_{\theta}=\frac{\theta-\mu _0}{\sigma_0}$ and
$y_r=\frac{V_r-\mu _0}{\sigma_0}$. Those on the derivatives of $Q$ read,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial Q}{\partial y}(y_{\theta},t)=
\frac{\partial Q}{\partial y}(y_r^+,t)-\frac{\partial Q}{\partial y}(y_r^-,t)
=-\,\frac{1+n(t)}{1+H n(t-\delta)}
\end{equation}
The linear stability of the stationary solution is studied in detail
in Appendix \ref{app:linear:stability}. This can be done in a
standard way (Hirsch and Smale, 1974) by expanding $Q=Q_0+Q_1+\ldots$ and
$n=n_1+\ldots$ around the steady state solution. The linear equation
obtained at first order has solutions which are exponential in time,
$Q_1=\exp(w t/\tau)\hat Q_1$, $n_1\sim \exp(w/\tau) \hat{n}_1$, where
$w$ is a solution of the eigenvalue equation (\ref{eigeneq}) of the
Appendix. The stationary solution becomes unstable when the real part
of $w$ becomes positive.
When the synaptic time $\delta$ becomes much smaller than $\tau$, the roots
$w$ of this equation become large. We consider the regime
$\delta/\tau\ll 1$ but $\delta/\tau\gg 1/C$, which is the relevant
case in simulations and correspond to the realistic regime.
$\delta/\tau\gg 1/C$ is needed because otherwise the equations giving
$G$ and $H$ become inconsistent with the condition $\tau\nu_0\ll 1$.
At the oscillatory instability onset, $w$ is purely imaginary
$w=i\omega_c$, where $\omega_c/\tau$ is the frequency of the
oscillation which develops. The eigenvalue equation takes in the
limit $\delta/\tau\rightarrow 0$, $\omega\rightarrow \infty$ the form
\begin{equation}
[\frac{G}{\sqrt{\omega_c}}(i-1)+H]\, \exp(-i \omega_c \delta/\tau) =1.
\end{equation}
In this limit, the instability line in the parameter space $(G,H)$ is obtained
parametrically as
\begin{eqnarray*}
G&=&\sqrt{\omega_c}\sin\left(\frac{\omega_c\delta}{\tau}\right) \\
H&=&\sin\left(\frac{\omega_c\delta}{\tau}\right) + \cos
\left(\frac{\omega_c\delta}{\tau}\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
$H$ is by definition constrained to be between 0 and 1
(it is the ratio between local and total variances): $H=0$ corresponds
to the limit of very large external fluctuations, $\sigma_{ext}\gg \sigma_l$,
while $H=1$ corresponds to $\sigma_{ext}=0$.
We find that the frequency of the oscillation varies from
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\omega_c}{\tau} & = & \frac{3\pi}{4\delta}\quad\mbox{ when } H=0, \mbox{ to }
\nonumber \\
\frac{\omega_c}{\tau} & = & \frac{\pi}{2\delta}\quad\mbox{ when } H=1.
\label{omega:limit}
\end{eqnarray}
This corresponds to an oscillation with a period between $8\delta/3$ and
$4\delta$, not too far from the value $2\delta$ obtained by
simple arguments. At the same
time the critical value of $G$ goes from
\begin{eqnarray*}
G_c & = & \sqrt{\frac{3\pi\tau}{8\delta}}\quad\mbox{ when } H=0, \mbox{ to } \\
G_c & = & \sqrt{\frac{\pi\tau}{2\delta}}\quad\mbox{ when } H=1.
\end{eqnarray*}
Again we find that it is proportional to $\sqrt{\tau/\delta}$ as anticipated.
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(14,4.5)
\put(6.5,0){\put(-2,-1.5){\special{psfile="musi.ps"}}
\put(0.5,3.3){$\mu _{ext}$}
\put(4.5,-0.2){$\sigma_{ext}$}}
\put(-0.5,0){\put(-2,-1.5){\special{psfile="geha.ps"}}
\put(0.2,3.3){$H$}
\put(4.,-0.2){$G\sqrt{\delta/\tau}$}}
\put(2.5,3.5){SS}\put(5.7,3){OS}\put(9,4.5){OS}\put(12,2.5){SS}
\end{picture}
\caption{Left: instability line in the plane
$(H,G\sqrt{\delta/\tau})$. Full line: instability line for parameters
of Fig.\ref{figuresim1}, and $\delta=0.1\tau$. Long-dashed line:
$\delta=0.05\tau$. Short-dashed line: asymptotic limit
$\delta/\tau\rightarrow 0$. The stationary state (SS) is unstable to
the right of the instability line, where an oscillatory instability
develops (OS). Right: instability line in the plane
$(\mu _{ext},\sigma_{ext})$. Full line: parameters of Fig.2, and
$\delta=0.1\tau$. Short-dashed line is constructed taking the
asymptotic instability line in the plane $(H,G\sqrt{\delta/\tau})$,
and calculating the corresponding instability line in
$(\mu _{ext},\sigma_{ext})$ with $\delta=0.1\tau$. The stationary state
(SS) becomes unstable above the instability line. The long dashed line
shows the average ($\mu _{ext}$) and the fluctuations ($\sigma_{ext}$)
of the external inputs when the frequency of a Poissonian external
input through synapses of strength $J_{ext}=0.1$mV is varied. For low
external frequencies the network is in its stationary state. When the
external frequency increases the network goes to its oscillatory state
(OS).}
\label{musi}
\end{figure}
This instability line can be translated in terms of the parameters
$\mu _{ext}$, $\sigma_{ext}$, and calculated numerically using
Eq.~(\ref{eigeneq}) for any value of the network parameters. This
line of instability in the plane $(\mu _{ext},\sigma_{ext})$ is shown
in the right part of Fig.~\ref{musi}. The stationary solution is
unstable above the full line. Thus, if the external input is
Poissonian, an increase in the frequency of external stimulation will
typically bring the network from the stationary to the oscillatory
regime, as indicated by the dashed line in Fig.~\ref{musi}, which
represents the average ($\mu _{ext}$) and the fluctuations
($\sigma_{ext}$) of the external inputs when the frequency of a
Poissonian external input through synapses of strength $J_{ext}=0.1$mV
is varied.
\subsection{Weakly non-linear analysis}
\label{sec:weakly:nl}
The linear stability analysis of the previous section shows that a small
oscillation grows
when one crosses the instability line in the plane $\mu _{ext}$,
$\sigma_{ext}$. But it does not say much on the resulting
characteristics of the resulting finite amplitude oscillation.
In order to describe it and to be able
to quantitatively compare analytic results to
simulation data, one needs to compute the non linear
terms which saturate the instability growth. This can be
done in a standard manner (Bender and Orszag, 1987)
by computing terms beyond the linear
order in an expansion around the stationary state.
The explicit computation is detailed in
Appendix \ref{app:weakly:nl}. The collective oscillation is determined
by the deviation $n_1$ of the neuron firing rate from its stationary
value:
$$
n_1(t) = \hat n_1(t) \exp(i\omega_c t/\tau) + \hat n_1^{\star}(t) \exp(-i\omega_c t/\tau)
$$
$\hat n_1$ determines the amplitude of the collective oscillation as
well as the nonlinear contribution to its frequency in the vicinity of
the instability line.
The analysis shows that the dynamics of the (small) deviation
around the stationary firing rate can be described by the reduced
equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eqmotiontext}
\tau \frac{d\hat n_1}{dt} = A \hat n_1 - B |\hat n_1|^2 \hat n _1 \end{equation}
in which $A$ and $B$ are complex numbers. The value of $A$ comes
from the linear stability analysis. If Re$(A) <0$ a small initial value
of $n_1$ decays and the stationary state is stable. On the contrary, if
$Re(A)>0$ a global oscillation develops. When $|\hat n_1|$ grows, the second
nonlinear term on the r.h.s. of (\ref{eqmotiontext}) becomes important.
It is found
here that Re$(B)>0$ (a "normal" or "supercritical" Hopf bifurcation) so
that the nonlinear term saturates the linear growth.
The
characteristics of the oscillatory final state comes from the balance
between the two terms.
The explicit expression of $A$ and $B$ is given in Eqs.~(\ref{a},\ref{b})
as a ratio of
hypergeometric functions of the network parameters.
$A$ depends linearly on the deviation of the
parameters $G$ and $H$ from their critical values, i.e.~$G-G_c$,
$H-H_c$. In the limit $\delta/\tau\rightarrow 0$, the expressions of
$A$ and $B$ simplify. For example, when $H=0$ (large external
fluctuations), we find in the limit $\delta/\tau\rightarrow 0$
\begin{eqnarray} A
& = & \frac{\tau}{\delta}\frac{\left(1+2i/3\pi\right)}{(1+4/9\pi^2)}
\frac{G-G_c}{G_c} \simeq \frac{\tau}{\delta} \left(1.35 +
0.29i\right)\frac{G-G_c}{G_c} \nonumber \\ B & = &
\frac{\tau}{\delta}\left(\frac{9\pi^2}{4+9\pi^2}\right)\left[\frac{13-5\sqrt{2}}{10}-\frac{9-5\sqrt{2}}{15\pi}
+i\left(\frac{13-5\sqrt{2}}{15\pi}+\frac{9-5\sqrt{2}}{10}\right)\right]
\nonumber \\ & \simeq & \frac{\tau}{\delta} (0.53+0.30 i)
\label{ABsimp}
\end{eqnarray}
Generally,
the complex numbers $A$ and $B$ can be written in terms of their
real and imaginary parts, $A=A_r +iA_i$, $B=B_r +iB_i$.
On the critical line, i.e. for $G=G_c$, $H=H_c$, $A_r=A_i=0$;
above the critical line an
instability develops, $A_r>0$, proportionnally to $G-G_c$ and
$H-H_c$. The amplitude of this instability
is controlled by the cubic term. The stable limit cycle
solution of Eq.~(\ref{eqmotiontext}),
above the critical line, is
\begin{equation}
\label{noiselessnu1text}
\hat n_1(t) = R \exp\left(i\Delta\omega \frac{t}{\tau}\right)
\end{equation}
where
$$
R = \sqrt{\frac{A_r}{B_r}}\quad\mbox{ and } \quad\Delta\omega = A_i - B_i\frac{A_r}{B_r}
$$
The autocorrelation (AC) of the global activity, normalized by
$\nu_0$, is, when $A_r>0$, \begin{eqnarray} C(s) & = & \lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}
\frac{1}{T-s} \int_0^{T-s} (1+n_1(t))(1+n_1(t+s)) dt \\ \nonumber & =
& 1+ 2R^2 \cos\left[(\omega_c+\Delta\omega)s/\tau\right]\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} The AC is a cosine function of frequency
$(\omega_c+\Delta\omega)/\tau$ and amplitude $R^2$. Compared with the
AC function observed in the simulation, Fig.~\ref{figuresim1}C, we see
a qualitative difference: there is no damping of the oscillation. The
next Section shows that the damping is due to finite size effects. We
analyze them before comparing quantitatively the analytical results
with simulations.
\subsection{Finite size effects and phase diffusion of the collective
oscillation}
We discuss the effect of having a large but only finite number of
neurons in the network. It is well-known that for stochastic dynamics,
a sharp transition can only occur in the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$
and that it will be smoothened by finite size effects. In the sparse
connectivity limit, which allows to treat the quenched random geometry
of the lattice in an annealed fashion\footnote{Here we do not consider
the correlations due to the quenched connectivity for finite
$\epsilon$. These correlations would give small corrections to the
parameters calculated in the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow $0, but do
not give rise to qualitatively new effects for the global activity
such as the phase diffusion phenomenon discussed in this section.} the
fluctuations in the input of a given neuron $i$ can be seen as the
result of the randomness of two different processes: the first is the
spike emission process $S(t)$ of the whole network; and the second,
for each spike emitted by the network, is the presence or absence of a
synapse between the neuron that emitted the spike and the considered
neuron: if a spike is emitted at time $t$, $\rho_i(t)=1$ with
probability $C/N$, and 0 otherwise. The input to the network is then
$$
RI_i(t) = -J\tau \rho_i(t) S(t-\delta)
$$
Both processes can be decomposed between their mean and their fluctuation,
$$
\rho_i(t)=\frac{C}{N}+\delta \rho_i(t),\quad
S(t)= N\nu(t) + \delta S(t)
$$
Thus the input becomes
$$
RI_i(t) = \mu (t) - J\tau N\nu(t) \delta \rho_i(t) -J\tau\frac{C}{N} \delta
S(t)
$$
in which $\mu (t)$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{mu}).
The input is
the sum of a constant part $\mu $, and of two distinct random processes
superimposed on $\mu $: the first is uncorrelated from neuron to neuron,
and we have already seen in Section \ref{sec:an:analysis}
that it can be described
by $N$ uncorrelated
Gaussian white noises $\sigma\sqrt{\tau}\eta_i(t)$, $i=1,\ldots,
N$ where
$<\eta_i(t)\eta_j(t')> =\delta_{ij}\delta(t-t')$.
The second part is independent of $i$: it comes from the intrinsic
fluctuations in the spike train of the whole network which are
seen by all neurons. This part becomes negligible when $\epsilon=C/N\rightarrow
0$, but can play a role as we will see when $C/N$ is finite.
The
global activity in the network is essentially a Poisson
process with instantaneous frequency $N\nu(t)$. Such a Poisson process
has mean $N\nu(t)$, which is taken into account in
$\mu $, and variance $N\nu(t)\delta(t-t')$.
The fluctuating part of this process is well approximated by
a Gaussian white noise $\sqrt{N\nu_0}\xi(t)$, where $\xi(t)$ satisfies
$<\xi(t)>=0$, $<\xi(t)\xi(t')>=\delta(t-t')$. Note that for simplicity
we take the variance of this noise to be independent of time, which
is the case for $ n_1(t)\ll 1$.
These fluctuations are global and perceived by all neurons in the network.
Thus, the
mean synaptic
input received by the neurons becomes
$$
CJ\tau\nu(t) + J\sqrt{\epsilon C\nu_0\tau}\sqrt{\tau}\xi(t)+\mu _{ext}
$$
Inserting this mean synaptic input in the drift term
of the Fokker-Planck equation, we can rewrite Eq.~(\ref{Eq}) as
\begin{equation}
\tau \frac{\partial Q}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial}{\partial y}
\{[y+ G n(t-\delta) + \eta \sqrt{\tau}\xi(t)] Q\} +\frac{1}{2}
\frac{\partial^2 Q}{\partial y^2}
\end{equation}
where $\eta$
denotes the intensity of the noise stemming from these global fluctuations.
$\eta$ tends to zero as the network size increases
\begin{equation}
\label{eta}
\eta=\sqrt{\epsilon}\frac{\sigma_0^l}{\sigma_0}
\end{equation}
Taking into account this global
noise term in the derivation of the reduced equation,
we obtain, after some calculations described in Appendix \ref{app:noise},
\begin{equation}
\label{noisymotiontext}
\tau\frac{d\hat n_1}{dt} = A \hat n_1 - B |\hat n_1|^2 \hat n_1 + D \sqrt{\tau} \zeta(t)
\end{equation}
in which $A$, $B$ and $D$ are given by Eqs.~(\ref{a},\ref{b},\ref{c}),
and $\zeta$ is a complex white noise
such that
$<\zeta(t)\zeta^{\star}(t')>=\delta(t-t')$. $D$ is proportional to $\eta$,
i.e.~to both the square root of the connection probability and to
the ratio between local and total fluctuations.
Thus, the effect of the finite size of the network is to add a small
stochastic component to the evolution equation of $n_1$,
Eq.~(\ref{noisymotiontext}). Its main effect is to produce a phase diffusion
of the collective oscillation {\footnote This global phase diffusion in
a network of finite size is well-known (see e.g. (Rappel and Karma, 1996) for a simple example)} which leads to the damping of the oscillation
in the autocorrelation function.
\subsubsection*{Amplitude of the autocorrelation}
From the reduced Eq.~(\ref{noisymotiontext}), one can compute exactly
the autocorrelation at zero time $C(0)$ as shown
in Appendix \ref{app:noise}.
This gives :
\begin{itemize}
\item
In the stationary regime far from the critical line, $A_r <0,|D|/|A_r|\ll 1
$:
\begin{equation}
C(0) -1 \sim \frac{|D|^2}{|A_r|} \sim O\left(\frac{C}{N}\right)
\label{c01}
\end{equation}
The amplitude of the fluctuations in the global activity are proportional
to $C/N$ and thus vanish when the connection probability goes to zero.
\item
On the critical line, $A_r=0$
\begin{equation}
C(0)-1 = \frac{2 |D|}{\sqrt{\pi B_r}}\sim O\left(\sqrt{\frac{C}{N}}\right)
\label{c02}
\end{equation}
The amplitude of the fluctuations are proportional to the square root
of the connection probability.
\item
In the oscillatory regime far from the critical line,
$A_r >0, |D|/A_r \ll 1$ :
\begin{equation}
C(0)-1 \sim \frac{2A_r}{B_r}\sim O\left(1\right)
\label{c03}
\end{equation}
In this regime the amplitude of the oscillation is to leading
order independent of the noise amplitude.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Oscillations below the critical line}
In the stationary regime far from the critical line,
the fluctuations of activity $n_1$ provoked by the noise term
can be considered small and thus we can neglect the cubic term.
It is then easy to calculate the autocorrelation (AC) of the
activity,
\begin{equation}
\label{ACbelow}
C(s) = 1+ \frac{|D|^2}{|A_r|} \exp\left(-\frac{|A_r|s}{\tau}\right)
\cos\left([\omega_c + A_i]\frac{s}{\tau}\right)
\end{equation}
It is a damped cosine function. The damped oscillation
has frequency $(\omega_c +A_i)/\tau$ and damping time constant
proportional to $\tau/|A_r|$. The amplitude of the autocorrelation
function is proportional to $C/N$.
\subsubsection*{Oscillations above the critical line}
In the oscillatory regime far from the critical line,
we find in Appendix \ref{app:noise}
an AC function of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{ACabove}
C(s) = 1 + 2\frac{A_r}{B_r} \cos\left((\omega_c+\Delta \omega) s/\tau\right)\exp\left(-\frac{\gamma^2(s)}{2}
\right)
\end{equation}
It is again a damped cosine function.
The damping factor $\exp\left(-\gamma^2(s)/2
\right)$ is different from an exponential only at short times
$s \sim \delta$. At longer times, $s\gg \delta$, we obtain again an
exponential
$$
\exp\left(-\frac{\gamma^2(s)}{2}\right) = \exp\left(-\frac{|D|^2}{4 R^2}\left(1+
\frac{B_i^2}{B_r^2}\right)\frac{s}{\tau}\left[1+\frac{|D|^2}{2A_r}+
O\left(|D|^4\right)\right]
\right)
$$
The damping time constant is proportional to leading order in $|D|$
to $1/|D|^2\sim
N/C$, i.e.~to the inverse of the connection probability. When $N$ goes to
infinity at $C$ fixed the `coherence time' of the oscillation increases
linearly with $N$.
This `phase diffusion' effect is the main finite
size effect above the critical line. Both the amplitude and frequency
of the oscillation are essentially unaffected by these finite size effects.
\subsection{Comparison between simulations and theory}
The autocorrelation (AC) of the global activity was computed for each set
of parameters from a simulation of 20 seconds. Few longer
simulations were performed as a check. The autocorrelation obtained in the
longer simulations are essentially identical to the one obtained
in the 20s simulation.
Since the analysis predicts AC functions described
by damped cosine functions, a least square
fit of all AC functions was performed with
such functions. Thus the full AC is reduced to three parameters,
its amplitude at zero lag $C_0$, its frequency $\omega$, and
its damping time constant (or coherence time) $\tau_c$
$$
C(s) = 1 + C_0 \exp\left(-\frac{|s|}{\tau_c}\right) \cos(\omega s)
$$
We then compared the result of the fitting procedure with the
analytical expressions.
We have varied the magnitude of the
external noise $\sigma_{ext}$ from 0 to 5 mV. This brings the network
from the `oscillatory' to the `stationary' state.
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(14,20)
\put(0,14){\put(0,6.5){A}\put(-1,-1.5){\special{psfile="siamp.ps"}}
\put(1,4){$C_0$}
}
\put(0,7){\put(0,6.5){B}
\put(-1,-1.5){\special{psfile="sifre.ps"}}
\put(0.5,4){$\frac{\omega}{2\pi}$(Hz)}
}
\put(0,6.5){C}\put(-1,-1.5){\special{psfile="sidam.ps"}}
\put(6,0){$\sigma_{ext}$(mV)}
\put(0.5,4){$\tau_c$(ms)}
\end{picture}
\caption[]{Parameters of the AC function vs $\sigma_{ext}$.
A. Amplitude of the AC at zero lag. B. Frequency. C. Damping time
constant. Diamonds: simulation of the full network. Crosses :
simulation of the reduced equation. Dashed lines: theory.
In A, the short-dashed line represents the amplitude in the limit
$N\rightarrow\infty$
Parameters: $\tau=20$ms, $J=-0.1$mV, $C=1000$, $N=5000$,
$\theta=20$mV, $V_r=10$mV, $\mu _{ext}=25$mV, $\delta=2$ms.}
\label{siparams}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{siparams} we plot together
the results of simulations and theory. In these figures the diamonds
are the simulation results; the dashed lines, the analytical results.
In A, the short-dashed line indicates the amplitude in the limit
$N\rightarrow\infty$, while the long-dashed line indicates the
amplitude calculated analytically taking into account finite size effects.
Last, the crosses are obtained simulating numerically the reduced
equation, Eq.~\ref{noisymotiontext}. We find that, in the `stationary'
regime as well as in the oscillatory regime close to the bifurcation
point, the amplitude of the oscillation obtained in the simulation
is in very good agreement with the calculation (Fig.~\ref{siparams}.A).
On the other hand,
as the amplitude of the oscillation becomes of the same order as the
average frequency, $C_0\sim 1$, higher order effects become important
and the calculation overestimates the amplitude of the AC.
For the frequency of the oscillation (Fig.~\ref{siparams}.B), the calculation
reproduces quite well the results of the simulations, except for
very low noise levels, for which we are rather far from the bifurcation
point. Note that the frequency ranges for this set of parameters from
70 to 180Hz, depending on the level of external noise. Thus, without
varying the time constants $\tau$ and $\delta$, we find that the same network
is able to sustain a collective oscillation at quite different frequencies.
Last, the approximate analytical expressions
for the damping time constant agree
well with the simulation away from the bifurcation point, as expected
(Fig.~\ref{siparams}.C).
On the other hand, the simulation of the reduced equation is in good
agreement with the network simulations in the whole range
of $\sigma_{ext}$.
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(14,20)
\put(0,14){\put(0,6.5){A}\put(-1,-1.5){\special{psfile="cc2.ps"}}
\put(1,4){$C(t)$}
}
\put(0,7){\put(0,6.5){B}\put(-1,-1.5){\special{psfile="cc3.ps"}}
\put(1,4){$C(t)$}
}
\put(0,6.5){C}\put(-1,-1.5){\special{psfile="cc4.ps"}}
\put(6,0){$t$ (ms)}
\put(1,4){$C(t)$}
\end{picture}
\caption[]{AC for: A. $\sigma_{ext}=2$mV. B. $\sigma_{ext}=3$mV.
C. $\sigma_{ext}=4$mV.
Parameters as in Fig.~\ref{siparams}. Full lines: network simulation.
Dashed lines: theory (simulation of the reduced equation).}
\label{ccs}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{ccs} we compare the full AC functions
from theory (simulation of the reduced equation)
and network simulations in three regimes,
to show the good agreement between both.
\section{Extensions}
In the previous sections a very simple network has been analyzed and
the question of the effect of some of our simplifying assumptions
legitimately arises. In particular, we have chosen exactly identical
neurons. It can be wondered how the results are modified when some
variations in neuron properties are taken into account. In order to
address this question, we show how the previous analysis can be
generalized in two cases. Since we have seen that the oscillation
frequency is tightly linked to synaptic times, the effect of a
fluctuation in synaptic times is investigated first. We then consider
the effect of a fluctuation in the number of connections per neuron
which has been found to result in a wide spectrum of neuron steady
discharge rates (Amit and Brunel, 1997b). In both cases, it is
reassuring to find that the picture obtained from the simple model
analysis remains accurate. We finally consider a model with synaptic
currents of finite duration to analyse more precisely which time scale
plays the role of our "synaptic time" in this more realistic case.
\subsection{Effect of inhomogeneous synaptic times}
\label{section:delays}
The analysis can easily be
extended to the case in which time constants at each synaptic
site are drawn randomly and independently from an arbitrary probability
density function (pdf) $\Pr(\delta)$ (see Appendix \ref{app:delays}).
In the following we consider the case of a uniform pdf between
0 and $2\delta$.
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(14,6)
\put(-2,-1.5){\special{psfile="musidel.ps"}}
\put(0,3.7){$\mu _{ext}$}
\put(5.,0){$\sigma_{ext}$}
\put(2.2,5.5){OS}\put(6,3){SS}
\end{picture}
\caption{Instability line in the plane $(\mu _{ext},\sigma_{ext})$ for
$\tau=20$ms, $J=0.1$mV, $C=1000$, $\theta=20$mV, $V_r=10$mV,
$\delta=2$ms. Full line: all synaptic times equal to $\delta$. Dashed
line: synaptic times drawn from a uniform distribution from 0 to
2$\delta$.}
\label{musidel}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{musidel} shows how the instability line is modified by
random synaptic times. The region where the oscillatory instability appears
shrinks to the area above the dashed line. As the distribution of
synaptic times widens, the stationary state becomes more stable.
The introduction of random synaptic times also slightly reduces the
frequency of the oscillation.
The critical line is thus quite sensitive to the distribution
of synaptic times. In fact, distributions of synaptic times can be found such
that the stationary state is always stable (e.g.~for an exponential
distribution $\Pr(\delta) =
\exp(-\delta/\delta_0)/\delta$).
\subsection{Effect of inhomogeneous connectivity}
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(14,6)
\put(-2,-1.5){\special{psfile="inmusi.ps"}}
\put(0,3.7){$\mu _{ext}$}
\put(5.,0){$\sigma_{ext}$}
\put(3.5,5){OS}\put(6.5,3){SS}
\end{picture}
\caption{Effect of inhomogeneity in the connections on the
instability line in the plane $(\mu _{ext},\sigma_{ext})$ for
$\tau=20$ms, $J=-0.1$mV, $C=1000$, $\theta=20$mV,
$V_r=10$mV, $\delta=2$ms. Full line: all neurons receive $C$ connections.
Dashed line: connections are drawn randomly and independently at each
synaptic site with probability $C/N$.}
\label{musiinhom}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(14,5.5)
\put(7.5,0){\put(-2,-1.5){\special{psfile="ccvsrate.ps"}}
\put(0.,3.2){$C(\nu)$}
\put(4.,0){$\nu$ (Hz)}}
\put(0,0){\put(-2,-1.5){\special{psfile="distri.ps"}}
\put(0.2,3.2){$\Pr(\nu)$}
\put(4.,0){$\nu$ (Hz)}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Left: Distribution of spike rates (Histogram: simulation.
Dashed line: theory). The distribution is similar
to a Gaussian, unlike the distributions observed in (Amit and Brunel 1997b),
which are much wider, due to the balance between excitation and inhibition.
Right: Relative amplitude of CC between
individual neurons and the global activity vs neuronal firing rate
(Diamonds: simulation. Full line: theory).
$\tau=20$ms, $J=-0.1$mV, $C=1000$, $\theta=20$mV,
$V_r=10$mV, $\delta=2$ms, $\mu _{ext}=25$mV, $\sigma_{ext}=2.58$mV. }
\label{ccvsrate}
\end{figure}
The analysis can also be extended to the case when the number
of connections impinging on a neuron is no longer fixed at $C$,
but rather connections are drawn at random independently at each site.
In that case the number of connections received by a neuron is
a random variable with mean $C$ and standart deviation $\sim\sqrt{C}$.
This inhomogeneity in the connectivity provokes a significant
inhomogeneity in the individual spike rates even for $C$ large,
because differences between the average input received by two neurons
are of the same order as the SD of the synaptic input.
The distribution of frequencies for an arbitrary network of
excitatory and inhibitory neurons has been obtained in
(Amit and Brunel 1997b). The main steps leading to this distribution
are described in appendix \ref{app:inhomogeneous}. Next
we study how inhomogeneity affects the dynamical properties of
the network. Fig.~\ref{musiinhom} shows that the instability
line is almost unaffected by the inhomogeneity. The frequency of
the global oscillation is also very close to the one of the
homogeneous case.
Amit and Brunel (1997b) had shown by simulations that
the degree of synchronization of a neuron with the global activity
is strongly affected by its spike rate: neurons with low firing
frequencies tend to be more synchronized with the global activity
than neurons with high frequencies.
In appendix \ref{app:inhomogeneous} we calculate analytically the degree
of synchronization of individual neurons as a function of their
frequency. The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{ccvsrate} in which
the relative amplitude $C(\nu)$
of the cross-correlation between neurons firing at frequency $\nu$
and the global activity obtained analytically is compared with the
result of simulations. It shows indeed that low-rate neurons
are more synchronized with the global activity than high-rate neurons.
The relative amplitude of the cross-correlation between two neurons
of frequency $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ is given by the product of
the two amplitudes, $C(\nu_1)C(\nu_2)$.
Note that the heterogeneity in rates and cross-correlations is not very
pronounced here, because near the critical line the fluctuations in the
external input dominate the local fluctuations, which tends to suppress
this heterogeneity.
In a network with both excitatory and inhibitory neurons with
an external excitatory input of the same order than the internal
excitatory contribution, this heterogeneity is much more pronounced
(Amit and Brunel 1997b).
\subsection{Effect of more realistic synaptic responses}
\label{section:synaptic}
Our analysis has been carried out for synaptic currents which
are described by a delta pulse. One may wonder how the
analysis generalizes for more realistic postsynaptic currents.
We consider a function $f(t)$ describing the shape of the
postsynaptic current when a spike is emitted at time $t=0$
(see e.g.~Gerstner 1995 for a review of different types of
synaptic responses).
$f(t)$ is chosen such as
$$
\int dt f(t) = 1
$$
An example often used in modelling studies and shown in
Fig.~\ref{IPSP} is the $\alpha$-function with a latency
$\tau_L$ and a characteristic synaptic time $\tau_S$:
\begin{equation}
f(t)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{t-\tau_L}{\tau_S^2}\exp\left(-\frac{t-\tau_L}{\tau_S}\right)
&\mbox{for $t>\tau_L$} \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The total synaptic current arriving at neuron $i$ is now
$$
R I_i(t) = \tau \sum_j J_{ij} \sum_k f\left(t-t_j^k\right)
$$
In the diffusion approximation the synaptic current
becomes
$$
R I_i(t) = \mu (t) + \Xi_i(t)
$$
in which the average part is given as a function of the frequency
$\nu$ and the synaptic response function $f$
by
$$
\mu (t) = \mu _{ext} -CJ\int dt' \nu(t')f(t-t') \tau.
$$
On the other hand, the fluctuating part $\Xi_i(t)$ can no longer be
approximated by a pure white noise and exhibits temporal correlations
at the scale of the width of the PSC function $f(t)$. These temporal
correlations in the currents complicate significantly the analysis,
since the evolution of the distribution of the membrane potentials is
no longer given by a simple one-dimensional Fokker-Planck
equation. For the case of the $\alpha$-function, we would need to
solve the problem described by a three dimensional Fokker-Planck
equation. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of the present
paper. Here, we choose to ignore, as a first approximation, these
temporal correlations. Thus we consider only the effect of the PSC
function on the average synaptic currents. In this approximation, the
effect of the PSC function becomes equivalent to that of a
distribution of synaptic times in the delta pulse PSC case considered
in section \ref{section:delays}. For example, in the limit in which
$\tau_S$ and $\tau_L$ are small compared to the integration time
constant, the equations for the bifurcation point are
\begin{eqnarray}
G & = & \sqrt{\omega}
\left[2\frac{\tau_S}{\tau} \omega \cos
\left(\omega\frac{\tau_L}{\tau_S}
\right) +
\left(1-\frac{\tau_S^2}{\tau^2}\omega^2
\right) \sin
\left(\omega\frac{\tau_L}{\tau}
\right)
\right] \nonumber \\
H & = & \left(1-\frac{\tau_S^2}{\tau^2}\omega^2\right)
\left[\cos\left(\omega\frac{
\tau_L}{\tau}\right) + \sin\left(\omega\frac{\tau_L}{\tau}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\
& &+2\frac{\tau_S}{\tau}\omega \left[\cos\left(\omega\frac{\tau_L}{\tau}\right)
-\sin\left(\omega\frac{\tau_L}{\tau}\right)\right]
\label{freqalpha}
\end{eqnarray}
In the case $\tau_L=0$ (zero latency) the equations simplify to
\begin{eqnarray}
G & = & 2\sqrt{\omega}
\frac{\tau_S}{\tau} \omega \\
H & = & 1-\frac{\tau_S^2}{\tau^2}\omega^2
+2\frac{\tau_S}{\tau}\omega
\end{eqnarray}
In the case $H=1$, the frequency of the oscillation near the
bifurcation point is equal to $1/(\pi\tau_S)$. Note that the dependence of
the frequency on $\tau_S$ in the $\alpha$ function PSC case is
similar to the dependence on $\delta$ in the delta pulse PSC case,
Eq.~(\ref{omega:limit}).
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(14,6)
\put(-1,-1.5){\special{psfile="synaptic.ps"}}
\put(5.5,0){$\tau_S$}
\put(1,3.5){$\frac{\omega}{2\pi}$}
\end{picture}
\caption{Dependence of the frequency of the oscillation near
the bifurcation threshold on
the synaptic decay time constant $\tau_S$, for $\tau_L=$ 2ms.
Network parameters
as in Fig.~\ref{figuresim1}. External inputs have $\mu _{ext}=$ 25mV,
$\sigma_{ext}=$ 2mV. This point is near the bifurcation line
in the whole range of $\tau_S$. $\diamond$: simulations.
Full lines: frequency given by the approximate analysis,
Eq.~\ref{freqalpha}, for $H=1$ (lower curve),
and $H=0$ (upper curve).}
\label{omtaus}
\end{figure}
To check the validity of this approximation, we have performed
numerical simulations with fixed latency $\tau_L=$ 2ms, varying the
decay time constant of the inhibitory post synaptic currents
(IPSC) $\tau_S$. The results are shown in
Fig.~\ref{omtaus}. The approximate analysis predicts the frequency is
in the region between the two full lines (corresponding to $H=0$ and
$H=1$). Simulation results deviate from the approximate analysis
already at rather small values of $\tau_S$, because of the effect of
temporal correlations in the synaptic currents, which have the same
scale as the period of the oscillation. Nonetheless the approximation
gives a good qualitative picture of the dependence of the frequency on
$\tau_S$.
Note that the frequencies obtained in this way can be directly
compared to the data of (Whittington et al 1995, Traub et al 1996)
since the decay time constant of the PSCs can be identified with their
parameter $\tau_{GABA}$. The frequencies obtained in the simulations
are very close to the ones obtained in that study. For example, we
obtain a frequency of about 40Hz when $\tau_S=$ 10ms, in agreement
with the in vitro recordings and the simulations of the more complex
model of (Whittington et al 1995, Traub et al 1996). However,
one has to be careful with such a comparison, since in that {\em in
vitro} study, interneurons seem to fire at population frequency.
\section{Conclusion}
We have studied the existence of fast global oscillation in networks
where individual neurons show irregular spiking at a low rate. We have
first shown that the phenomenon can be observed in a sparsely
connected network composed of basic integrate and fire neurons. In
this very simplified setting, the phenomenon has been precisely
analyzed. At the simplest level, it differs from other modes of
synchronisation which lead to global oscillation in that recording at
the individual neuron level shows a stochastic spike emission with
nearly Poissonian interspike intervals and little indication of the
collective behavior (see the ISI histograms in Fig.~\ref{figuresim1}).
This oscillation regime has some similarity with that obtained in Wang
et al (1995) where a hyperpolarization-activated cation current seems
to play the role of our random external inputs in generating intermittent
activity in the network. This type of weak synchronization has
sometimes been rationalized as coming from filtering of external noise
by recurrent inhibition (Traub et al 1989 and refs.~therein). Our
analysis leads to a somewhat different picture.
We have found that, in the limit of an infinite network, the global
oscillation is due to an oscillatory instability (a supercritical Hopf
bifurcation) of the steady state. This instability occurs at a well
defined threshold and arises from the competition between the
recurrent inhibition which favors oscillations and the intrinsic noise
in the system which tends to suppress it.
We have found that the global oscillation period is controlled by the
synaptic time. This appears to agree with previous experimental
findings on slices of the rat hippocampus and with simulations results
(Whittington et al 1995, Traub et al 1996) where it is however assumed
that neurons fire at population frequency, unlike those of our
model. A similar decrease in population frequency when the GABA
characteristic time is varied is also observed in a recent {\em in
vitro} experiment in which neurons fire sparsely (Fisahn et al 1998).
More work is necessary to clarify the relative roles of the different
time constants (latency, IPSC rise time, IPSC decay time) that are
commonly used to describe the synaptic response.
The oscillation period also depends on the characteristics of the
external input, and particularly on the magnitude of the external
noise, as shown by Fig.~\ref{siparams}. The initial rise in the
frequency when one increases $\sigma_{ext}$ followed by a saturation
at sufficiently large $\sigma_{ext}$ looks in fact similar to the
dependence of the frequency on the amount of glutamate applied to
hippocampal CA1 region {\em in vitro} (Traub et al 1996). Our
network is in a stationary state when external inputs are
low and switches to an oscillatory regime when the magnitude of the
external inputs is increased. This phenomenon resembles
the induction of a gamma rhythm in the hippocampal slice mediated by
carbachol (Fisahn et al 1998), and the induction of faster 200Hz
rhythms, believed to be provoked by a massive excitation of
CA1 cells through Schaeffer collaterals (see e.g.~Buzs{\'a}ki et al
1992). It is also interesting to note that a single network, with
its internal parameters fixed, is able to sustain collective
oscillations in different frequency ranges, when the characteristics
of the external input are varied.
In a finite network, the sharp transition is smoothened but the global
oscillation has different characteristics above and below the critical
threshold. Below threshold, its amplitude decreases as the network
size is increased. Above threshold, an increase in the neuron number
does not greatly modify the oscillation amplitude but increases its
coherence time. It has been shown that the whole picture of a Hopf
bifurcation with a well-defined threshold remains accurate when some
of our simplifying assumptions are relaxed. It would be interesting
to extend this finding to more realistic descriptions.
Our analysis also raises the important question of the synchronisation
mode used in real neural systems. Do neocortical or hippocampal
neurons behave as oscillators with a frequency equal to the population
frequency, or irregularly with firing rates lower than the population
frequency? In hippocampus, pyramidal cells seems clearly to be in a
irregular, low rate regime, during in vivo gamma (Bragin et al 1995),
in vivo 200Hz (Buzs{\'a}ki et al 1992) and in vitro gamma oscillations
(Fisahn et al 1998). More recent experimental data indicates that
interneurons also typically fire at a lower frequency than the
population frequency during 200Hz oscillations in CA1 (Csicsvari
1998).
Further experimental work is needed in order to clarify
this important issue.
We have obtained a reduced description of the collective dynamics. The
analysis can certainly be extended to more complicated networks,
composed of neurons of different types or that are spatially
extended. This reduced description will hopefully prove useful in
clarifying the mechanisms of long range synchrony and in studying
propagation phenomena (Delaney et al 1996, Prechtl et al 1997).
Finally, and most importantly, the exact roles of fast oscillations
remain, at present, unclear. Are they useful for putting in resonance
different neuronal populations as it has been suggested? Can they
serve to build a fast detector with slowly firing neurons? Are they
used as a clock mechanism? Or do they reflect the usefulness of having
a network where different neuronal populations fire in succession on a
short time scale, to code spatial information in the temporal domain?
Recent experiments (MacLeod and Laurent 1996, Stopfer et al 1997) make
us hope that elucidating the real meaning of these collective
oscillations, at least in some neural systems, is now an attainable
goal. This is a question to which we hope to return in the future.
{\bf Acknowledgments}. We are grateful to A. Karma for discussions and
for his very stimulating role at the beginning of this work, and to
T. Bal, R. Gervais and P. Salin for informing us on real neural
networks. N.B. is grateful to S. Fusi for useful discussions.
V.H. is glad to thank at last A. Babloyantz for an invitation to a
stimulating ESF workshop in Lanzarote which was a nice opportunity to
first learn about fast neuronal oscillations. We thank D.~Amit and
anonymous referees for their helpful comments on the manuscript.
|
\section{Introduction}
The gamma-ray burst (GRB) 990123 was an extraordinary event. It was
the brightest burst yet detected with the Wide Field Camera on the
BeppoSAX satellite (Feroci et al. 1999), and had a total gamma-ray
fluence of $\sim 5\times 10^{-4}\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}$, which
is in the top 0.3\% of all bursts. It was the first burst to be
simultaneous detected in the optical band. Optical emission with
peak magnitude of $V\sim 9$ was discovered by the Robotic Optical
Transient Search Experiment (ROTSE) during the burst and was found
to have rapidly faded down immediately after the gamma-ray emission
(Akerlof et al. 1999). The detection of the redshift showed that
the burst appears at $z\ge 1.6$ (Andersen et al. 1999; Kulkarni et al.
1999a). This implies that if the GRB emission was directed
isotropically, the inferred energy release is $\ge 1.6\times 10^{54}\,
{\rm ergs}$ (Kulkarni et al. 1999a; Briggs et al. 1999).
The burst's afterglow was detected and monitored at X-ray, optical
and radio bands. It was the brightest of all GRB X-ray afterglows
observed until now. The BeppoSAX detected the flux of the afterglow
at 2-10 keV six hours after the gamma-ray trigger to be $1.1\times
10^{-11}\,{\rm erg}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$ and the subsequent
temporal decay index to be $\alpha_X=-1.44\pm 0.07$ (Heise et al.
1999a, b). The R-band optical afterglow about 3.5 hours after the burst
showed a power-law decay with index $\alpha_{1R}=-1.1\pm 0.03$ (Kulkarni
et al. 1999a; Castro-Tirado et al. 1999; Fruchter et al. 1999).
This law continued until about $2.04\pm 0.46$ days after the burst.
Then the optical emission began to decline based on another power law
with index $\alpha_{2R}=-1.65\pm 0.06$ (Kulkarni et al. 1999a) or
$-1.75\pm 0.11$ (Castro-Tirado et al. 1999) or $-1.8$
(Fruchter et al. 1999). In addition, a radio flare was also
detected about 1 day after the burst (Kulkarni et al. 1999b;
Galama et al. 1999).
A scenario has been proposed to explain these observations. If the burst
is assumed to be produced from a jet, the steepening of the late optical
afterglow decay is due to the possibility that this jet has undergone the
transition from a spherical-like phase to a sideways-expansion phase
(Rhoads 1997, 1999; Kulkarni et al. 1999a; Fruchter et al. 1999; Sari,
Piran \& Halpern 1999) or that we have observed the edge of the jet
(Panaitescu \& M\'esz\'aros 1998; M\'esz\'aros \& Rees 1999).
In this {\em Letter} we propose another possible scenario, in which the
steepening of the late optical afterglow decay is due to the shock which
has evolved from a relativistic phase to a nonrelativistic phase in a dense
medium. According to the standard afterglow shock model (for a review see
Piran 1998), the afterglow is produced by synchrotron radiation or
inverse Compton scattering in the external forward wave (blast wave)
of the GRB fireball expanding in a homogeneous medium. The external
reverse shock of the fireball may lead to a prompt optical flash
(Sari \& Piran 1999). As more and more ambient matter is swept up,
the forward shock gradually decelerates and eventually
enters a nonrelativistic phase. In the meantime, the emission from
such a shock fades down, dominating at the beginning in X-rays and
progressively at optical to radio energy band. There are two limiting
cases (adiabatic and highly radiative) for the hydrodynamical evolution of
the shock. These cases have been well studied both analytically
(e.g., M\'esz\'aros \& Rees 1997; Wijers, Rees \& M\'esz\'aros 1997;
Waxman 1997a, b; Reichart 1997; Sari 1997; Vietri 1997; Katz \& Piran 1997;
M\'esz\'aros, Rees \& Wijers 1998; Dai \& Lu 1998a;
Sari, Piran \& Narayan 1998; etc) and numerically (e.g., Panaitescu,
M\'esz\'aros \& Rees 1998; Huang et al. 1998; Huang, Dai \& Lu 1998).
A partially radiative (intermediate) case has been investigated
(Chiang \& Dermer 1998; Cohen, Piran \& Sari 1998;
Dai, Huang \& Lu 1999). Here we only consider
the limiting cases. In the highly radiative model, since all
shock-heated electrons cool faster than the age of the shock, the optical
afterglow should have the same temporal decay index as the X-ray afterglow
(Sari et al. 1998), incompatible with the observations (Kulkarni
et al. 1999a). In the adiabatic model, however, the difference in the decay
index between optical and X-ray afterglows is found to be likely $1/4$,
which is consistent with the observational result $\Delta\alpha =\alpha_{1R}-
\alpha_X\approx 0.3$. This implies that the shock producing the afterglow
of GRB 990123 has evolved adiabatically. This is the starting point of our
analysis. For an adiabatic shock, the time at which it enters
a nonrelativistic phase $\propto n^{-1/3}$, where $n$ is the baryon number
density of the medium. Therefore, this time for a shock expanding in
a dense medium with density of $n\sim 10^6\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ is two orders of
magnitude smaller than that for a shock with the same energy in a thin
medium with density of $n\sim 1\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$. Furthermore, as given in
Section 2, the afterglow at the nonrelativistic phase decays faster than
at the relativistic phase. It is natural to expect that this effect
can provide an explanation for the steepening feature of the afterglow
from GRB 990123.
Dense media have been discussed in the context of GRBs. First, Katz (1994)
suggested collisions of relativistic nucleons with a dense cloud
as an explanation of the delayed hard photons from GRB 940217. Second,
to explain the radio flare of GRB 990123, Shi \& Gyuk (1999) speculated
that a relativistic shock may have ploughed into a dense medium off the
line of sight. Third, Piro et al. (1999) and Yoshida et al. (1999)
have reported an iron emission line in the X-ray afterglow spectrum of
GRB 970508 and GRB 970828 respectively. The observed line intensity
requires a dense medium with a large iron mass concentrated in
the vicinity of the burst (Lazzati, Campana \& Ghisellini 1999).
Finally, dense media (e.g., clouds or ejecta) may appear in
the context of some energy source models, e.g., failed supernovae
(Woosley 1993), hypernovae (Paczy\'nski 1998), supranovae (Vietri \&
Stella 1998), phase transition of neutron stars to strange stars (Dai \&
Lu 1998b), baryon decay of neutron stars (Pen \& Loeb 1998), etc.
\section{The Evolution of a Shock in a Dense Medium}
\subsection{Relativistic Phase}
Now we consider an adiabatic relativistic shock expanding in a dense
medium. The Blandford-McKee (1976) self similar solution gives the
Lorentz factor of the shock,
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma & = & \frac{1}{4}\left[ \frac{17E(1+z)^3}{\pi nm_pc^5t_\oplus^3}
\right]^{1/8} \nonumber \\
& = & 2E_{54}^{1/8}n_5^{-1/8}t_{\rm day}^{-3/8}[(1+z)/2.6]^{3/8},
\end{eqnarray}
where $E=E_{54}\times 10^{54}{\rm ergs}$ is the total isotropic energy,
$n_{5}=n/10^5\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$, $t_\oplus=t_{\rm day}\times 1\,{\rm day}$
is the observer's time since the gamma-ray trigger, $z$ is the the redshift
of the source generating this shock, and $m_p$ is the proton mass.
In analyzing the spectrum and light curve of synchrotron radiation
from the shock, one needs to know two crucial frequencies:
the synchrotron radiation peak frequency ($\nu_m$) and the cooling
frequency ($\nu_c$). In the standard afterglow shock picture, the electrons
heated by the shock are assumed to have a power-law distribution:
$dN_e/d\gamma_e\propto \gamma_e^{-p}$ for $\gamma_e\ge\gamma_{em}$,
where $\gamma_e$ is the electron Lorentz factor and the minimum Lorentz
factor $\gamma_{em}=610\epsilon_e\gamma$. The power-law index
$p\approx 2.56$ by fitting the spectrum and light curve of the observed
afterglow of GRB 990123 (see below). We further assume that $\epsilon_e$
and $\epsilon_B$ are ratios of the electron and magnetic energy
densities to the thermal energy density of the shocked medium respectively.
Based on these assumptions, the synchrotron radiation peak frequency
in the observer's frame can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu_m & = & \frac{\gamma\gamma_{em}^2}{1+z}\frac{eB'}{2\pi m_ec} \nonumber \\
& = & 8.0\times 10^{11}\epsilon_e^2\epsilon_{B,-6}^{1/2}
E_{54}^{1/2}t_{\rm day}^{-3/2} \nonumber \\
& & \times [(1+z)/2.6]^{1/2}\,\,{\rm Hz},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_{B,-6}=\epsilon_B/10^{-6}$ and $B'=(32\pi \epsilon_B\gamma^2
nm_pc^2)^{1/2}$ is the internal magnetic field strength of the shocked
medium. According to Sari et al. (1998), the cooling
frequency, the frequency of electrons with Lorentz factor of $\gamma_c$
that cool on the dynamical time of the shock, is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu_c & = & \frac{\gamma\gamma_c^2}{1+z}\frac{eB'}{2\pi m_ec}
= \frac{18\pi em_ec(1+z)}{\sigma_T^2B'^3\gamma t_\oplus^2} \nonumber \\
& = & 1.9\times 10^{16}\epsilon_{B,-6}^{-3/2}E_{54}^{-1/2}
n_5^{-1}t_{\rm day}^{-1/2}\nonumber \\
& & \times [(1+z)/2.6]^{-1/2}\,\,{\rm Hz},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma_T$ is the Thompson scattering cross section. From equations (2)
and (3), Sari et al. (1998) have further defined two critical times,
when the breaking frequencies $\nu_m$ and $\nu_c$ cross the observed
frequency $\nu=\nu_{15}\times 10^{15}\,{\rm Hz}$:
$t_m=8.6\times 10^{-3}\epsilon_e^{4/3}\epsilon_{B,-6}^{1/3}
E_{54}^{1/3}[(1+z)/2.6]^{1/3}\nu_{15}^{-2/3}\,{\rm days}$,
and $t_c=380\epsilon_{B,-6}^{-3}E_{54}^{-1}
n_5^{-2}[(1+z)/2.6]^{-1}\nu_{15}^{-2}\,{\rm days}$.
Therefore we see that for $E_{54}\sim 1.6$,
$\epsilon_e\sim 0.1$, $\epsilon_{B,-6}\sim 0.02$, and $n_5\sim 30$
inferred in the next section, the optical afterglow in several days
after the burst should result from those slowly-cooling
electrons and the X-ray afterglow from those fastly-cooling electrons.
The observed synchrotron radiation peak flux can be obtained by
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{\nu_m} & = & \frac{N_e\gamma P'_{\nu_m}(1+z)}{4\pi D_L^2} \nonumber \\
& = & 4.2\epsilon_{B,-6}^{1/2}E_{54}n_5^{1/2}[(1+z)/2.6]
D_{L,28}^{-2}\,\,{\rm Jy},
\end{eqnarray}
where $N_e$ is the total number of swept-up electrons, $P'_{\nu_m}
=m_ec^2\sigma_TB'/(3e)$ is the radiated power per electron per unit
frequency in the frame comoving with the shocked medium, and
$D_L=D_{L,28}\times 10^{28}\,{\rm cm}$ is the distance to the source.
In the light of equations (2)-(4), one can easily find
the spectrum and light curve of the afterglow,
\begin{equation}
F_\nu=\left \{
\begin{array}{llll}
(\nu/\nu_m)^{-(p-1)/2}F_{\nu_m}\\ \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\propto \nu^{-(p-1)/2}
t_\oplus^{3(1-p)/4}\,\,\,\,\,\, {\rm if}\,\, \nu_m<\nu<\nu_c; \\
(\nu_c/\nu_m)^{-(p-1)/2}(\nu/\nu_c)^{-p/2}F_{\nu_m}
\\ \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \propto\nu^{-p/2}t_\oplus^{(2-3p)/4}
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, {\rm if}\,\, \nu>\nu_c,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where the low-frequency radiation component has not been considered
(Sari et al. 1998). In the GRB 990123 case,
we require $\nu_m<\nu<\nu_c$ for the optical afterglow and
$\nu>\nu_c$ for the X-ray afterglow. Thus, the R-band afterglow
decay index $\alpha_R=3(1-p)/4$ and the X-ray decay index $\alpha_X=
(2-3p)/4$, which are well consistent with the observational results
$\alpha_{1R}=1.1\pm 0.03$ and $\alpha_X=-1.44\pm 0.07$ if $p\approx 2.56$.
\subsection{Nonrelativistic Phase}
As it sweeps up sufficient ambient matter, the shock will eventually go
into a nonrelativistic phase. During such a phase, the shock's velocity
$v\propto t_\oplus^{-3/5}$, its radius $r\propto t_\oplus^{2/5}$,
the internal field strength $B'\propto t_\oplus^{-3/5}$ and the typical
electron Lorentz factor $\gamma_{em}\propto t_\oplus^{-6/5}$. Thus,
we obtain the synchrotron peak frequency $\nu_m\propto \gamma_{em}^2B'
\propto t_\oplus^{-3}$, the cooling frequency $\nu_c\propto B'^{-3}
t_\oplus^{-2}\propto t_\oplus^{-1/5}$ and the peak flux $F_{\nu_m}\propto
N_eP'_{\nu_m}\propto r^3B'\propto t_\oplus^{3/5}$. According to these
scaling laws, we further derive the spectrum and light curve at the
nonrelativistic stage:
\begin{equation}
F_\nu=\left \{
\begin{array}{llll}
(\nu/\nu_m)^{-(p-1)/2}F_{\nu_m} \\ \,\,\,\,\, \propto \nu^{-(p-1)/2}
t_\oplus^{(21-15p)/10}\,\,\,\, {\rm if}\,\, \nu_m<\nu<\nu_c; \\
(\nu_c/\nu_m)^{-(p-1)/2}(\nu/\nu_c)^{-p/2}F_{\nu_m}
\\ \,\,\,\,\, \propto\nu^{-p/2}t_\oplus^{(4-3p)/2}
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, {\rm if}\,\, \nu>\nu_c.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
From equation (6), we can see the R-band decay index $\alpha_R=(21-15p)/10$
for radiation from slowly-cooling electrons or $\alpha_R=(4-3p)/2$ for
radiation from rapidly-cooling electrons. If $p\approx 2.56$, then $\alpha_R
\approx -1.74$ or $-1.84$, in excellent agreement with the observations
in the time interval of 2.5 days to 20 days after the burst
(Kulkarni et al. 1999a; Fruchter et al. 1999; Castro-Tirado et al. 1999).
\section{Constraints on Parameters}
In the above section, we show that as an adiabatic shock expands
in a dense medium from an ultrarelativistic phase to a nonrelativistic
phase, the decay of the radiation from such a shock will steepen. This
effect may fit the observed steepening better than the alternative
interpretation --- jet sideways expansion. In the latter interpretation,
the temporal decay of a late afterglow is very likely to be $\propto
t_\oplus^{-p}$ (Rhoads 1997, 1999; Sari et al. 1999). We further
analyze our effect and infer some parameters of the model.
According to the analysis on the R-band light curve of the GRB 990123
afterglow (Kulkarni et al. 1999a; Fruchter et al. 1999;
Castro-Tirado et al. 1999), the observed break occurred at
$t_\oplus = 2.04\pm 0.46\,$days. This implies $\gamma\sim 1$
at $t_{\rm day}\approx 2.5$. From equation (1), therefore, we find
$n_5\sim 16E_{54}$, where the redshift $z=1.6$ has been used. We now
continue to consider two observational results. First, on January
23.577 UT, the Palomar 60-inch telescope detected the R-band magnitude
$R=18.65\pm 0.04$, corresponding to the flux $F_R\sim
100\,\mu{\rm Jy}$ at $t_{\rm day}\approx 0.17$ (Kulkarni et al. 1999a).
Considering this result in equation (5) together with equations
(2) and (4), we can derive
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_e^{p-1}\epsilon_{B,-6}^{(p+1)/4}E_{54}^{(p+3)/4}
n_5^{1/2} \sim 0.01,
\end{equation}
where the right number has been obtained by taking $p\approx 2.56$
and $D_{L,28}\sim 3.7$. Second, on January 24.65 UT,
the BeppoSAX observed the X-ray (2-10\,keV)
flux $F_X\sim 5\times 10^{-2}\,\mu$Jy (Heise et al. 1999a, b). Combining
this result with equations (2)-(5), we can also derive
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_e^{p-1}\epsilon_{B,-6}^{(p-2)/4}E_{54}^{(p+2)/4}\sim 0.03.
\end{equation}
Since $E_{54}\sim 1.6$ (Briggs et al. 1999; Kulkarni et al. 1999a),
the medium density $n_5 \sim 30$ and the solution of equations (7)
and (8) is $\epsilon_e\sim 0.1$ and $\epsilon_{B,-6}\sim 0.02$.
Our inferred value of $\epsilon_e$ is near the equipartition value,
in agreement with the result of Wijers \& Galama (1998) and Granot,
Piran \& Sari (1998), while our $\epsilon_B$ is about six orders of
magnitude smaller than the value inferred from the afterglow
of GRB 970508. Of course, the field density for GRB 971214
has been estimated to be less than $10^{-5}$ times the equipartition
value (Wijers \& Galama 1998). As suggested by Galama et al. (1999),
such differences in field strength may reflect differences in energy
flow from the central engine.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
In the above section, we find the medium density $n\sim 3\times
10^6\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ for our model to fit the observed optical and
X-ray afterglow of GRB 990123. Now we show that even in the the presence
of such a dense medium, the optical and X-ray radiations from the forward
shock were neither self absorbed in the shocked medium nor scattered
in the unshocked medium. First, the self-absorption frequency of the
shocked medium is (Wijers \& Galama 1998; Granot et al. 1998)
$\nu_a\sim 10^3\,{\rm GHz}(\epsilon_e/0.1)^{-1}(\epsilon_{B,-6}
/0.01)^{1/5}E_{54}^{1/5}(n_5/10)^{3/5}$. This estimate should be
the upper limit because of the presence of a possible low-energy
electron population (Waxman 1997b). Clearly, $\nu_a$ is much less
than the optical frequency, implying that the self absorption in
the shocked medium didn't affect the optical and X-ray afterglow.
In fact, this estimate is valid only for $\nu_a < \nu_m$.
When $\nu_a>\nu_m$, $\nu_a$ must have decayed. As a result,
the flux at 8.46 GHz first increased as $t_\oplus^{1.25}$
and then declined as $t_\oplus^{-1.74}$ for $\nu_a<8.46$ GHz
during the nonrelativistic phase. This might provide an explanation for
the observed radio flare. Second, a photon emitted from the shock may be
scattered by the electrons in the unshocked medium. The scattering optical
depth $\tau\sim\sigma_TnR$ (where $R$ is the typical radius of the medium).
If the medium was distributed isotropically and homogeneously and its
mass $M\sim 10M_\odot$ (the typical mass of a supernova ejecta),
then $\tau\sim 0.05(M/10M_\odot)^{1/3}(n_5/10)^{2/3}\ll 1$.
This implies that the afterglow from the shock was hardly affected
by the medium.
For other well-studied afterglows, e.g., GRB 970228 and GRB 970508,
their ambient densities must be very low for three reasons: (i) In these
bursts there was no observed break in the optical light curve as long as
the afterglow could be observed (Fruchter et al. 1998; Zharikov et al. 1998).
(ii) The fluctuation appearing in the radio afterglow light curve
of GRB 970508 requires the shock had been relativistic for
several weeks (Waxman, Kulkarni \& Frail 1998). (iii) The analysis of the
afterglow spectrum of GRB 970508 leads to a low ambient density
$n<10\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ (Wijers \& Galama 1998; Granot et al. 1998).
However, the observed iron emission line in the X-ray afterglow
spectrum of GRB 970508 indeed requires a dense medium with density
$\sim 10^9\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ (Lazzati et al. 1999).
The only way to reconcile a monthly lasting power-law afterglow
with iron line emission is through a particular geometry, in which
the line of sight is devoid of the dense medium. In contrast to
this idea, we suggest that for GRB 990123 a dense medium of
$n\sim 3\times 10^6\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ appears at least at the line
of sight or perhaps isotropically.
How was the dense medium produced? One possibility was a cloud and
another possibility was an ejecta from the GRB site. There have been
several source models (mentioned in Introduction) in the literature which
may lead to massive ejecta. Here we want to discuss one of them in detail.
Timmes, Woosley \& Weaver (1996) showed that Type II supernovae may
produce a kind of neutron star with $\sim 1.73M_\odot$. If these massive
neutron stars have very short periods at birth, they may subsequently
convert into strange stars due to rapid loss of angular momenta
(Cheng \& Dai 1998), and perhaps the strange stars are
differentially rotating (Dai \& Lu 1998b). Even though this model
is somewhat similar to the supranova model of Vietri \& Stella (1998),
resultant compact objects are strange stars in our model
and black holes in the supranova model. We further discuss implications
of our model. First, the model leads to low-mass loading matter
because of thin baryonic crusts of the strange stars. Second,
such stars result in GRBs with spiky light curves,
being consistent with the analytical result from the observed
data of GRB 990123 (Fenimore, Ramirez-Ruiz \& Wu 1999). The third
advantage of this model is to be able to explain well the property of
the early afterglow of GRB 970508 by considering energy injection from the
central pulsar (Dai \& Lu 1998b, c). Finally, a dense medium, the supernova
ejecta, appears naturally.
Our scenario proposed in this {\em Letter} requires a dense medium
with density $\sim 3\times 10^6\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ to explain the steepening
in the temporal decay of the R-band afterglow about 2.5 days
after GRB 990123. We also suggest that this medium could be a
supernova/supranova/hypernova ejecta. Thus, if the mass of
the medium is assumed to be $M\sim 10M_\odot$,
its radius can be estimated to be $R\sim 3\times 10^{17}\,{\rm cm}
(M/10M_\odot)^{1/3}(n_5/10)^{-1/3}$. According to equation (1), we can
integrate $dr=2\gamma^2 cdt_\oplus$ and thus find that the postburst
2.5-day time in the observer's frame corresponds to about 20 days
in the unshocked medium's frame. This implies that the radius at which
the shock entered a nonrelativistic phase is about $5\times 10^{16}$ cm.
This radius is much less than that of the medium. Therefore,
the medium discussed here was so wide and dense that the
ultrarelativistic shock must have become nonrelativistic about
2.5 days after the burst.
In summary, a simple explanation for the ``steepening''
observed in the temporal decay of the late R-band afterglow of
GRB 990123 is that a shock expanding in a dense medium with density
of $\sim 3\times 10^6\, {\rm cm}^{-3}$ has evolved from a relativistic
phase to a nonrelativistic phase. We find that this scenario not only
explains well the optical afterglow but also accounts for the observed
X-ray afterglow quantatitively.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank J. I. Katz, S. R. Kulkarni, A. Mitra and
the anonymous referee for invaluable suggestions, and Y. F. Huang and
D. M. Wei for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (grants 19825109 and 19773007).
|
\section{Introduction}
In the Standard Model the charged current interactions of the tau lepton
are mediated by the $W$ boson with a pure $V\!-\!A$ coupling.
We consider new derivative couplings in the Hamiltonian
which are parametrised by the parameters $\kappa$ and ${\tilde{\kappa}}$,
the (CP-conserving) magnetic and (CP-violating) electric dipole form
factors respectively~\cite{RIZZO97A,CHIZHOV96A}.
These are the charged current analogues of the weak neutral
current dipole moments, measured using $Z\rightarrow\tau^+\tau^-$
events~\cite{PICH97A}, and the electromagnetic
dipole moments~\cite{BIEBEL96A,TTGNUCPHYSB}, measured using
$Z\rightarrow\tau^+\tau^-\gamma$ events~\cite{OPALTTG,L3TTG,TAYLOR_TAU98}.
The only limits so far obtained for $\kappa$ and $\tilde{\kappa}$
are derived from analyses of the partial widths for
$\tau^-\rightarrow \ell^- \bar{\nu}_{\ell}\nu_{\tau}$,
for $\ell={\mathrm{e}}, \mu$~\cite{RIZZO97A,ANOMALOUS_COUPLINGS,DOVA_SWAIN_TAYLOR_TAU98}.
In this paper we consider for the first time the effects of
anomalous charged current dipole moments on tau decays involving hadrons.
We analyse the $\tnpp$ process which has largest branching fraction
of all the tau decay modes.
This process is particularly topical due to a recently
reported difference of $2.2\sigma$ between the measured $\tnpp$
branching fraction and the (lower) value predicted using
$e^+e^- \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ data in the neighbourhood of the
$\rho$ meson resonances and the Conserved Vector Current
(CVC) hypothesis~\cite{TAU98_EIDELMAN}.
While this could be attributed to a fluctuation,
we note that non-zero values of $\kappa$ and $\tilde{\kappa}$
would also yield a higher measured value for $\BR(\tnpp)$.
We present predictions for the differential $\tnpp$ decay
distributions and the partial width, $\Gamma(\tnpp)$, as functions of
$\kappa$ and ${\tilde{\kappa}}$.
The sensitivity of the differential distributions is analysed for
typical samples of $\tnpp$ decays in ${\mathrm{e^+e^-\rightarrow\tau^+\tau^-}}$
events which are reconstructed by the LEP and SLC experiments.
The partial width is compared to the experimental measurements of
$\BR(\tnpp)$ to yield quantitative constraints on
$\kappa$ and ${\tilde{\kappa}}$.
\section{Parametrisation of anomalous couplings in ${\mathbf{\tnpp}}$ decays}
The matrix element for the decay $\tnpp$ is given by
\begin{equation}
M = \frac {\GF}{\sqrt{2}} V_{ud} J^\mu H_\mu,
\end{equation}
where $\GF = \GFMUval$ is the Fermi constant,
$V_{ud} = \VUDval$ is the appropriate CKM matrix element~\cite{PDG98},
and $J^\mu$ and $H_\mu$ are the leptonic and hadronic currents respectively.
The effects of anomalous weak charged current dipole moment
couplings at the $\tau\nu_\tau W$ vertex are parametrised by
augmenting the usual $V-A$ charged current such that
$J^\mu$ is given by
\begin{equation}
J^\mu = \bar{u}_\nu
\left(
\gamma^\mu \left( 1-\gamma^5 \right) -
\frac{i\sigma^{\mu\nu} q_\nu}{2m_\tau} (\kappa - i\tilde{\kappa}\gamma_5)
\right) u_\tau, \label{current}\\
\end{equation}
where $\sigma^{\mu\nu} = i /2[\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu]$, $q^\mu$ is the
four-momentum transfer, and $m_\tau = \MTval$~\cite{PDG98} is the tau mass.
The parameters $\kappa$ and ${\tilde{\kappa}}$ are in general complex but henceforth
we assume that ${\tilde{\kappa}}$ is real, as required by $CPT$ invariance.
The hadronic current is parametrised as
\begin{equation}
H^\mu = \sqrt{2} F(q^2) (q_1 - q_2)^\mu,
\end{equation}
where $q_i$ denote the four-momenta of the two final-state \mbox{pions} and
$F(q^2)$ is a form factor.
A convenient choice for the kinematic observables, following
K{\"{u}}hn and Mirkes~\cite{KUHN92A}, is:
$q^2$, the invariant mass-squared of the hadronic system;
$\cos\theta$, the cosine of the angle between the tau spin-vector and
the hadronic centre-of-mass direction as seen in the tau rest frame;
and $\cos\beta$, the cosine of the angle between the charged pion
and the axis pointing in the direction of the laboratory viewed
from the hadronic centre-of-mass frame (henceforth
referred to as the $z$-axis).
\subsection{Differential Decay Rate,
${\mathbf{d\Gamma(\tnpp)/dq^2 d\cos\theta d\cos\beta}}$}
After integration over the unobservable neutrino direction and the
azimuthal angle of the charged pion, and neglecting the
mass difference between the charged and neutral pions, the differential
decay rate is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
d\Gamma & = & \frac{1}{(4\pi)^3} \frac{G_F^2}{4 m_\tau^3}
|V_{ud}|^2 |F(q^2)|^2 S_{EW} \nonumber \\
& & \times
(q^2-4 m_\pi^2)^{3/2} (m_\tau^2-q^2)^2 \nonumber \\
& & \times
\left\{
\left[
f_0+Re(\kappa) f_1+(|\kappa|^2+\tilde{\kappa}^2) f_2
\right]
\right. \nonumber \\
& & \left.
\mbox{~~~}+ P_\tau
\left[
g_0+Re(\kappa) g_1+\tilde{\kappa} Im(\kappa) g_2
\right]
\right\} \nonumber \\
& & \times \frac{dq^2}{\sqrt{q^2}}
\frac{d\cos\beta}{2}
\frac{d\cos\theta}{2}
\;,
\label{E1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $P_\tau$ is the tau polarisation and the factor of $S_{EW} = 1.0194$
accounts for electroweak corrections to leading logarithm~\cite{MARCIANO88A}.
The functions $f_i$ and $g_i$ $(i=0,1,2)$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f_0 & = & 2 \left[ 1+\frac{m_\tau^2-q^2}{q^2} Y \right], \\
f_1 & = & 1, \\
f_2 & = & 1/4 \left[ 1-\frac{m_\tau^2-q^2}{m_\tau^2} Y \right], \\
g_0 & = & 2 \left[ \frac{2 m_\tau}{\sqrt{q^2}} X - \cos\theta \right], \\
g_1 & = & \frac{m_\tau^2+q^2}{m_\tau \sqrt{q^2}} X - \left[ 1+\frac{(m_\tau^2-q^2)^2}{2 m_\tau^2 q^2} Y \right] \cos\theta, \\
g_2 & = & \frac{\cos\theta}{2} - \frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{m_\tau} X,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
Y & = & \frac{1}{3} \left[ 1+(3\cos^2\psi-1) \frac{3\cos^2\beta-1}{2} \right], \\
X & = & \frac{m_\tau^2+q^2}{2 m_\tau \sqrt{q^2}} Y \cos\theta
+ \sin\theta \frac{\sin 2\psi}{2} \frac{3\cos^2\beta-1}{2},
\end{eqnarray}
and $\psi$ is the angle between the tau direction of flight in the
hadronic rest frame and the $z$-axis.
At LEP energies the following approximation is valid:
\begin{eqnarray}
\cos\psi & = & \frac{\eta + \cos\theta}{1+\eta \cos\theta},~~~{\mathrm{with}} \\
\eta & = & \frac{m_\tau^2-q^2}{m_\tau^2+q^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
$F(q^2)$ describes the resonant structure of the two-pion invariant mass
and the model used to describe it is discussed in more detail in the following
section.
\subsection{Dependence of Apparent Polarisation on Anomalous Couplings}
The usual determination of tau polarisation from energy and angular distributions
of decay products of the tau depends crucially on the assumed $V-A$ structure of
the charged current to serve as a polarimeter.
Additional couplings in $\tau\rightarrow\rho\nu$
decays will produce measured values of polarisation which differ
from analyses of other $\tau$ decay modes and the
predictions from global fits to Electroweak parameters in the context
of the Standard Model.
The observed agreement of polarisation measured in $\tnpp$ decays with
other determinations may be used to constrain $\kappa$ and $\tilde\kappa$.
We first integrate the differential width presented above with respect to $q^2$
and $\cos\beta$.
The $q^2$ dependence of $F$ must be explicitly considered prior to this integration.
$F(q^2)$ for the $\tnpp$ channel is dominated by the
$\rho(770)$ vector meson with a small admixture of $\rho^\prime(1450)$
and a negligible contribution from the $\rho^{\prime\prime}(1700)$,
as verified by the ALEPH experiment~\cite{ALEPHRHOFIT}.
We work within the context of the K{\"{u}}hn and Santamaria model~\cite{KUHN90A}
in which the $\rho$ and $\rho^\prime$ resonances are each described by a
Breit-Wigner propagator with an energy-dependent width~\cite{DECKER93A}
\begin{equation}
B_x(q^2) = \frac{m_x^2}{m_x^2-q^2-i \sqrt{s} \Gamma_x(q^2)},
\end{equation}
where:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_x(q^2) & = & \Gamma^0_x \frac{m_x^2}{q^2} \left( \frac{p(q^2)}
{p(m_x^2)} \right)^3; \qquad {\mathrm{and}} \nonumber\\
p(s) & = & 1/2 \sqrt{s-4 m_\pi^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Gamma^0_x$ is a constant.
The normalisation is fixed by chiral symmetry constraints in the limit of soft
meson momenta, such that the form factor is given by
\begin{equation}
F(q^2) = \frac{B_\rho(q^2)+\beta B_{\rho^\prime}(q^2)}{1+\beta} \;.
\label{fks}
\end{equation}
where $\beta = -0.145$ \cite{KUHN90A}.
The differential width, retaining only the $\theta$
dependence, is of the form
\begin{equation}
d\Gamma = ( A + B P_\tau \cos\theta ) \frac{d\cos\theta}{2}.
\label{dcostheta}
\end{equation}
The coefficients $A$ and $B$ depend on $\kappa$ and
$\tilde{\kappa}$ and are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
A & = & f^\dag_0+Re(\kappa) f^\dag_1+(|\kappa|^2+\tilde{\kappa}^2)
f^\dag_2 \nonumber\\
B & = & g^\dag_0+Re(\kappa) g^\dag_1+\tilde{\kappa} Im(\kappa) g^\dag_2
\end{eqnarray}
where, for $\beta = -0.145$, we obtain the following numerical values
\begin{eqnarray}
f^\dag_0 & = (518.6 \pm 6.4 ) \cdot 10^{-15}\,{\mathrm{GeV}} \\
f^\dag_1 & = (111.3 \pm 1.9 ) \cdot 10^{-15}\,{\mathrm{GeV}} \\
f^\dag_2 & = (20.74 \pm 0.38 ) \cdot 10^{-15}\,{\mathrm{GeV}} \\
g^\dag_0 & = (221.6 \pm 2.04 ) \cdot 10^{-15}\,{\mathrm{GeV}} \\
g^\dag_1 & = (-37.11 \pm .63 ) \cdot 10^{-15}\,{\mathrm{GeV}} \\
g^\dag_2 & = (32.73 \pm 0.50 ) \cdot 10^{-15}\,{\mathrm{GeV}}
\end{eqnarray}
Comparison of the results for the measured ``apparent polarisation'' from
$\tnpp$ channel with other channels or the results of Electroweak fits
would permit constraints to be placed on $\kappa$ and $\tilde{\kappa}$.
\subsection{Dependence of the Total Width, ${\mathbf{\Gamma(\tnpp)}}$ on
Anomalous Couplings}
Integration of Eq.~\ref{dcostheta} over $\cos\theta$ yields the
effect of the anomalous couplings on the total rate
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(\tnpp) = \Gamma^0
\left[1 + a_1 Re(\kappa) +
a_2 (|\kappa|^2+\tilde{\kappa}^2)
\right],
\label{gammarho}
\end{equation}
which naturally is independent of the polarisation
(the polarisation term is proportional to $\cos\theta$
and therefore integrates to zero).
The parameters $a_1$ and $a_2$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
a_1 & \equiv f_1^\dag/f_0^\dag & = 0.202; \qquad {\mathrm{and}}
\\
a_2 & \equiv f_2^\dag/f_0^\dag & = 0.037.
\end{eqnarray}
$\Gamma^0 (\equiv f_0^\dag)$ represents the partial width in the
absence of anomalous couplings, {\em{i.e.}} $\kappa = \tilde{\kappa} = 0$.
\section{Sensitivity of the differential decay rate to $\kappa$ and ${\tilde{\kappa}}$}
The sensitivity of Eq.~\ref{E1} to the dipole moment couplings was
studied for the case of CP-conserving interaction, i.e. $\kappa$ real and
$\tilde{\kappa}=0$.
We consider the quantity
\begin{equation}
\sigma \sqrt{N} = \left[ \int d\Omega \frac{1}{f}
\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial \kappa}\right)^2\right]^{-1/2}
\end{equation}
as a function of the $\tau$ polarisation, where
$\sigma$ is the expected error one standard deviation on $\kappa$,
$N$ is the number of $\tnpp$ decays,
and $d\Omega$ is the elemental phase space volume.
The choice of the quantity $\sigma \sqrt{N}$ simply reflects
the $1/\sqrt{N}$ dependence of the statistical error $\sigma$.
The distribution $f$ is given by Eq.~\ref{E1} for the
$\tnpp$ channel and Eq.~11 of Rizzo~\cite{RIZZO97A} for
$\tnnl$.
Figure~\ref{F3} shows $\sigma \sqrt{N}$ as a function of $P_\tau$ for the
particular case $\kappa\approx 0$ for
(a) the $\tnpp$ decay mode, and
(b) the $\tnnl$ decay mode ($\ell = {\mathrm{e}}$ or $\mu$, not both combined).
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=sensi.eps,width=0.95\linewidth}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\kappa$ sensitivity quantity, $\sigma \sqrt{N}$,
as a function of $P_\tau$ for $\kappa\approx 0$,
for (a) the $\tnpp$ decay mode and
(b) the $\tnnl$ decay mode.}
\label{F3}
\end{figure}
The $\tnpp$ mode is intrinsically more sensitive than the
leptonic decay modes and is less dependent on
the $\tau$ polarisation.
In addition, the branching fraction for $\tnpp$ is larger than each
leptonic channel.
For example, at the Z peak ($P_\tau \approx -0.15$) with a typical sample of
reconstructed decays for each LEP experiment ($\sim 45\,000$ $\tnpp$ decays
and $\sim 30\,000$ $\tnnl$ decays)
the predicted statistical errors are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_\rho & \sim & 0.020 , {\mathrm{and}} \\
\sigma_\ell & \sim & 0.065 ,
\end{eqnarray}
where detector effects are neglected, apart from their influence on
the reconstruction efficiency which is reflected in the number of
decays assumed.
The corresponding statistical error for the combined e and $\mu$ channels is $\sim$0.046
which is more than a factor of two less precise than from the $\tnpp$ channel
alone.
A practical disadvantage of the semileptonic decay is the multi-dimensional
character of the distribution function.
In the analysis of the tau polarisation, this problem has been overcome
using a single ``optimal variable''~\cite{DAVIER93A}.
Although the optimal variable for the tau polarisation is
not the optimal variable for $\kappa$ (nor for $\tilde{\kappa}$),
we find it still provides distinguishing power.
We fit hypothetical distributions of the optimal variable for
simulated samples of 45\,000 $\tnpp$ decays each, generated with
$P_\tau=-0.15$ to represent $\tau$'s produced at the Z peak.
Typical errors are $\sigma_\rho \sim 0.038$ which is degraded compared
to the full multi-dimensional fit but is still statistically more sensitive
than the combined e and $\mu$ channels.
The apparent disadvantage of the leptonic channels is, however, mitigated
by the need to know $F(q^2)$ for the $\tnpp$ channel which has a non-negligible
systematic error, as discussed below.
In this paper we cannot derive constraints on $\kappa$ and ${\tilde{\kappa}}$
from fits to the differential decay distributions due to a lack of the
necessary experimental information.
We can, however, determine constraints from the (intrinsically less sensitive)
measurements of $\BR(\tnpp)$, as described below.
\section{Constraints on $\kappa$ and ${\tilde{\kappa}}$ from $\BR(\tnpp)$}
We derive quantitative constraints on $\kappa$ and ${\tilde{\kappa}}$ by considering the
likelihood for the theoretical prediction for $\BR(\tnpp)$
to agree with the experimentally determined average
value of
\begin{equation}
\BR(\tnpp) = \BRTRval,
\label{brexpt}
\end{equation}
as a function of $\kappa$ and $\tilde{\kappa}$.
$\Gamma^0$ of Eq.~\ref{gammarho} is determined from
$e^+e^- \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ data using CVC.
A combined analysis of all data, allowing for radiative corrections
and $\rho-\omega$ interference, yields the CVC prediction of~\cite{TAU98_EIDELMAN}
\begin{equation}
\BR(\tnpp) = (24.52 \pm 0.33)\%,
\label{brcvc}
\end{equation}
where the error includes statistical and systematic uncertainties and
conservatively allows for a possible systematic discrepancy of the
DM1 data compared to CMD, CMD-2, and OLYA.
The experimental value of $\BR(\tnpp)$ is higher than the CVC prediction
by $2.2$ standard deviations of the combined error.
We fix $\Gamma^0$ to the CVC prediction of $\BR(\tnpp)$ so that only
$a_1$ and $a_2$ depend on the description of hadronic spectral function.
This reduces the sensitivity of the results to the details
of the hadronic modelling.
We construct likelihoods as a function of $\kappa$ and $\tilde{\kappa}$
conservatively assuming in each case that the other
parameter is zero.
The errors are propagated numerically~\cite{NIM_LIKELIHOOD_PAPER}
taking into account
the error on the experimental measurement of $\BR(\tnpp)$ (Eq.~\ref{brexpt}),
the uncertainty on the CVC prediction (Eq.~\ref{brcvc}),
a systematic error of $0.5$\% for radiative corrections not included
in $S_{EW}$~\cite{MARCIANO88A},
and a systematic error of 0.3\% for the effect of $\rho-\omega$
interference~\cite{TAU96_EIDELMAN}.
Figure~\ref{fig:probs} shows the likelihood distributions for
(a) $\kappa$ and (b) $\tilde{\kappa}$.
The distribution for $\kappa$ has a single peak due to the dominance
of the term linear in $\kappa$ in Eq.~\ref{gammarho}.
The distribution for $\tilde{\kappa}$ has two symmetric peaks due to
the lack of a term linear in $\tilde{\kappa}$ in Eq.~\ref{gammarho},
therefore it is more appropriate to constrain the quantity
$|\tilde\kappa|$.
We determine
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa & = & \RHOKAPPAMval ,~~~{\mathrm{and}} \\
|\tilde\kappa| & = & \RHOKAPPAEval ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the errors correspond to the 68\% confidence level.
At the 95\% confidence level we constrain $\kappa$ and $\tilde\kappa$
to the ranges:
\begin{eqnarray}
& \RHOKAPPAMlim &;~~~{\mathrm{and}} \\
& \RHOKAPPAElim &.
\end{eqnarray}
These results are slightly more than two standard deviations from the
SM expectations of zero which, though intriguing, cannot be
considered statistically compelling evidence of new physics.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=probs.eps,width=0.9\linewidth}
\end{center}
\caption{The likelihood distributions for
(a) $\kappa$ and (b) $\tilde{\kappa}$.}
\label{fig:probs}
\end{figure}
The results may be compared to complementary results previously
obtained from purely leptonic tau decays~\cite{ANOMALOUS_COUPLINGS},
which are $\kappa = {\KAPPAMval}$ and $\tilde\kappa = {\KAPPAEval}$ or
${\KAPPAMlim}$ and ${\KAPPAElim}$ at the 95\% C.L.~\cite{ANOMALOUS_COUPLINGS}.
These are more restrictive than those we obtain from $\tnpp$ decays.
This is partly due to the larger uncertainties in the theoretical
and experimental values of the $\tnpp$ branching fractions.
In principle these effects could be counteracted by a higher intrinsic
sensitivity of the $\tnpp$ channel due to larger values of $a_1$ and
$a_2$ relative to the leptonic modes.
From our calculations, however, we see in retrospect that the numerical values
for $a_1$ and $a_2$ are smaller than their leptonic counterparts
(0.5 and 0.1 respectively).
Therefore, if only the total rate information is used
the $\tnpp$ channel is less sensitive than the leptonic channels,
in contrast to the higher statistical sensitivity of the $\tnpp$ channel
when the differential decay distribution is analysed.
\section{Summary}
We present calculations of the differential and total decay rates
for the process $\tnpp$, allowing for anomalous charged current
magnetic and electric dipole moments, $\kappa$ and $\tilde\kappa$
respectively.
This constitutes the first such analysis of a hadronic
tau decay mode.
The analysis of the differential distributions for the $\tnpp$ decay mode
is found to be statistically more sensitive than the corresponding analysis
of purely leptonic modes, $\tnnl$, irrespective of the tau polarisation.
The branching fraction, $\BR(\tnpp)$, is also sensitive to $\kappa$ and
$\tilde\kappa$ although less so than for the leptonic branching fractions.
By comparison of the measured value of $\BR(\tnpp)$ with the predictions
of CVC, we determine
$\kappa = \RHOKAPPAMval$ and
$|\tilde\kappa| = \RHOKAPPAEval$.
which differ from the SM expectations by approximately two
standard deviations.
The values for $\kappa$ and $\tilde\kappa$ obtained
from $\BR(\tnnl)$ are consistent with zero.
This could mean that the measured result for $\BR(\tnpp)$ and CVC
differ only due to a fluctuation, or that there is a theoretical
or experimental uncertainty which is not correctly
taken into account.
The new $e^+e^- \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ data in the
neighbourhood of the $\rho$ meson resonances should
reduce the experimental uncertainty in the CVC prediction
by a factor of almost two in 1999~\cite{TAU98_EIDELMAN}.
Hopefully these data will clarify whether this is a statistical
or systematic effect or the first indication of some new physics
which affects hadronic tau decays but not purely leptonic decays.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We acknowledge gratefully the financial support of CONICET
and the Fundaci{\'{o}}n Antorchas,
Argentina (M.T.D. and P.L.) and the NSF, USA (J.S. and L.T.).
|
\section{Introduction}
Besides the recent high precision measurements of the $W$
mass~\cite{Karlen98,Dorigo98}, $M_W$, the most important input into precision
tests of electroweak theory continues to come from the $Z$ factories
LEP~1~\cite{Karlen98} and SLC~\cite{Baird98}. The vanguard of the physics
program at LEP~1 is the analysis of the $Z$ lineshape. Its parameters are the
$Z$ mass, $M_Z$, the total $Z$ width, $\Gamma_Z$, the hadronic peak cross
section, $\sigma_{\rm had}$, and the ratios of hadronic to leptonic decay
widths, $R_\ell = {\Gamma({\rm had})\over \Gamma(\ell^+\ell^-)}$, where
$\ell = e$, $\mu$, or $\tau$. They are determined in a common fit with the
leptonic forward-backward (FB) asymmetries,
$A_{FB} (\ell) = {3\over 4} A_e A_\ell$. With $f$ denoting the fermion index,
\begin{equation}
A_f = {2 v_f a_f\over v_f^2 + a_f^2}
\end{equation}
is defined in terms of the vector
($v_f = I_{3,f} - 2 Q_f \sin^2 \theta_f^{\rm eff}$) and axial-vector
($a_f = I_{3,f}$) $Zf\bar{f}$ coupling; $Q_f$ and $I_{3,f}$ are the electric
charge and third component of isospin, respectively, and
$\sin^2 \theta_f^{\rm eff} \equiv \bar{s}^2_f$ is an effective mixing angle.
The polarization of the electron beam at the SLC allows for
competitive and complementary measurements with a much smaller
number of $Z$'s than at LEP. In particular, the left-right (LR) cross
section asymmetry, $A_{LR} = A_e$, represents the most precise determination
of the weak mixing angle by a single experiment (SLD).~\cite{Baird98}
Mixed FB-LR asymmetries, $A^{FB}_{LR} (f) = {3\over 4} A_f$, single out the
final state coupling of the $Z$ boson.
For several years there has been an experimental discrepancy at the $2 \sigma$
level between $A_\ell$ from LEP and the SLC. With the 1997/98 high statistics
run at the SLC, and a revised value for the FB asymmetry of the $\tau$
polarization, ${\cal P}^{FB}_\tau$, the two determinations are now consistent
with each other,
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{l}
\label{aell}
A_\ell ({\rm LEP}) = 0.1470 \pm 0.0027, \\
A_\ell ({\rm SLD}) = 0.1503 \pm 0.0023.
\end{array} \end{equation}
\begin{table}[p]
\caption{Principal precision observables from CERN, FNAL, SLAC, and elsewhere.
Shown are the experimental results, the SM predictions, and the pulls.
The SM errors are from the
uncertainties in $M_Z$, $\ln M_H$, $m_t$, $\alpha (M_Z)$, and $\alpha_s$.
They have been treated as Gaussian and their correlations have been taken into
account. $\bar{s}_\ell^2 (Q_{FB} (q))$ is the weak mixing angle from the
hadronic charge asymmetry; $R^-$ and $R^\nu$ are cross section ratios from
deep inelastic $\nu$-hadron scattering; $g_{V,A}^{\nu e}$ are effective
four-Fermi coefficients in $\nu$-e scattering; and the $Q_W$ are the weak
charges from parity violation measurements in atoms. The uncertainty in the
$b\rightarrow s\gamma$ observable includes theoretical errors from the physics
model, the finite photon energy cut-off, and from uncalculated higher order
effects. There are other precision observables which are not shown but
included in the fits. Very good agreement with the SM is observed.
Only $A_{LR}$ and the two measurements sensitive to $A_b$ discussed in the
text, show some deviation, but even those are below $2\sigma$.
\label{zpole}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|lcccr|}
\hline
Quantity & Group(s) & Value & Standard Model & pull \\
\hline
$M_Z$ \hspace{0pt} [GeV]& LEP &$ 91.1867 \pm 0.0021 $&$ 91.1865 \pm 0.0021 $&$ 0.1$ \\
$\Gamma_Z$ \hspace{3pt} [GeV]& LEP &$ 2.4939 \pm 0.0024 $&$ 2.4957 \pm 0.0017 $&$-0.8$ \\
$\sigma_{\rm had}$ [nb] & LEP &$ 41.491 \pm 0.058 $&$ 41.473 \pm 0.015 $&$ 0.3$ \\
$R_e$ & LEP &$ 20.783 \pm 0.052 $&$ 20.748 \pm 0.019 $&$ 0.7$ \\
$R_\mu$ & LEP &$ 20.789 \pm 0.034 $&$ 20.749 \pm 0.019 $&$ 1.2$ \\
$R_\tau$ & LEP &$ 20.764 \pm 0.045 $&$ 20.794 \pm 0.019 $&$-0.7$ \\
$A_{FB} (e)$ & LEP &$ 0.0153 \pm 0.0025 $&$ 0.0161 \pm 0.0003 $&$-0.3$ \\
$A_{FB} (\mu)$ & LEP &$ 0.0164 \pm 0.0013 $&$ $&$ 0.2$ \\
$A_{FB} (\tau)$ & LEP &$ 0.0183 \pm 0.0017 $&$ $&$ 1.3$ \\
\hline
$R_b$ & LEP + SLD &$ 0.21656\pm 0.00074$&$ 0.2158 \pm 0.0002 $&$ 1.0$ \\
$R_c$ & LEP + SLD &$ 0.1735 \pm 0.0044 $&$ 0.1723 \pm 0.0001 $&$ 0.3$ \\
$A_{FB} (b)$ & LEP &$ 0.0990 \pm 0.0021 $&$ 0.1028 \pm 0.0010 $&$-1.8$ \\
$A_{FB} (c)$ & LEP &$ 0.0709 \pm 0.0044 $&$ 0.0734 \pm 0.0008 $&$-0.6$ \\
$A_b$ & SLD &$ 0.867 \pm 0.035 $&$ 0.9347 \pm 0.0001 $&$-1.9$ \\
$A_c$ & SLD &$ 0.647 \pm 0.040 $&$ 0.6676 \pm 0.0006 $&$-0.5$ \\
\hline
$A_{LR} + A_\ell$ & SLD &$ 0.1503 \pm 0.0023 $&$ 0.1466 \pm 0.0015 $&$ 1.6$ \\
${\cal P}_\tau: A_e+A_\tau$ & LEP &$ 0.1452 \pm 0.0034 $&$ $&$-0.4$ \\
$\bar{s}_\ell^2 (Q_{FB})$ & LEP &$ 0.2321 \pm 0.0010 $&$ 0.2316 \pm 0.0002 $&$ 0.5$ \\
\hline
$m_t$ \hspace{6pt} [GeV]& Tevatron &$173.8 \pm 5.0 $&$171.4 \pm 4.8 $&$ 0.5$ \\
$M_W$ \hspace{0pt} [GeV]& all &$ 80.388 \pm 0.063 $&$ 80.362 \pm 0.023 $&$ 0.4$ \\
\hline
$R^-$ & NuTeV &$ 0.2277 \pm 0.0021 \pm 0.0007 $&$ 0.2297 \pm 0.0003 $&$-0.9$\\
$R^\nu$ & CCFR &$ 0.5820 \pm 0.0027 \pm 0.0031 $&$ 0.5827 \pm 0.0005 $&$-0.2$\\
$R^\nu$ & CDHS &$ 0.3096 \pm 0.0033 \pm 0.0028 $&$ 0.3089 \pm 0.0003 $&$ 0.2$\\
$R^\nu$ & CHARM &$ 0.3021 \pm 0.0031 \pm 0.0026 $&$ $&$-1.7$\\
\hline
$g_V^{\nu e}$ & all &$ -0.041 \pm 0.015 $&$ -0.0395 \pm 0.0004 $&$-0.1$\\
$g_A^{\nu e}$ & all &$ -0.507 \pm 0.014 $&$ -0.5063 \pm 0.0002 $&$-0.1$\\
\hline
$Q_W({\rm Cs})$& Boulder &$ -72.41 \pm 0.25\pm 0.80 $&$ -73.10 \pm 0.04 $&$ 0.8$\\
$Q_W({\rm Tl})$& all &$-114.8 \pm 1.2 \pm 3.4 $&$-116.7 \pm 0.1 $&$ 0.5$\\
\hline
${\Gamma (b\rightarrow s\gamma)\over \Gamma (b\rightarrow c e\nu)}$& CLEO
&$ 3.26^{+0.75}_{-0.68} \times 10^{-3} $&$ 3.14^{+0.19}_{-0.18}
\times 10^{-3} $&$ 0.1$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\noindent
The LEP value is from $A_{FB}(\ell)$, ${\cal P}_\tau$, and
${\cal P}^{FB}_\tau$, while the SLD value is from $A_{LR}$ and
$A^{FB}_{LR} (\ell)$. The data is consistent with lepton universality,
which is assumed here. There remains a $2.5 \sigma$ discrepancy between
the two most precise determinations of $\bar{s}^2_\ell$, i.e.\ $A_{LR}$
and $A_{FB} (b)$ (assuming no new physics in $A_b$).
Of particular interest are the results on the heavy flavor
sector~\cite{Karlen98} including
$R_q = {\Gamma (q\bar{q}) \over \Gamma ({\rm had})}$, $A_{FB} (q)$, and
$A^{FB}_{LR} (q)$, with $q = b$ or $c$. At present, there is some
discrepancy in $A^{FB}_{LR} (b) = {3\over 4} A_b$ and
$A_{FB} (b) = {3\over 4} A_e A_b$, both at the $2 \sigma$ level. Using
the average of Eqs.~(\ref{aell}), $A_\ell = 0.1489 \pm 0.0018$, both can be
interpreted as measurements of $A_b$. From $A_{FB} (b)$ one would obtain
$A_b = 0.887 \pm 0.022$, and the combination with
$A^{FB}_{LR} (b) = {3\over 4} (0.867 \pm 0.035)$ would yield
$A_b = 0.881 \pm 0.019$, which is almost $3 \sigma$ below the SM prediction.
Alternatively, one could use $A_\ell ({\rm LEP})$ above (which is closer to the
SM prediction) to determine $A_b ({\rm LEP}) = 0.898 \pm 0.025$, and
$A_b = 0.888 \pm 0.020$ after combination with $A^{FB}_{LR} (b)$, i.e., still
a $2.3 \sigma$ discrepancy. An explanation of the 5--6\% deviation in $A_b$
in terms of new physics in loops, would need a 25--30\% radiative correction
to $\hat\kappa_b$, defined by
$\bar{s}^2_b \equiv \hat\kappa_b\sin^2\hat\theta_{\overline{\rm MS}} (M_Z)$.
Only a new type of physics which couples at the tree level
preferentially to the third generation~\cite{Erler95}, and which does not
contradict $R_b$ (including the off-peak measurements by
DELPHI~\cite{Abreu96}), can conceivably account for a low $A_b$.
Given this and that none of the observables deviates by $2 \sigma$ or more,
we can presently conclude that there is no compelling evidence for new physics
in the precision observables, some of which are listed in Table~\ref{zpole}.
\section{Bayesian Higgs mass inference}
The data show a strong preference for a low $M_H \sim {\cal O} (M_Z)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{mh_fit}
M_H = 107^{+67}_{-45} \mbox{ GeV},
\end{equation}
where the central value (of the global fit to all precision data, including
$m_t$) maximizes the likelihood, $N e^{-\chi^2 (M_H)/2}$. Correlations with
other parameters, $\xi^i$, are accounted for, since minimization w.r.t. these
is understood, $\chi^2 \equiv \chi^2_{\rm min}$.
Bayesian methods, on the other hand, are based on Bayes theorem~\cite{Bayes63},
\begin{equation}
\label{Bayes}
p(M_H | {\rm data}) = \frac{p({\rm data}| M_H) p(M_H)}{p({\rm data})},
\end{equation}
which must be satisfied once the {\em likelihood\/}, $p({\rm data}| M_H)$, and
{\em prior\/} distribution, $p(M_H)$, are specified.
$p(data) \equiv \int p({\rm data}| M_H) p(M_H) d M_H$ in the denominator
provides for the proper normalization of the {\em posterior\/} distribution on
the l.h.s. The prior can contain additional information not included in the
likelihood model, or chosen to be {\em non-informative}.
Occasionally, the Bayesian method is criticized for the need of
a prior, which would introduce unnecessary subjectivity into the
analysis. Indeed, care and good judgement is needed, but the same is true
for the likelihood model, which has to be specified in both approaches.
Moreover, it is appreciated among Bayesian practitioners, that the explicit
presence of the prior can be advantageous: it manifests model assumptions
and allows for sensitivity checks. From the theorem~(\ref{Bayes}) it is
also clear that the maximum likelihood method corresponds, mathematically,
to a particular choice of prior. Thus Bayesian methods differ rather
in attitude: by their strong emphasis on the entire posterior distribution
and by their first principles setup.
Given extra parameters, $\xi^i$, the distribution function of $M_H$ is defined
as the marginal distribution,
$p(M_H|{\rm data}) = \int p(M_H, \xi^i | {\rm data}) \prod_i p(\xi^i) d \xi^i$.
If the posterior factorizes, $p(M_H, \xi^i) = p(M_H) p(\xi^i)$, the $\xi^i$
dependence can be ignored. If not, but $p(\xi^i | M_H)$ is
(approximately) multivariate normal, then
\begin{equation}
\chi^2 (M_H,\xi^i) = \chi^2_{\rm min} (M_H) +
{1\over 2} \frac{\partial^2 \chi^2 (M_H)} {\partial \xi_i \partial \xi_j}
(\xi^i - \xi^i_{\rm min} (M_H)) (\xi^j - \xi^j_{\rm min} (M_H)).
\end{equation}
The latter applies to our case, where $\xi^i = (m_t,\alpha_s,\alpha(M_Z))$.
Integration yields,
\begin{equation}
p(M_H | {\rm data}) \sim \sqrt{\det E}\, e^{- \chi^2_{\rm min} (M_H)/2},
\end{equation}
where the $\xi^i$ error matrix, $E = (\frac{\partial^2 \chi^2 (M_H)}
{\partial \xi_i \partial \xi_j})^{-1}$, introduces a correction factor
with a mild $M_H$ dependence. It corresponds to a shift relative to the
standard likelihood model,
$\chi^2 (M_H) = \chi^2_{\rm min}(M_H) + \Delta \chi^2 (M_H)$, where
\begin{equation}
\Delta \chi^2 (M_H) \equiv \ln \frac{\det E (M_H)}{\det E (M_Z)}.
\end{equation}
For example, $\Delta \chi^2 (300 \mbox{ GeV}) \sim 0.1$, which would
{\em tighten} the $M_H$ upper limit by at most a few GeV. At present,
we neglect this effect.
We choose $p(M_H)$ as the product of $M_H^{-1}$, corresponding to a uniform
(non-informative) distribution in $\log M_H$, times the exclusion curve from
LEP~2.~\cite{McNamara98} This curve is from Higgs searches at center of mass
energies up to 183 GeV. We find the 90 (95, 99)\% confidence upper limits,
\begin{equation}
\label{mh_limits}
M_H < 220 \mbox{ (255, 335) GeV}.
\end{equation}
Theory uncertainties from uncalculated higher orders increase the 95\% CL
by about 5~GeV. These limits are robust within the SM, but we caution that
the results on $M_H$ are strongly correlated with certain new physics
parameters~\cite{Erler99}.
The one-sided confidence interval~(\ref{mh_limits}) is not an exclusion limit.
For example, the 95\% upper limit of the standard uniform distribution,
$x \in [0,1]$, is at $x = 0.95$, but all values of $x$ are equally likely, and
$x > 0.95$ cannot be excluded. If there is a discrete set of competing
hypotheses, $H_i$, one can use Bayes factors,
$p({\rm data} | H_i)/p({\rm data} | H_j)$, for comparison. For example, LEP~2
rejects a standard Higgs boson with $M_H < 90$~GeV at the 95\% CL, because
\begin{equation}
\frac{p({\rm data} | M_H = M_0)}{p({\rm data} | M_H \neq M_0)}
< 0.05 \hspace{20pt} \forall\; M_0 < 90 \hbox{ GeV}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand,
the probability for $M_H < 90$~GeV is only $5\times 10^{-4}$.
One could similarly note, that
$p(M_H = M_0) < 0.05\, p(M_H = 107 \hbox{ GeV})$ for $M_0 > 334$ GeV;
but the (arbitrary) choice of the best fit $M_H$ value as reference
hypothesis is hardly justifiable. This affirms that variables
continuously connecting a set of hypotheses should be treated in a fully
Bayesian analysis.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
I would like to thank the organizers of WIN 99 for a very pleasant and
memorable meeting and Paul Langacker for collaboration.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
According to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, the attenuation
or amplification of a signal always adds noise.
In optical amplifiers, this fact is usually phrased as ``one noise
photon'' added to the signal from the spontaneous emission processes
in the reservoir.
This assumption about the noise gives rise to the phase diffusion
responsible for the Schawlow-Townes
linewidth \cite{schawlow,scully,lax} of lasers.
However, this is not true generally.
In particular cases, the noise can exceed the intensity of one
photon by the so-called excess-noise factor or Petermann $K$-factor
\cite{peter}.
Experimentally this phenomenon was first confirmed in a laser cavity with
large output coupling leading to an enhancement of a few times
\cite{output}.
Later, even a factor of a few hundreds was achieved for solid state lasers
\cite{semicond} and gas
lasers \cite{gas}.
Also experiments with a coupling of the
polarizations \cite{polar}
and an inserted small aperture \cite{aperture} have demonstrated large
excess noise.
A recent experiment has shown that excess noise can be colored
due to saturation effects \cite{color}.
After the prediction of excess noise by Petermann for the case of
gain-guided semiconductor lasers \cite{peter}, the first more general
theory of excess noise was given by Siegman using a
semi-classical description \cite{semi}.
Until recently, only a few simple systems have been discussed from a
quantum mechanical point of view \cite{squant}.
In a previous paper \cite{bardroff} we introduced a master equation
describing a multi-mode field interacting with a reservoir describing the
general linear amplifier or attenuator in a strictly quantum
mechanical formulation.
We find that under certain conditions, the reservoirs
create couplings between the undamped modes of the system.
Such dissipative couplings lead to a non-Hermitian eigenvalue problem,
which introduces non-orthogonal quasi modes in a natural manner.
The amplitudes of these modes are then found to display the expected
excess noise, which we here ascribe to the reservoir-induced mode-mode
coupling.
In this paper we derive the quantum Langevin
formalism following from our theory in Ref.~\cite{bardroff}.
Whereas the dynamic variable of the master equation is the quantum
state, the Langevin equations are for the field operators.
This allows us a direct comparison of our approach with the well-known
semi-classical treatment introduced by Siegman \cite{semi}.
As this has provided the physical understanding and the mathematical
expressions for the excess noise, we are pleased that we can
essentially derive his starting equations from our fully quantum
mechanical treatment.
We are also able to generalize the semi-classical analysis of excess
noise to cases beyond the paraxial approximation.
\section{Master equation}
\label{sec:master}
In this section we briefly review the results of the quantum
derivation of the excess-noise factor based upon the master equation.
We use orthonormal real mode functions $u_n(x)$ of the electromagnetic
field with frequency $\omega_n$ which fulfill the boundary conditions
for the given configuration in the whole ``universe'' and satisfy the
orthonormality relation
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{V}\int d^3x\,u_n(x)u_m(x)=\delta_{nm},
\label{eq:orthu}
\end{equation}
where $V$ is the volume of the whole space.
Note that the mode function $u_n(x)$ is a vector including the
polarization orientation and that we choose them to be real for
convenience.
The electric field operator then reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:efield}
\hat E(x)=\sum_n \varepsilon_nu_n(x)\left(\hat a_n +\hat
a_n^\dagger\right),
\end{equation}
where $\hat a_n$ and $\hat a_n^\dagger$ are the usual creation and
annihilation operators of the field excitations and the so-called vacuum
field amplitude is
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_n=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar \omega_n}{2\epsilon_0 V}}.
\label{eq:vacfield}
\end{equation}
We start from the multi-mode master equation \cite{bardroff}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{dt}\hat\rho(t)&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n,m}L_{m,n}\left\{
2\hat a_n^\dagger\hat\rho(t)\hat a_m - \hat a_m\hat
a_n^\dagger\hat\rho(t) - \hat\rho(t)\hat a_m\hat a_n^\dagger
\right\}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n,m}\Gamma_{m,n}\left\{
2\hat a_n\hat\rho(t)\hat a_m^\dagger - \hat a_m^\dagger\hat
a_n\hat\rho(t) - \hat\rho(t)\hat a_m^\dagger\hat a_n
\right\}
-i\sum_n\omega_n[\hat a_n^\dagger\hat a_n,\hat\rho(t)].
\label{eq:masterda}
\end{eqnarray}
with the two symmetric matrices $\Gamma_{m,n}$ and $L_{m,n}$ given by
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Gamma}
\Gamma_{m,n}=\frac{\tau^2}{\hbar^2} \varepsilon_n\varepsilon_m
\frac{1}{V}\int d^3x\, r_\Gamma(x)[u_n(x)d][u_m(x)d]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
L_{m,n}=\frac{\tau^2}{\hbar^2} \varepsilon_n\varepsilon_m
\frac{1}{V}\int d^3x\, r_L(x)[u_n(x)d][u_m(x)d].
\label{eq:L}
\end{equation}
\label{eq:GaLa}
\end{mathletters}
The former describes losses and the latter amplification due to the
interaction with the reservoirs.
The two reservoirs for amplification and attenuation are assumed to
consist of two-level atoms injected in the upper or lower state,
respectively \cite{scully}.
They are completely characterized by the
position dependent injection rates $r_L(x)$ and $r_\Gamma(x)$, the
interaction time $\tau$ of the individual atoms with the field and the
orientation of the atomic dipole moment $d$.
In principle, the dipole orientation could be different for damping and
attenuation and it may depend on position.
This treatment of the damping can describe spatially localized
absorption due to an inserted aperture or due to a detector placed
outside the cavity.
Assuming a perfect absorber (or detector) surrounding our
cavity, the reservoir can also model the damping due to output coupling.
Taking the limit of a infinitely large ``universe''
($V\rightarrow\infty$), and hence using a
continuum of modes, would be
another way of including losses due to output coupling in our model
as shown in Ref.~\cite{lang}.
Because of the interaction through the reservoir, the time evolution
of the mean values
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:meana}
\frac{d}{dt}\langle\hat a_n\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\sum_m\left(
L_{m,n}-\Gamma_{m,n}\right)\langle\hat a_m\rangle
-i\omega_n\langle\hat a_n\rangle
\end{equation}
exhibits coupling between different modes.
The definition of the quasi modes operator $\hat A$ follows from
imposing the condition
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:qmodeA}
\frac{d}{dt}\langle \hat A\rangle
=\Big\{\frac{1}{2}(\lambda-\gamma)-i\Omega\Big\}\langle \hat A \rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\Omega$ is the frequency, $\lambda$ is the
amplification rate and $\gamma$ is the attenuation rate.
For later convenience, we split the net-amplification rate
$(\lambda-\gamma)$ into the two separate contributions $\lambda$ and
$\gamma$. Note that $\Omega$, $\lambda$ and $\gamma$ are real.
We write this mode operator in terms of the free field mode
operators as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:decomp}
{\cal E}\hat A=\sum_n\varepsilon_n c_n \hat a_n
\end{equation}
with
the expansion coefficients $c_n$.
This transformation includes the vacuum-field amplitudes
$\varepsilon_n$ and we define
${\cal E}=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar\Omega}{2\epsilon_0 V}}$,
because then the classical field amplitudes
$\varepsilon_n\langle \hat a_n\rangle$ obey the same transformation as
the operators.
Inserting Eq.~(\ref{eq:qmodeA}) into (\ref{eq:decomp}) we get an
eigenvalue equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eigenvalue}
\sum_n\left\{ \frac{1}{2}(L_{m,n}-\Gamma_{m,n})
-i\delta_{n,m}\omega_n \right\}
\frac{\varepsilon_n}{\varepsilon_m} c_n=
\left\{\frac{1}{2}(\lambda-\gamma)-i\Omega\right\} c_m
\end{equation}
for the non-Hermitian matrix $\{\frac{1}{2}(L_{m,n}-\Gamma_{m,n})
-i\delta_{n,m}\omega_n\} \frac{\varepsilon_n}{\varepsilon_m}$.
Here $c_n^{(\nu)}$ is the right eigenvector;
the corresponding left eigenvector is $\varepsilon^2_n c_n^{(\nu)}$
\cite{fn:ev}.
The superscript $\nu$ distinguishes the different eigenvectors.
The detailed properties of the quasi modes are summarized in the
Appendix.
We can now calculate the noise of the quadrature operator
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:X}
\hat X_\nu(x)=
{\cal E}_\nu
\left[U_\nu(x)\hat A_\nu+U^*_\nu(x)\hat A_\nu^\dagger\right]
\end{equation}
with the definition of the quasi-mode function $U_\nu(x)$ given by
Eq.~(\ref{eq:rmode}) in the Appendix.
Taking the noise averaged over position and comparing to the usual single
mode master equation with the same frequency $\Omega_\nu$, damping rate
$\gamma_\nu$ and amplification rate $\lambda_\nu$ we find an
enhancement by the factor
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Kqm}
K_\nu=\left|\frac{\sum\varepsilon_n^2|c^{(\nu)}_n|^2}{
\sum_m \varepsilon_m^2
{c^{(\nu)}_m}^2}\right|^2
\end{equation}
for the noise added by the reservoir; cf.\ Ref.~\cite{bardroff}.
The excess noise is large when the matrices $L_{m,n}$ and
$\Gamma_{m,n}$, defined in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:GaLa}), have large off-diagonal
terms and when they are not identical.
The former follows when the injection rates $r_L(x)$ and $r_\Gamma(x)$
are not spatially constant whereas the latter when damping and
amplification are spatially separated.
\section{Quantum Langevin equation}
\label{sec:qlangevin}
Following the usual treatment \cite{lax}, we replace the time
evolution described by the master equation (\ref{eq:masterda}) by an
equivalent quantum Langevin equation.
This contains non-commuting noise forces which are designed such as to
give the same moments as those derived from the master equation.
The quantum Langevin equation is written
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:qla}
\frac{d}{dt}\hat a(t)_n=\frac{1}{2}\sum_m\left(
L_{m,n}-\Gamma_{m,n}\right)\hat a_m(t)
-i\omega_n\hat a_n(t)+\hat f_n(t),
\end{equation}
where the Langevin noise sources $\hat f_n(t)$ obey the correlation
relations
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:corrdef}
\langle \hat f_m(t) \hat f_n^\dagger(t')\rangle&=&2\langle\hat D_{\hat
a_m \hat a_n^\dagger} \rangle\delta(t-t'),\\
\langle \hat f_n^\dagger(t)\hat f_m(t')\rangle&=&2\langle\hat D_{
\hat a_n^\dagger\hat a_m} \rangle\delta(t-t')
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
and
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat f_m(t)\rangle=
\langle \hat f_m(t) \hat f_n(t')\rangle=\langle \hat
f_m^\dagger(t) \hat f_n^\dagger(t')\rangle=0.
\label{eq:corrzero}
\end{equation}
It then follows from Eq.~(\ref{eq:qla}) that the expectation values
obey Eq.~(\ref{eq:meana}).
The diffusion coefficients $\langle\hat D_{\hat a_m \hat
a_n^\dagger}\rangle$ and
$\langle\hat D_{\hat a_n^\dagger\hat a_m} \rangle$ have to be
determined to give the correct noise correlations $\langle\hat a_n^\dagger
\hat a_m\rangle$ and $\langle\hat a_m\hat a_n^\dagger\rangle$.
We compare the time evolution of the noise correlations derived
from the master equation, given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:acorr}),
to the one derived from the Langevin equation (\ref{eq:qla}) to find
the relations
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eq:corrcorr}
\begin{equation}
\langle\hat f_n^\dagger(t)\hat a_m(t)
+\hat a_n^\dagger(t)\hat f_m(t)\rangle=\Gamma_{m,n}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\langle\hat f_n(t)\hat a_m^\dagger(t)
+\hat a_n(t)\hat f_m^\dagger(t)\rangle=L_{m,n}.
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
With the help of the Einstein relations
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eq:einstein}
\begin{eqnarray}
2\langle\hat D_{\hat a_m \hat a_n^\dagger}\rangle&=&\frac{d}{dt}
\langle\hat a_m(t)\hat a_n^\dagger(t)\rangle-
\langle\hat a_m(t)
(\frac{d}{dt}\hat a_n^\dagger(t)-\hat f_n^\dagger(t))\rangle-
\langle(\frac{d}{dt}\hat a_m(t)-\hat f_m(t))
\hat a_n^\dagger(t)\rangle,
\\
2\langle\hat D_{\hat a_n^\dagger\hat a_m}\rangle&=&\frac{d}{dt}
\langle\hat a_n^\dagger(t)\hat a_m(t)\rangle-
\langle(\frac{d}{dt}\hat a_n^\dagger(t)-\hat f_n^\dagger(t))
\hat a_m(t)\rangle-
\langle\hat a_n^\dagger(t)
(\frac{d}{dt}\hat a_m(t)-\hat f_m(t))\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
and Eqs.~(\ref{eq:corrcorr}), we
determine the diffusion coefficients to be
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eq:noisecorr}
\begin{equation}
2\langle\hat D_{\hat a_m \hat a_n^\dagger}\rangle=
\langle\hat f_n^\dagger(t)\hat a_m(t)
+\hat a_n^\dagger(t)\hat f_m(t)\rangle=\Gamma_{m,n}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
2\langle\hat D_{\hat a_n^\dagger\hat a_m} \rangle=
\langle\hat f_n(t)\hat a_m^\dagger(t)
+\hat a_n(t)\hat f_m^\dagger(t)\rangle=L_{m,n}.
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
These relations clearly show the mode correlations due to the reservoir.
In the following, we derive a wave equation for the propagation of the
electric field
operator including amplification, damping and the corresponding noise
source.
Starting from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qla}) and (\ref{eq:efield}) we can find
the exact equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:exact}
\left\{\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}
-c^2\nabla^2
\right\} \hat E(x,t)-\sum_n\varepsilon_n u_n(x)\Big\{
\sum_k(L_{k,n}-\Gamma_{k,n})\frac{d}{dt}\hat a_k+h.c.\Big\}
=\nonumber\\
\sum_n\varepsilon_n u_n(x)\Big\{
-\frac{1}{4}\sum_{k,l}(L_{k,n}-
\Gamma_{k,n})(L_{l,k}-\Gamma_{l,k})\hat a_l\nonumber\\
+\frac{i}{2}\sum_k
(L_{k,n}-\Gamma_{k,n})(\omega_k-\omega_n)\hat a_k\nonumber\\
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_k(L_{k,n}-\Gamma_{k,n})\hat f_k-i\omega_n\hat f_n
+\frac{d}{dt}\hat f_n
\Big\}
+h.c.
\end{eqnarray}
with the mode functions $u_n(x)$ fulfilling the Helmholtz equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hh}
(c^2\nabla^2 +\omega_n^2)u_n(x)=0
\end{equation}
together with the appropriate boundary conditions.
At this point we introduce a number of approximations based on the
assumption that the average oscillation frequency $\bar\omega$ of the
electric field is much higher than the decay or amplification rates,
e.g.\ $|L_{n,m}|$ or $|\Gamma_{n,m}|$.
This is well justified in the optical regime where the former
is at least six orders of magnitude larger than the latter.
The spectral width $\Delta\omega$ of the relevant frequencies $\omega_n$ is
assumed to be of the order of the decay or amplification rate.
To be more specific, we will neglect terms of the order
${\cal O}(\lambda_\nu/\bar\omega)^2$,
${\cal O}(\lambda_\nu \Delta\omega/\bar\omega^2)$ and
${\cal O}(\Delta\omega/\bar\omega)^2$ or smaller, and
we assume
${\cal O}(\lambda_\nu)\approx {\cal O}(\gamma_\mu)$.
On the LHS of Eq.~(\ref{eq:exact}) the two terms
$\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}\hat E(x,t)$ and
$c^2\nabla^2 \hat E(x,t)$ are of the order ${\cal O}(\bar\omega)^2$.
Since the remaining term on the LHS of Eq.~(\ref{eq:exact}) is
proportional to the damping and amplification rate, we can approximate
the frequencies by the mean frequency $\bar \omega$.
Hence inserting the definitions of $L_{n,m}$ and $\Gamma_{n,m}$,
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:GaLa}), and of $\varepsilon_n$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:vacfield}),
the remaining term on the LHS of Eq.~(\ref{eq:exact}) yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:approxLG}
&&\sum_n\varepsilon_n u_n(x)
\sum_k(L_{k,n}-\Gamma_{k,n})\frac{d}{dt}\hat a_k+h.c.=\nonumber\\
&&\sum_n\varepsilon_n u_n(x)\sum_k\frac{\tau^2}{\hbar^2}
\varepsilon_n\varepsilon_k
\frac{1}{V}\int d^3x'(r_L(x')-r_\Gamma(x'))[u_n(x')d][u_k(x')d]
\frac{d}{dt}\hat a_k+h.c.=\nonumber\\
&&\frac{\tau^2}{\hbar^2}\sum_n\varepsilon_n^2 u_n(x)
\frac{1}{V}\int d^3x'(r_L(x')-r_\Gamma(x'))[u_n(x')d]d^T
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\hat E(x',t)
\approx\nonumber\\
&&\frac{\tau^2 \bar\omega}{2\epsilon_0\hbar}\int
d^3x'(r_L(x')-r_\Gamma(x'))\delta_T(x-x')d\otimes d^T
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\hat E(x',t)=
(R_L(x)-R_\Gamma(x))
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\hat E(x,t).
\end{eqnarray}
Here the matrices $L_{n,m}$ and $\Gamma_{n,m}$ occur in their position
representations
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eq:posrep}
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{V}
\sum_{n,m}u_n(x)\otimes u_m^T(x')L_{n,m}\approx
\frac{\tau^2 \bar\omega}{2\epsilon_0\hbar}
r_L(x)\delta_T(x-x')d\otimes d^T\equiv
R_L(x)\delta_T(x-x')
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{V}
\sum_{n,m}u_n(x)\otimes u_m^T(x')\Gamma_{n,m}\approx
\frac{\tau^2 \bar\omega}{2\epsilon_0\hbar}
r_\Gamma(x)\delta_T(x-x')d\otimes d^T\equiv
R_\Gamma(x)\delta_T(x-x').
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
Note that $R_L(x)$, $R_\Gamma(x)$, $d\otimes d^T$ and the transverse
$\delta$-function
\begin{equation}
\delta_T(x-x')=\frac{1}{V}\sum_n u_n(x)\otimes u_n^T(x')
\label{eq:delta}
\end{equation}
are tensors.
We can neglect the terms on the RHS of Eq.~(\ref{eq:exact})
containing the field operator
since they are of the order ${\cal O}(\lambda_\nu)^2$ or
${\cal O}(\lambda_\nu \Delta\omega)$, respectively.
For the noise we only take terms of lowest order.
Therefore we may neglect the first of the noise terms in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:exact}) and we approximate $\frac{d}{dt}\hat
f_n\approx-i\bar\omega\hat f_n$.
Introducing the position representation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fpos}
\hat f(x,t)=\sum_n \varepsilon_n u_n(x) \hat f_n(t)
\end{equation}
of the noise source we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tele}
\left\{\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}
-c^2\nabla^2-(R_L(x)-R_\Gamma(x))
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\right\} \hat E(x,t)=-2i\bar\omega\hat f(x,t) +h.c.
\end{equation}
The correlations of the noise operators are
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eq:corrpos}
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat f(x,t) \hat f^\dagger(x',t')\rangle=
\frac{\hbar\bar\omega}{2\epsilon_0}R_\Gamma(x)
\delta_T(x-x')\delta(t-t')
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat f^\dagger(x,t) \hat f(x',t')\rangle=
\frac{\hbar\bar\omega}{2\epsilon_0}R_L(x)
\delta_T(x-x')\delta(t-t').
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
Consequently the total noise on the RHS of Eq.~(\ref{eq:tele}) obeys
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:corrpostot}
\langle(-2i\bar\omega\hat f(x,t)+h.c.)^2\rangle=
\frac{\hbar\bar\omega^3}{\epsilon_0}(R_L(x)+R_\Gamma(x))
\delta_T(x-x')\delta(t-t').
\end{equation}
As expected, the effects of amplification and damping add for the noise
whereas they subtract for the amplification.
\section{Semi-classical treatment}
\label{sec:semi}
Starting from Eq.~(\ref{eq:tele}) we can now perform the transition to the
semi-classical treatment replacing operators with $c$-numbers.
The solution of Eq.~(\ref{eq:tele}) can conveniently be written using
the positive frequency part $E^{(+)}$ of the electromagnetic field.
The real part is the electric field and the
imaginary part relates to the magnetic field.
With the help of the Green function
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:green}
G^{(+)}(x,x',t)=\sum_\nu U_\nu(x)\bar U_\nu(x')
e^{\frac{1}{2}(\lambda_\nu-\gamma_\nu)t-i\Omega_\nu t}
\end{equation}
and the accumulated noise
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:addnoise}
N^{(+)}(x,t)=-2i\bar\omega \int\limits_0^t\! dt' \sum_\nu
e^{\frac{1}{2}(\lambda_\nu-\gamma_\nu)(t-t')-i\Omega_\nu (t-t')}
U_\nu(x)\frac{1}{V}\int d^3x'\bar U_\nu(x') f(x',t'),
\end{equation}
we find the field to be given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:evol}
E^{(+)}(x,t)=\frac{1}{V}\int d^3x' G^{(+)}(x,x',t) E^{(+)}(x',0)
+N^{(+)}(x,t)
\end{equation}
starting from the initial field $E^{(+)}(x',t=0)$.
Within the approximations made, the quasi-mode functions $U_\nu(x)$ and
$\bar U_\nu(x)$ and their eigenvalues $\lambda_\nu$, $\gamma_\nu$ and
$\Omega_\nu$ are the same as defined using the master equation,
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:rmode}) and (\ref{eq:lmode}).
When we now calculate the variance of the electric field $E(x,t)$
averaged over position and compare with
damping and amplification processes described by the usual single mode
master equation, we recover the same
$K$-factor, Eq.~(\ref{eq:Kqm}), as before.
We find for the noise term
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Nsq}
\frac{1}{V}\int d^3x \langle (N^{(+)}(x,t)+N^{(-)}(x,t))^2\rangle
=\nonumber\\
\frac{\hbar\bar\omega^3}{\epsilon_0}\sum_{\nu,\mu}\frac{
\exp\{\frac{1}{2}(\lambda_\nu+\lambda_\mu-\gamma_\nu-\gamma_\mu)t-
i(\Omega_\nu-\Omega_\mu)t\}-1}{\frac{1}{2}(\lambda_\nu+
\lambda_\mu-\gamma_\nu-\gamma_\mu)-i(\Omega_\nu-\Omega_\mu)}
\nonumber\\
\times
\frac{1}{V}\int d^3x\,U_\nu(x)U_\mu^*(x)\frac{1}{V}
\int d^3x\,\bar U_\nu(x)
(R_L(x)+R_\Gamma(x))\bar U_\mu^*(x).
\end{eqnarray}
Considering only one quasi mode, the noise simplifies to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Nsq2}
\frac{1}{V}\int d^3x \langle (N_\nu^{(+)}(x,t)+N_\nu^{(-)}(x,t))^2\rangle
\approx\nonumber\\
\frac{\hbar\bar\omega^3}{\epsilon_0}\frac{
\exp\{(\lambda_\nu-\gamma_\nu)t\}-1}{\lambda_\nu-\gamma_\nu}
(\lambda_\nu+\gamma_\nu)K_\nu
\end{eqnarray}
with the enhancement factor in the commonly used form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:KK}
K_\nu=\frac{\int d^3x\,U_\nu(x)U_\nu^*(x) \int d^3x\,\bar U_\nu(x) \bar
U_\nu^*(x)}{\left|\int
d^3x\,U_\nu(x)\bar U_\nu(x)\right|^2}.
\end{equation}
Note that our choice of the normalization for the quasi-mode functions
is given as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ortho}).
We have shown in Ref.~\cite{bardroff} that Eq.~(\ref{eq:KK}) agrees
with Eq.~(\ref{eq:Kqm}) up to the order
${\cal O}(\Delta\omega/\bar\omega)^2$.
Siegman \cite{semi} used an equation analogous to Eq.~(\ref{eq:tele})
as the starting point for his derivation of the excess-noise factor.
However, there are two interesting differences in the details of the
noise source correlations, Eq.~(\ref{eq:corrpostot}).
The first difference in Ref.~\cite{semi} is that the spatial
transverse $\delta$-function is replaced by a usual $\delta$-function
and that the temporal $\delta$-function is replaced by the Hertzian
bandwidth $\Delta\omega/(2\pi)$ of the reservoir.
The latter circumstance is explained by using the Fourier
representation of our noise correlation in Eq.~(\ref{eq:corrpostot});
this leads to the same equation with $\delta(t-t')$ replaced by
$\delta(\omega-\omega')/2\pi$.
We then integrate with respect to $\omega$ and $\omega'$ over the
frequency bandwidth $\Delta\omega$ to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{2}\left[\,\,\,
\int\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\int\limits_{\bar\omega-\Delta\omega/2}^{\bar\omega+\Delta\omega/2}\!
\frac{d\omega d\omega'}{2\pi}
\delta(\omega-\omega') e^{-i(\omega t-\omega' t')}+c.c.\right]
&=&\frac{\sin(\Delta\omega(t-t')/2)}{2\pi(t-t')}e^{-i\bar\omega
(t-t')}+c.c.
\nonumber\\
&\approx&\frac{1}{2}\left[
\frac{\Delta\omega}{2\pi} e^{-i\bar\omega (t-t')}+c.c.\right]
\label{eq:herzb}
\end{eqnarray}
for $|t-t'|<(\Delta\omega)^{-1}$.
This approximation is reasonable when the mean frequency $\bar\omega$
of the noise is much larger then the bandwidth $\Delta\omega$.
The second difference in Ref.~\cite{semi} is that
$(R_L(x)+R_\Gamma(x))$ is replaced by
$2\left(\frac{R_L}{R_L-R_\Gamma}\right)(R_L-R_\Gamma)=2R_L$
with spatially constant
$R_L$ and $R_\Gamma$.
This simplification is justified only when averaging over the whole
volume V and when amplification and damping are balanced.
For the derivation of the $K$-factor which involves an
average over position, this is a valid replacement.
However, one has to be aware of the subtlety that only non-constant
$R_L(x)$ and $R_\Gamma(x)$ with $R_L(x)\neq R_\Gamma(x)$ lead to
non-orthogonal quasi modes and hence can give $K>1$.
It is interesting to note that within the paraxial approximation, we
obtain an equation analogous to the position representation of
Eq.~(\ref{eq:qla})---the starting point of our semi-classical analysis.
Making the ansatz
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ansatz}
E^{(+)}(x,t)=e^{i\bar\omega(z/c-t)}\tilde E^{(+)}(x)
\end{equation}
with $\tilde E^{(+)}(x)$ slowly varying with respect to the longitudinal
coordinate $z$, we get from Eq.~(\ref{eq:tele})
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:paraxial}
c \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\tilde E^{(+)}(x)=
\left\{\frac{1}{2}(R_L(x)-R_\Gamma(x))
+\frac{i c^2}{2\bar\omega}\nabla_T^2\right\}\tilde E^{(+)}(x)
+\tilde f(x)
\end{equation}
where $f(x,t)\approx e^{i\bar\omega(z/c-t)}\tilde f(x)$.
The time derivative $d/dt$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq:qla}) is replaced
by the derivative with respect the longitudinal coordinate $c
\partial/\partial z$ which is equivalent in a frame moving
with the electromagnetic wave.
The frequency part of Eq.~(\ref{eq:qla}) is replaced by the
transverse Laplacian.
Frequently, Eq.~(\ref{eq:paraxial}) is solved with mode functions of the
transverse Laplace equation, depending only parametrically on the
longitudinal coordinate.
This distinction between longitudinal and transverse coordinates leads
to a factorization of the $K$-factor into a longitudinal and a
transverse part.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
In an earlier paper \cite{bardroff}, we derived the master equation
for a set of modes coupled to amplifying and attenuating reservoirs.
This introduces couplings between the undamped modes of the total
``universe'' and leads directly to the introduction of quasi modes,
which are found to exhibit the excess noise
described originally by Petermann \cite{peter}.
Our treatment has been carried out only in the linear regime so far.
This describes an amplifier or an attenuator, where the treatment is
most straightforward and the results display the most transparent
physical insight.
However, the saturation in an operating laser will need to be
considered, and we are for the moment carrying out such calculations,
which show the influence of the excess noise in the strong field
situation.
The best physical picture of this noise was provided by Siegman
\cite{semi}, who also supplied the quasi-mode expression for the
excess-noise factor.
This has then been used successfully to describe the experimental
findings \cite{output,semicond,gas,polar,aperture}.
In \cite{bardroff} we showed that our quantum mechanical approach
naturally provides an expression which is essentially identical with
Siegman's results.
Siegman, however, utilized a semi-classical Langevin approach, where
the noise forces were added {\em ad hoc} to the classical equations
for the amplitudes; the noise forces were then supplied with properly
chosen correlation properties, which was shown to imply the presence
of excess noise.
Because this approach has been found to give both a physically
attractive and theoretically justified description of the situation,
we find it interesting to connect that treatment to our quantum
approach in some detail.
In this paper we derive the quantum Langevin equations following from
our general master equation.
Here we utilize techniques known from quantum noise theory, and obtain
results that can be directly compared with the treatment of Siegman's,
when the semi-classical limit is taken.
Except for some minor differences, our resulting equations are
identical with those used by Siegman.
We thus claim that we have justified his formulation of the problem
from a more fundamental quantum mechanical point of view.
The differences found are either based on natural approximations or
obvious qualifications of the results as e.g.\ the introduction of the
transverse delta function in the noise correlations.
In addition, we have been able to generalize the theory to
situations outside the paraxial approximation.
The results of our treatment, however, have bearings beyond the
problem of excess noise in highly lossy cavities.
The approach is quite general, and in
addition to the Markov approximation we only need the rotating wave
approximation for the interaction with the reservoirs.
The master equation is then derived from first principles, and the
nonorthogonal quasi modes emerge in a natural manner.
The theory is fully general and may well be
applicable to other high loss physical systems as well.
For the moment we know of no observation that would show the
equivalent of the laser excess noise, but novel situations may soon
turn up.
The lively research activity in quantum information processing, atom
optics and novel measurement situations may provide potential
applications of the present theory.
The physics of our approach resides in the coupling of the undamped
modes through the reservoirs.
In such a situation, the only essential assumption
in our derivation is the Markovian approximation.
In highly damped systems, this may not necessarily hold, and the
introduction of memory effects in our theory has not been considered
so far.
Some features are, however, expected to survive, but also unexpected
complications may appear.
These questions remain to be investigated.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is well known that Ashtekar's formulation of gravity admits degenerate
triads and hence degenerate metrics [1]. Various kinds of degenerate
solutions to the Ashtekar's equations have been investigated [2-8]. Using a
``covariant approach'', Bengtsson and Jacobson [6] obtained a few
4-dimensional spacetimes containing a ``phase boundary'' separating a
degenerate region from a nondegenerate one.
According to Ref.[6], the covariant approach starts from a nondegenerate
metric which solves Einstein's equations, and then reparametrize one of the
coordinates. This reparametrization is chosen so that it is not a
diffeomorphism at some particular value of the coordinate. Adopting the new
coordinate, the solution can be smoothly matched to a solution to the
Ashtekar equations with a degenerate metric at the surface where the
transformation misbehaves. To make things clearer we reformulate this
procedure as follows. Let $M$ be a 4-dimensional manifold and $M_1$ a
4-dimensional submanifold with a 3-dimensional boundary $\partial M_1$.
Suppose $\hat{M}$ is a 4-dimensional manifold with a nondegenerate metric $%
\hat{g}_{\mu \nu }$ which solves the Einstein's equations, and $\phi $ is a
diffeomorphism from $M_1$ to some open set $\hat{M}_1\subset \hat{M}$.
Extend the domain of $\phi $ to the whole of $M$ so that $\phi :M\rightarrow
\hat{M}$ is smooth with $M-M_1$ being mapped onto $\phi [\partial M_1]$, and
the pushforward $\phi _{*}$ restricted to the tangent bundle of $\partial $$%
M_1$ to that of $\phi [\partial M_1]$ is nondegenerate. (It is assumed that $%
\phi :M_1\rightarrow \hat{M}_1$ has been chosen so that such an extension is
possible.) Then the pullback $g_{\mu \nu }\equiv \phi ^{*}\hat{g}_{\mu \nu }$
is nondegenerate on $M_1$ and degenerate on $M-M_1$. One therefore has a
spacetime $(M,g_{\mu \nu })$ with a ``phase boundary'' separating a
nondegenerate region from a degenerate one. It is clear that the
``reparametrization procedure'' mentioned above is a special case of this
treatment. The authors of Ref.[6] viewed $\phi [\partial M_1]$ as the phase
boundary and raised an interesting question: Is the phase boundary always
null? They conjectured that the answer is ``yes'' provided that the metric
is a ``regular'' solution to Ashtekar's evolution equations, that is,
solutions in which the canonical variables $(A_a^i,E_i^a)$, the shift vector
$N^i$, and the lapse density $\underline{N}$ all take finite values which,
except for $\underline{N}$, are allowed to vanish. (Since $\underline{N}=N/%
\sqrt{q}$, where $N$ is the usual lapse scalar and $q$ the determinant of
the spatial metric, the requirement that $\underline{N}$ should stay finite
is non-trivial when the spatial metric becomes degenerate.)
Having reformulated the ``reparametrization procedure'' in the mapping
language as stated above, in our opinion it seems reasonable that the
``phase boundary'' should refer to $\partial M_1$ rather than $\phi
[\partial M_1]$ since the latter is not at all a boundary between a
degenerate region and a nondegenerate one, although Ref.[6] took a different
view. We will first show in Sec.2 that $\phi [\partial M_1]$ has to be a
null hypersurface. In Sec.3 we will argue that under certain circumstances $%
\partial M_1$ could be nonnull as judged by the criterion similar to that of
Ref.[6]. Some discussions about the criterion are given in Sec.4.
\section{On the boundary $\phi [\partial M_1]$}
We now show that the hypersurface $\phi [\partial M_1]$, which is viewed as
the degenerate phase boundary in Ref.[6], must be null if the pullback
metric $g_{\mu \nu }$ on $M$ is a regular solution to Ashtekar's equations.
Consider a ``3+1 decomposition'' of the metric :
\begin{equation}
ds^2=g_{00}dt^2+2g_{0i}dtdx^i+g_{ij}dx^idx^j=(-N^2+N^iN_i)dt^2+2N_idtdx^i+g_{ij}dx^idx^j,
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the lapse scalar and $N^i$ the shift vector which relates to
the metric components via
\begin{equation}
g_{ij}N^j=g_{0i},\qquad i=1,2,3.
\end{equation}
Since $q\equiv \det (g_{ij})=0$ in the degenerate region of $M$, there
exists a non-vanishing 3-vector $\lambda ^i$ such that $g_{ij}\lambda ^i=0$,
and Eq.(2) then implies that $g_{0i}\lambda ^i=0$. Hence there exists a
4-vector
\[
T^\nu =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
\lambda ^i
\end{array}
\right)
\]
at each point of $M-M_1$ such that $g_{\mu \nu }T^\nu =0$. Furthermore, in
the degenerate region the lapse scalar $N$ must vanish in order to keep the
lapse density $\underline{N}$ finite, hence it follows from Eq.(1) that
\begin{equation}
-g_{00}+g_{0i}N^i=N^2=0.
\end{equation}
Eq.(3) together with Eq.(2) provides another 4-vector
\[
S^\nu =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
-N^i
\end{array}
\right)
\]
at each point of $M-M_1$ such that $g_{\mu \nu }S^\nu =0$. It is obvious
that $T^\nu $ and $S^\nu $ are linearly independent of each other, and hence
represent two independent degenerate directions of $g_{\mu \nu }$. That is
to say, the degenerate subspace of the tangent space at each point of $M-M_1$
is at least 2-dimensional. Since $\partial M_1$ is 3-dimensional, there must
be some degenerate vector field, $W^\nu $, that is tangent to $\partial M_1$%
. It then follows from the nondegeneracy of the pushforward $\phi _{*}$
(restricted to $\partial M_1$) that there is a vector field, $\phi _{*}W^\nu
$, on $\phi [\partial M_1]$ such that (i) $\phi _{*}W^\nu \neq 0$; (ii) $%
\phi _{*}W^\nu $ is tangent to $\phi [\partial M_1]$; (iii) $\phi _{*}W^\nu $
is orthogonal to all vector fields tangent to $\phi [\partial M_1]$ due to $%
g_{\mu \nu }=\phi ^{*}\hat{g}_{\mu \nu }$. We therefore conclude that $\phi
[\partial M_1]$ is a null hypersurface with null normal $\phi _{*}W^\nu $,
and hence the conjecture in Ref.[6] has been proved.
Note, however, that the Ashtekar's equations are not at all needed in our
proof. It turns out that these equations being necessary for the validity of
the conjecture as claimed in Ref.[6] is simply caused by an error, i.e., a
superfluous term, $H_R\dot{R}^2$, in Eq.(55) of it.
\section{On the degenerate phase boundary $\partial M_1$}
In this section we will argue through an example that, although $\phi
[\partial M_1]$ is always null, it is not the case for $\partial M_1$
according to the criterion similar to that of Ref.[6]. Since the metric $%
g_{\mu \nu }$ is degenerate on $\partial M_1$, it is a delicate issue what
definition of nullness of $\partial M_1$ is used. Noticing the criterion for
the nullness of $\phi [\partial M_1]$ used in Ref.[6], we define $\partial
M_1$ to be null if it is null ``when viewed from the nondegenerate side''.
More precisely, suppose $\partial M_1$ is given by $f=0$, where $f$ is a
smooth function with $\nabla _af|_{\partial M_1}\neq 0$, then $\partial M_1$
is said to be null if $g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu f\nabla _\nu f\rightarrow 0$
as $\partial M_1$ is approached.
Let $(U,X^i)\,(i=1,2,3)$ be a coordinate system on $\hat{M}$ with $U=0$
representing the null hypersurface $\phi [\partial M_1]$ (assuming that $%
\phi [\partial M_1]$ can be covered by a single 4-dimensional coordinate
patch), and the line element of $\hat{g}_{\mu \nu }$ in this coordinate
system reads
\begin{equation}
d\hat{s}=\hat{g}_{UU}dU^2+2\hat{g}_{Ui}dUdX^i+\hat{q}_{ij}dX^idX^j.
\end{equation}
The nullness of $\phi [\partial M_1]$ then implies $\lim {_{U\rightarrow 0}}%
\hat{q}=0$ where $\hat{q}\equiv \det (\hat{q}_{ij})$. The mapping $\phi
:M\rightarrow \hat{M}$ induces four functions $\phi ^{*}U,\phi
^{*}X^i\,(i=1,2,3)$ on $M$ with $\phi ^{*}U|_{M-M_1}=0$. Let $(u,x^i)$ be a
coordinate system on $M$ with $u|_{\partial M_1}=0$ and $x^i=\phi ^{*}X^i$,
then one has a function $U(u)$ [short for $(\phi ^{*}U)(u)$ ] with $%
U^{\prime }(u)|_{M-M_1}\equiv \frac{dU}{du}|_{M-M_1}=0$. The line element of
$g_{\mu \nu }$ in this coordinate system is as follows:
\begin{equation}
ds^2=U^{\prime }\hat{g}_{UU}du^2+2U^{\prime }\hat{g}_{Ui}dudx^i+\hat{q}%
_{ij}dx^idx^j.
\end{equation}
This is exactly the procedure of ``reparametrization of one of the
coordinates'' mentioned in Sec.1. Now the key quantity needed for judging
whether $\partial M_1$ is null is
\begin{equation}
g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu u\nabla _\nu u=\hat{q}/g,
\end{equation}
where $g$ denotes the determinant of the line element (5) and can be
expressed as
\begin{equation}
g=(U^{\prime })^2\hat{g}
\end{equation}
with $\hat{g}$ the determinant of the line element (4), which does not
vanish since $\hat{g}_{\mu \nu }$ is nondegenerate. It then follows from
Eqs.(6) and (7) that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0^{+}}g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu u\nabla _\nu
u=\lim_{u\rightarrow 0^{+}}\frac{\hat{q}}{(U^{\prime })^2\hat{g}}%
=\lim_{u\rightarrow 0^{+}}\frac 1{2\hat{g}U^{\prime \prime }}\frac{\partial
\hat{q}}{\partial U},
\end{equation}
where $U^{\prime \prime }\equiv dU^{\prime }/du$, and we assume $u>0$ in $%
M_1 $ for convenience. Since $\hat{g}$ is finite and $U^{\prime \prime }$
approaches zero as $u\rightarrow 0^{+}$, it is quite probable to construct
an example in which the hypersurface $u=0$ is nonnull by requiring $%
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0^{+}}\partial \hat{q}/\partial U\neq 0$ or the rate of
approaching zero of $\partial \hat{q}/\partial U$ is equal to or less than
that of $U^{\prime \prime }$. The following is a concrete example.
Let $(\hat{M},\hat{g}_{\mu \nu })$ be the Minkowski spacetime and the line
element in double null coordinates $(\bar{U},\bar{V},Y,Z)$ reads
\begin{equation}
d\hat{s}^2=-d\bar{U}d\bar{V}+dY^2+dZ^2.
\end{equation}
A simple coordinate transformation
\[
\bar{U}=Ue^{-V},\ \bar{V}=V
\]
turns it to
\begin{equation}
d\hat{s}^2=-e^{-V}(dU-UdV)dV+dY^2+dZ^2.
\end{equation}
It is obvious that $U=0$ is a null hypersurface which serves as $\phi
[\partial M_1]$ of the previous discussion. Define $u$ on $M_1$ such that
\begin{equation}
U(u)=u^3e^u
\end{equation}
in $M_1$. [The fact $U(u)=0$ in $M-M_1$ follows automatically from the
mapping $\phi $ that requires $\phi (M-M_1)=\phi [\partial M_1]$.] the
metric $g_{\mu \nu }\equiv \phi ^{*}\hat{g}_{\mu \nu }$ now reads
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-e^{-V}(U^{\prime }du-UdV)dV+dY^2+dZ^2,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
U^{\prime }\equiv \frac{dU}{du}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u^2(u+3)e^u & \mbox{ in }M_1 \\
0 & \mbox{ in }M-M_1
\end{array}
\right. .
\end{equation}
It is obvious from Eq.(10) that $\hat{q}=Ue^{-V}$ and hence
\[
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0^{+}}\frac{\partial \hat{q}}{\partial U}=e^{-V}\neq 0,
\]
therefore $g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu u\nabla _\nu u$ approaches infinity
rather than zero as $u\rightarrow 0^{+}$, and consequently the phase
boundary $\partial M_1$ is nonnull in the sense above. To check that the
example is really a regular solution to Ashtekar's equations, we make a
simple coordinate transformation
\[
u=t-x,\quad V=t+x
\]
and obtain from Eq.(12) that
\begin{equation}
ds^2=e^{-V}[(U-U^{\prime })dt^2+2Udtdx+(U+U^{\prime })dx^2]+dY^2+dZ^2.
\end{equation}
Eqs.(11) and (13) imply
\[
U-U^{\prime }\leq 0,\quad U+U^{\prime }\geq 0,
\]
hence Eq.(14) is a standard formulation of the spacetime metric that can be
regarded as a regular solution to Ashtekar's constraint and evolution
equations
\[
{\cal D}_aE_i^a=0,\ E_i^aF_{ab}^i=0,\ E_i^aE_j^bF_{abk}\epsilon ^{ijk}=0,
\]
\[
\dot{E}_i^b=-i{\cal D}_a(\underline{N}E_j^aE_k^b)\epsilon ^{ijk}+2{\cal D}%
_a(N^{[a}E_i^{b]}),
\]
\[
\dot{A}_b^i=i\underline{N}E_j^aF_{abk}\epsilon ^{ijk}+N^aF_{ab}^i,
\]
where
\begin{eqnarray}
E_1^a &=&\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
-\frac 12[e^{-V}(U+U^{\prime })+1] \\
\frac i2[e^{-V}(U+U^{\prime })-1]
\end{array}
\right) , \nonumber \\
E_2^a &=&\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
-\frac i2[e^{-V}(U+U^{\prime })-1] \\
-\frac 12[e^{-V}(U+U^{\prime })+1]
\end{array}
\right) , \nonumber \\
E_3^a &=&\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0 \\
0
\end{array}
\right) , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and
\[
A_a^i=0,
\]
with lapse density and shift vector
\[
\underline{N}=\frac{U^{\prime }}{U+U^{\prime }},\ \ N^1=\frac U{U+U^{\prime }%
},\ N^2=N^3=0.
\]
Note that
\[
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0^{+}}\underline{N}=1,\quad \lim_{u\rightarrow
0^{+}}N^1=0
\]
as the degenerate region is approached.
It should be noted that the third derivative of the function $U(u)$ is not
continuous at the phase boundary $u=0$. However, the power 3 of $u$ in
Eq.(11) can be replaced by any real number greater than 3 to obtain the
desired differentiability.
\section{Discussions}
The idea that the phase boundary, $\partial M_1$, is always null is so
attractive that it seems intriguing to attribute the existence of the
counterexample presented in the previous section simply to the inappropriate
definition of the nullness of the phase boundary. As a matter of fact, the
definition used above has a fatal drawback: whether the phase boundary is
null depends upon the choice of the function which vanishes on the boundary.
Let $f$ and $\bar{f}$ be two distinct functions with $f=\bar{f}=0$ on the
phase boundary and $\nabla _\mu f|_{f=0}\neq 0$ and $\nabla _\mu \bar{f}|_{%
\bar{f}=0}\neq 0$, then there exists a function $\lambda $ on the boundary
such that $\nabla _\mu f|_{f=0}=\lambda \nabla _\mu \bar{f}|_{\bar{f}=0}$.
If $g^{\mu \nu }|_{f=0}$ were finite, then $g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu f\nabla
_\nu f|_{f=0}$ would be equal to $\lambda ^2g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu \bar{f}%
\nabla _\nu \bar{f}|_{\bar{f}=0}$, and hence $g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu
f\nabla _\nu f|_{f=0}=0$ if and only if $g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu \bar{f}%
\nabla _\nu \bar{f}|_{\bar{f}=0}=0$. However, since $g^{\mu \nu }|_{f=0}$ is
infinite, to judge the nullness of the phase boundary one has to calculate $%
g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu f\nabla _\nu f$ and $g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu \bar{f}%
\nabla _\nu \bar{f}$ in the nondegenerate side and then take the limit.
Since $g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu f\nabla _\nu f\neq g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu
\bar{f}\nabla _\nu \bar{f}$ in general, there is no guarantee for the
equivalence of $\lim_{f\rightarrow 0}g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu f\nabla _\nu
f=0 $ and $\lim_{\bar{f}\rightarrow 0}g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu \bar{f}\nabla
_\nu \bar{f}=0$. If one chooses $f$ so that all $f=const.$ hypersurfaces in
the nondegenerate side are null, then $g^{\mu \nu }\nabla _\mu f\nabla _\nu
f=0$ everywhere in the nondegenerate side, hence the limit vanishes,
implying the nullness of the phase boundary. For instance, we could choose $%
f=ue^{(u-V)/3} $ in our example of Sec.3 to obtain this result. However, the
function $u$ in Sec.3 (playing the same role as $f$ here) was chosen
intentionally so that the hypersurfaces $u=const.$ are nonnull except for $%
u=0$, leading to the conclusion that $\lim_{u\rightarrow 0^{+}}g^{\mu \nu
}\nabla _\mu u\nabla _\nu u\neq 0$ and hence the same boundary becomes
nonnull. To save the attractive idea that the phase boundary, $\partial M_1$%
, is always null just as its image, $\phi [\partial M_1]$, it is necessary
to look for a suitable definition of the nullness of the boundary. (This
open question has been solved by the time when this paper is accepted [9].)
\acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Prof. Ted Jacobson for his comments on the
original manuscript and his valuable suggestions. This work has been
supported by the National Science Foundation of China.
|
\section{Introduction}
Jeans's theory fails because it is linear. Linear theories
typically fail when applied to nonlinear processes; for example,
applications of the linearized Navier-Stokes equations
to problems of fluid mechanics give laminar solutions,
but observations show that actual flows
are turbulent when the Reynolds number is large.
Cosmology (e.g.; \cite{pbl93}, \cite{pad93}) relies exclusively
on Jeans's theory in modelling the
formation of structure by gravitational instability. Because
$L_J$ for baryonic (ordinary) matter
in the hot plasma epoch following the Big Bang is larger
than the Hubble scale of causality $L_H \equiv ct$, where
$c$ is the speed of light and $t$ is the time, no baryonic structures
can form until the cooling plasma forms neutral gas.
Star and galaxy formation models invented to accommodate
both Jeans's theory and the
observations of early structure formation have employed a variety
of innovative maneuvers and concepts. Nonbaryonic ``cold
dark matter'' was invented to permit nonbaryonic condensations in
the plasma epoch with gravitational potential wells that
could guide the early formation of baryonic galaxy masses.
Fragmentation theories were proposed to produce
$M_{\sun}$-stars rather
than Jeans-superstars at the
$10^{5} M_{\sun}$ proto-globular-cluster Jeans mass
of the hot primordial gas.
Both of these concepts have severe fluid mechanical difficulties
according to the \cite{gib96} theory. Cold dark matter cannot
condense at the galactic scales needed
because its nonbaryonic, virtually collisionless, nature
requires it to have an enormous diffusivity
with supergalactic $L_{SD}$ length scales.
Fragmentation theories (e.g., \cite{low76}) are based on a faulty
condensation premise that
implies large velocities and a powerful turbulence regime
that would produce a first generation of large stars with
minimum mass
determined by the turbulent Schwarz scale $L_{ST} \equiv
\varepsilon ^{1/2} /(\rho G)^{3/4}$,
where $\varepsilon$ is the viscous
dissipation rate of the turbulence, with a flurry of starbursts,
supernovas, and metal production that is not observed
in globular star clusters. The population of small, long-lived,
metal-free, globular cluster stars observed is strong evidence
of a quiet, weakly turbulent formation regime.
\section{Jeans's acoustic theory}
Jeans considered the problem of gravitational
condensation in a large body of nearly constant
density, nearly motionless gas. Viscosity and diffusivity
were ignored. The density and momentum conservation
equations were linearized by dropping second order
terms after substituting mean plus fluctuating values
for the density, pressure, gravitational potential, and velocity.
Details of the derivation are given in
many cosmological texts (e.g.; \cite{kol94}, p342) so
they need not be repeated here.
The mean gravitational force
$\nabla \phi$ is assumed to be
zero, violating the Poisson equation
\begin{equation}
\nabla ^2 \phi = 4 \pi G \rho ,
\end{equation}
where $\phi$ is the gravitational potential, in
what is known as the Jeans swindle.
Cross-differentiating the linearized perturbation
equations produces a single, second order differential
equation satisfied by Fourier modes propagating at the
speed of sound $V_s$. From the dispersion equation
\begin{equation}
\omega^2 = V_s^2 k^2 - 4 \pi G \rho ,
\end{equation}
where $\omega$ is the frequency and $k$ is the wavenumber,
a critical wavenumber $k_J = (4 \pi G \rho / V_s^2)^{1/2}$
exists, called the $\emph{Jeans wavenumber}$. For $k$
less than $k_J$, $\omega$ is imaginary and the mode
grows exponentially with time. For $k$
larger than $k_J$, the mode is a propagating sound wave.
Density was assumed to be a function only of pressure
(the barotropic assumption).
Either the barotropic assumption or the linearization of
the momentum and density equations are sufficient to reduce
the problem to one of acoustics. Physically,
sound waves provide density nuclei at wavecrests
that can trigger gravitational condensation if their time
of propagation $\lambda/V_s$ for wavelength
$\lambda$ is longer than the \emph{gravitational free fall
time} $\tau_g \equiv (\rho G)^{-1/2}$. Setting the two times
equal gives the Jeans gravitational instability
criterion: gravitational condensation occurs only
for $\lambda \ge L_J$.
Jeans's analysis fails to account for the effects of gravity,
diffusivity, or fluid mechanical forces
upon nonacoustic density maxima and density minima; that is, points
surrounded on all sides by either lower or higher density.
These move
approximately with the
fluid velocity, not $V_s$, (\cite{gib68}). The evolution of such
\emph{zero gradient points}
and associated \emph{minimal gradient surfaces} is critical
to turbulent mixing theory (\cite{gak88}). Turbulence
scrambles passive scalar fields such as temperature, chemical species
concentration and density to produce nonacoustic extrema,
saddle points, doublets, saddle lines and minimal
gradient surfaces. A quasi-equilibrium
develops between convection and diffusion
at such zero gradient points and minimal gradient
surfaces that is the basis of a universal
similarity theory of turbulent mixing (\cite{gib91})
analogous to the universal similarity theory of Kolmogorov
for turbulence.
Just as turbulent velocity fields are damped by viscosity
at the Kolmogorov length scale $L_K \equiv (\nu/\gamma)^{1/2}$,
where $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity and $\gamma$ is the
rate-of-strain, scalar fields like temperature are damped
by diffusivity at the Batchelor length scale $L_B \equiv
(D/\gamma)^{1/2}$, where $D$ is the molecular diffusivity. This
prediction has been confirmed by laboratory experiments
and numerical simulations (\cite{gak88}) for
the range $10^{-2} \le Pr \le 10^5$, where the Prandtl
number $Pr \equiv \nu/D$.
On cosmological length scales, density fields scrambled
by turbulence are not necessarily dynamically passive but
may respond to gravitational forces. In the density
conservation equation
\begin{equation}
\partial \rho/\partial t + v_i (\partial \rho/\partial x_i)
= D_\mathrm{eff}\partial ^2 \rho/\partial x_j \partial x_j
\end{equation}
the effective diffusivity of density
$D_\mathrm{eff} \equiv D - L^2 /\tau_g$
is affected by gravitation in
the vicinity of minimal density gradient features, and
reverses its sign to negative if the feature size $L$ is larger than
the diffusive Schwarz scale $L_{SD}$ (\cite{gib98}).
$L_{SD} \equiv (D^2/\rho G)^{1/4}$ is derived
by setting the diffusive velocity $v_D \approx D/L$
of an isodensity surface
a distance $L$ from a minimal gradient configuration
equal to the gravitational velocity
$v_g \approx L/\tau_g$. Thus, nonacoustic density maxima in
a quiescent,
otherwise homogeneous, fluid
are absolutely unstable to gravitational condensation,
and nonacoustic density minima are absolutely unstable to
void formation, on scales larger than $L_{SD}$.
Jeans believed from his analysis (\cite{jns29}) that
sound waves with $\lambda \ge L_J$ would grow in
amplitude indefinitely, producing unlimited kinetic energy
from his gravitational instability. This is clearly
incorrect, since any wavecrest that collects a finite
quantity of mass from the ambient fluid will also collect
its zero momentum and become a nonacoustic density nucleus.
From the enormous Jeans mass values indicated at high temperature,
he believed he had proved his speculation that the cores of galaxies
consisted of hot gas (emerging from other Universes!) and not stars,
which could only form in the cooler (smaller $L_J$)
spiral arms, thrown into cold outer space
by centrifugal forces of the spinning core. The
concepts of \emph{pressure support} and \emph{thermal support}
often used to justify Jeans's theory are good examples
of bad dimensional analysis, lacking any proper physical basis.
\section{Fluid mechanical theory}
Gravitational condensation on a nonacoustic density
maximum is limited by either diffusion
or by viscous, magnetic or turbulent forces at diffusive,
viscous, magnetic, or turbulent Schwarz scales $L_{SX}$,
whichever is largest, where $X$ is $D,V,M,T$,
respectively (\cite{gib96, gib98}).
Magnetic forces are assumed to be
unimportant for the cosmological conditions of interest.
Gravitational forces $F_g \approx \rho^2 G L^4$ equal
viscous forces $F_V \approx \rho \nu \gamma L^2$ at
$L_{SV} \equiv (\nu \gamma/\rho G)^{1/2}$, and turbulent
forces $F_T \approx \rho (\varepsilon)^{2/3}L^{8/3}$ at
$L_{ST} \equiv \varepsilon ^{1/2} /(\rho G)^{3/4}$.
Kolmogorov's theory is used to estimate the turbulent
forces as a function of length scale $L$.
The criterion (Gibson 1996, 1997a, 1997b;
Gibson and Schild 1998a, 1998b)
for gravitational condensation or void
formation at scale $L$ is therefore
\begin{equation}
L \ge \left( L_{SX} \right)_{\mathrm {max}};
X = D,V,M,T .
\end{equation}
\section{Structures in the plasma epoch}
Without the Jeans constraint, structure formation
begins in the early stages of the hot plasma
epoch after the Big Bang
when decreasing viscous forces first permit gravitational
decelerations and sufficient time has elapsed for the
information about density variations to propagate; that
is, the decreasing viscous
Schwarz scale $L_{SV}$ becomes smaller than the
increasing Hubble scale $L_H \equiv ct$, where $c$ is the
velocity of light. Low levels of temperature fluctuations
of the primordial gas indicated by the COsmic microwave
Background Experiment (COBE) satellite
($\delta T/T \approx 10^{-5}$) constrain the velocity
fluctuations $\delta v /c \ll 10^{-5}$ to
levels of very weak turbulence. Setting the
observed mass of superclusters $\approx 10^{46}$ kg
equal to the Hubble mass $\rho L_H^3$
computed from Einstein's equations (\cite{win72},
Table 15.4) indicates the time of first structure
was $\approx 10^{12}$ s, or $30\,000$ y (\cite{gib97b}).
Setting $L_H \approx 3 \, 10^{20}$ m (10 kpc) = $L_{SV}$
gives $\nu \approx 6 \, 10^{27}$ $ \mathrm{m^2 \, s^{-1}}$
with $\rho \approx 10^{-15}$ $ \mathrm{kg \, m^{-3}}$ and
$\gamma \approx 1/t = 10^{-12}$ $ \mathrm{rad \, s^{-1}}$.
Such a large viscosity suggests a neutrino-electron-proton
coupling mechanism, presumably
through the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW)
effect (\cite{bak97}), supporting the Neutrino-98 claim that neutrinos
have mass.
The viscous condensation mass $\rho L_{SV}^3$ decreases
to about $10^{42}$ kg (\cite{gib96}) as the Universe expands
and cools to the plasma-gas transition at $t \approx 10^{13}$
s, or $300\,000$ y, based on Einstein's equations
to determine $T$ and $\rho$ and assuming
the usual dependence of viscosity $\nu$ on temperature $T$
(\cite{win72}). Assuming gravitational decelerations
that are possible always occur, we see that protosupercluster,
protocluster, and protogalaxy structure formation
should be well
underway before the emergence of the primordial gas.
\section{Primordial fog formation}
The first condensation scales of the primordial
gas mixture of hydrogen and helium are the maximum size
Schwarz scale, and an initial length scale
$L_{IC} \equiv (RT/\rho G)^{1/2}$
equal to the Jeans scale $L_J$ but independent
of Jeans's linear perturbation stability analysis,
and acoustics, where $R$ is
the gas constant of the mixture.
From the ideal gas law $p/\rho = RT$ we see that
density increases can be compensated by pressure
increases with no change in temperature in a uniform
temperature gas, and that gravitational forces
$F_g \approx \rho ^2 G L^4$
will dominate the resulting pressure gradient forces
$F_p \approx p L^2 = \rho R T L^2$ for length scales
$L \ge L_{IC}$. Taking $R \approx 5\,000$
$\mathrm{m^2 \, s^{-2} \, K^{-1}}$,
$\rho \approx 10^{-18}$ $\mathrm{kg \, m^{-3}}$ m
(\cite{win72})
and $T \approx 3\,000$ K gives a condensation
mass $\rho L_{IC}^3 \approx 10^5 M_{\sun}$, the
mass of a globular cluster of stars. Because
the temperature of the primordial gas was observed
to be quite uniform by COBE, we can expect the
protogalaxy masses of primordial gas emerging from the plasma
epoch to immediately fragment into proto-globular-cluster
(PGC) gas objects on $L_{IC} \approx 3 \, 10^{17}$ m (10 pc)
scales, with subfragments at
$\left( L_{SX} \right)_{\mathrm {max}}$.
The kinematic viscosity $\nu$ of the primordial gas
mixture decreased by a factor of about a trillion from
plasma values at transition, to $\nu \approx 2.4 \, 10^{12}$
$\mathrm{m^2 \, s^{-1}}$ assuming the density within
the PGC objects are about $10^{-17}$ $\rm kg \> m^{-3}$.
Therefore, the viscous Schwarz scale
$L_{SV} \approx (2.4 \, 10^{12} \, 10^{-13}
/ 10^{-17} \, 6.7 \, 10^{-11})^{1/2} = 1.9 \, 10^{13}$ m,
so the viscous Schwarz mass $M_{SV} \approx
L_{SV}^3 \rho = 6.8 \, 10^{22}$ kg, or
$M_{SV} = 6.8 \, 10^{24}$ kg using $\rho = 10^{-18}$.
The turbulent Schwarz mass $M_{ST} \approx 8.8 \, 10^{22}$ kg
assuming $10 \%$ of the COBE temperature fluctuations are due to
turbulent red shifts ($[(\delta v / c ) / ( \delta T/T)] = 10^{-1}$)
as a best estimate.
We see that the entire universe of primordial H-He gas turned
to fog soon after the plasma-gas transition, with primordial
fog particle (PFP) mass values in the range $10^{23}$ to $10^{25}$
kg depending on the estimated density and turbulence levels of the gas.
The time required to form a PFP is set by the time required
for void regions to grow from minimum density points and maximum
density saddle points to surround and isolate the condensing
PFP objects (\cite{gib98}). Voids grow as rarefaction waves with
a limiting maximum velocity $V_s$ set by the second
law of thermodynamics, so the minimum PFP formation time
is $\tau_{PFP} \le (L_{SX})_{\mathrm{max}}/V_s$, or about $10^3$ y.
Full condensation of the PFP to form a dense core near hydrostatic
equilibrium requires a much longer time, near the gravitational
free fall time $\tau_g \approx 2 \, 10^6$ y.
Radiation heat transport during the PFP condensation period
before the creation of dust should have permitted cooling to
temperatures near those of the expanding universe. After about
a billion years hydrogen dew point and freezing point temperatures
(20-13 K) would be reached, forming the micro-brown-dwarf conditions
expected for these widely separated ($10^3-10^4$ AU)
small planetary objects that comprise
most of the baryonic dark matter of the present
universe and the materials of construction
for the stars and heavy elements.
Because such frozen objects occupy an angle
of less than a micro-arcsecond viewed from their average separation
distance, they are invisible to most observations except by
gravitational microlensing, or if a nearby hot star brings
these volatile comets out of cold storage.
\section{Observations}
A variety of observations confirm the new theory that
fluid mechanical forces and diffusion
limit gravitational condensation (\cite{gib96}), and confute
Jeans's (1902 \& 1929) acoustic criterion:
\begin{itemize}
\item quasar microlensing at micro-brown-dwarf frequencies
(\cite{sch96}),
\item tomography of dense galaxy clusters
indicating diffuse (nonbaryonic) superhalo dark matter at $L_{SD}$ scales
with $D_{nb} \approx 10^{28} \mathrm{m^2 \, s^{-1}}$ (\cite{tyf95}),
\item the Gunn-Peterson missing gas sequestered as PFPs,
\item the dissipation of `gas clouds' in the $Ly-\alpha$ forest,
\item extreme scattering events, cometary globules, FLIERS,
ansae, Herbig-Haro `chunks', etc.
\end{itemize}
Evidence that the dark matter of galaxies is
dominated by small planetary mass objects has been
accumulating from reports of many observers
that the multiple
images of lensed quasars twinkle at corresponding high frequencies.
After several years spent resolving a controversy
about the time delay between images Q0957+561A,B,
to permit correction for any
intrinsic fluctuations of the light intensity
of the source by subtraction of the
properly phased images, \cite{sch96} announced that
the lensing galaxy mass comprises
$\approx 10^{-6} M_{\sun}$ ``rogue planets'' that are
``likely to be the missing mass.''
Star-microlensing studies from the Large Magellanic Cloud
have failed to detect lensing at small planetary mass frequencies,
thus excluding this quasar-microlensing
population as the Galaxy halo missing mass
(\cite{alc98}, \cite{ren98}). However, the exclusion
is based on the unlikely assumption that the number density of such
small objects is uniform. The population must have mostly
primordial gas composition since no cosmological model predicts
this much baryonic mass of any other material, and
must be primordial since it constitutes the material of
construction, and an important stage, in the condensation of the gas to form
stars. Gravitational aggregation
is a nonlinear, self-similar, cascade process
likely to produce an extremely
intermittent lognormal spatial distribution
of the PFP number density,
with mode value orders of magnitude smaller than
the mean. Since star-microlensing from a
small solid angle produces
a small number of independent samples, the observations
estimate the mode rather than the mean, resolving the observational
conflict (\cite{gs98}).
\section{Conclusions}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Jeans's gravitational instability criterion
$L \ge L_J$ is irrelevant
to gravitational structure formation in cosmology
and astrophysics, and is egregiously misleading
in all of its applications.
\item The correct criterion for gravitational structure
formation is that $L$ must be larger than the
largest Schwarz scale; that is,
$L \ge \left( L_{SX} \right)_{\mathrm {max}}$,
where $X$ is $D,V,M,T$, depending on whether
diffusion or viscous, magnetic or turbulent forces
limit the gravitational effects.
\item Structure formation began in the plasma
epoch with protosupercluster to
protogalaxy decelerations.
\item Gravitational condensations began soon after
the plasma-gas transition, forming micro-brown-dwarfs,
clustered in PGCs,
that persist as the dominant
dark matter component of inner galactic halos (50 kpc).
\item The present fluid mechanical theory and its
cosmological consequences
regarding the forms of baryonic and nonbaryonic
dark matter (\cite{gib96}) is well supported
by observations, especially the quasar-microlensing
of \cite{sch96} and his inference that the lens galaxy mass
of Q0957+561A,B is dominated by small rogue planets
(interpreted here as PFPs).
\item Star-microlensing studies that rule out
MBDs as the Galaxy missing mass
(\cite{alc98}, \cite{ren98}), contrary to the
quasar-microlensing evidence and the present theory, are
subject to extreme undersampling errors from
their unwarranted assumption of a uniform number density
distribution, rather than extremely intermittent
lognormal distributions expected from
nonlinear aggregational cascades of such small objects as
they form nested clusters and stars (\cite{gs98}).
\end{enumerate}
\begin{acknowledgements}
Numerous helpful suggestions were provided by Rudy Schild.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
Years ago, Berends and Gastmans \cite{berends} calculated the
one-loop contribution of virtual massless gravitons to $\ifmmode a_{\ell}\else $a_{\ell}$\fi=\tfrac{1}{2}
(g-2)_{\ell},$ the anomalous magnetic moment of a lepton $\ell,$ and
obtained a finite result. Recently, Graesser
\cite{graesser} has redone this calculation in the context of a revised picture
of gravity
\cite{add} which is of much current interest: in this version, the
gravitational sector lives in an expanded
$D=(4+n)$-dimensional spacetime, with the extra $n$ dimensions compactified on
surfaces whose characteristic sizes may be as large as a millimeter. Graesser
has considered the contribution to \ifmmode a_{\ell}\else $a_{\ell}$\fi\ of the resulting Kaluza-Klein tower of
spin-2 gravitons (and spin-0 partners). The contribution of each KK mode is again
finite, as is the total if the sum on modes is appropriately cut off at or
near the
$D$-dimensional fundamental scale $\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi$ \cite{garousi}. The finiteness of these results raises
an interesting question: is a well-known sum rule for \ifmmode a_{\ell}\else $a_{\ell}$\fi$^2,$ the
Drell-Hearn-Gerasimov (DHG) sum rule \cite{dhg} satisfied in quantum gravity,
at least at the one-loop level? In accord with a general argument by Brodsky
and Schmidt \cite{brodsky}, it will be seen that, at
the one-loop level, this sum rule requires the
vanishing of a certain integral involving tree-level contributions to a
difference of polarized cross sections for the photoproduction of gravitons. As
a result of a tedious but straightforward computation, it will be shown
that this sum rule is not satisfied, neither in 4-dimensional nor in
$(4+n)$-dimensional gravity. At one level, this may be a plausible result:
gravity, being a non-renormalizable theory, does not satisfy the finiteness
criteria (to be detailed below) necessary for validity of the sum rule.
{}From a different perspective, the finiteness of the gravitational contribution
to \ifmmode a_{\ell}\else $a_{\ell}$\fi\ at the one-loop level, combined with a string-based belief in
Reggeization of amplitudes (including gravitational) at very high energies,
suggest that perhaps the sum rule would regain validity upon inclusion of all
the high energy string excitations. In conformance with the
original $s$- and $t$-channel string duality, this suggested an examination of
the constraints on the Regge behavior in order that high energy contributions
at at least be consistent with restoring the validity of the sum rule. This
could only be done in a rough and speculative fashion, and a discussion of the
problems associated with imposing the resulting constraints will be discussed in
the context of Type I$^{\, \prime}$ string theories. Speculations aside, the principal
concrete result remains that, to lowest order, the DHG sum rule is not obeyed by
the tree-level contributions involving photoproduction of gravitons.
\section{The DHG Sum Rule and Quantum Gravity}
Under certain conditions on the high energy behavior of both the real and
imaginary part of the forward spin-difference Compton amplitudes, there exists
a sum rule for $\ifmmode a_{\ell}\else $a_{\ell}$\fi^2.$ For a spin-1/2 target, it reads \cite{dhg}
\begin{equation}
\ifmmode a_{\ell}\else $a_{\ell}$\fi^2\ =\ \frac{m_{\ell}^2}{2\pi^2\alpha}\ \int_{\nu_{th}}^{\infty}\
\frac{d\nu}{\nu}\
\Delta\sigma(\nu)\ \ ,
\labeq{dhg}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta\sigma(\nu)\equiv \sigma_P(\nu)-\sigma_A(\nu)$ is the difference
between photoabsorption cross sections for the scattering of a photon of lab
energy $\nu$ from a target lepton in the cases where the initial photon and
lepton spin components along the incident photon direction are parallel and
anti-parallel, respectively. The validity of the sum rule is predicated on both
the vanishing of $\Delta\sigma$ at high energies and on the absence of polynomial terms
in the real part of the forward Compton spin-difference amplitude $f_2$. Both
conditions would obtain if the full Compton amplitude were to Reggeize
\cite{jaffe}; the details of this Reggeization at string energies will be
critical in resolving the problem raised by the calculation which follows.
In the Standard Model, the validity of the sum rule requires the vanishing of
the integral on the RHS of \eq{dhg} when the cross section is calculated from
the lowest order tree graphs, namely $\gamma+\ell\rightarrow\gamma+\ell,\;
W^-+\nu_{\ell}$ \cite{altarelli}. This follows from the observation that the
LHS of \req{dhg} when calculated in the Standard Model is of \order{\alpha^2}
(for fixed $\sin\theta_W),$ whereas in Born approximation the RHS is of
\order{\alpha}, and hence must vanish. This is indeed found to be the case, as
shown in the explicit calculation of Altarelli, Cabibbo, and Maiani
\cite{altarelli}. Using loop expansion techniques, the result has been
generalized by Brodsky and Schmidt \cite{brodsky}: the validity of the DHG sum
rule requires the vanishing of the integral on the RHS for the sum of $2\rightarrow 2$
processes $\gamma\ell\rightarrow bc$ in the Born approximation. This then raises the
interesting question: since the one-loop quantum gravity contributions to $\ifmmode a_{\ell}\else $a_{\ell}$\fi$
are finite and calculable, is the DHG sum rule satisfied to the appropriate
order in this case? If not, can we learn anything from the failure to satisfy?
In order to simplify the discussion, I will limit the physics to QED and
gravity (the rest of the Standard Model can be included with little
complication). In this case, at the one loop level, the corrections to $\ifmmode a_{\ell}\else $a_{\ell}$\fi$
{}from these sources are additive:
\begin{equation}
\ifmmode a_{\ell}\else $a_{\ell}$\fi=\al^{\rm QED}+\al^{\rm QG}\qquad \mbox{\em(1 loop)}\ \ .
\labeq{oneloop}
\end{equation}
Thus, to one-loop level, the sum rule may be written as
\begin{equation}
\left({\al^{\rm QED}}\right)^{\ 2}+2\ \al^{\rm QED}\ \al^{\rm QG}\ + \left({\al^{\rm QG}}\right)^{\ 2}\
= \frac{m_{\ell}^2}{2\pi^2\alpha}\
\int_{\nu_{th}}^{\infty}\ \frac{d\nu}{\nu}\
\left(\left.\Delta\sigma(\nu)\right|_{\rm QED}+\Delta\sigma^{\, \prime}(\nu)\right)\ \ .
\labeq{add}
\end{equation}
The first term under the integral is the pure QED contribution, up to the
appropriate order, and the second is the mixed gravity-QED cross section. Since
QED by itself obeys the DHG sum rule, the first terms on the LHS and RHS will
cancel.
With this
cancellation, and to lowest order in $m_{\ell}^2,$ the sum rule reads
\begin{equation}
2\ \al^{\rm QED}\ \al^{\rm QG}\ + \left({\al^{\rm QG}}\right)^{\ 2}\
= \frac{m_{\ell}^2}{2\pi^2\alpha}\
\int_{s_{th}}^{\infty}\ \frac{ds}{s}\
\Delta\sigma^{\, \prime}(s)\ \ .
\labeq{adda}
\end{equation}
I will now consider separately the cases with gravity propagating in $n>0
\ (D>4)$ and $n=0\ (D=4)$ dimensions, respectively.\bigskip
\noindent\underline{\boldmath {$n>0$}}\bigskip
\noindent I first briefly review the properties of $4+n$-dimensional gravity I
will need for the discussion which follows. For compactification on an
$n$-torus, the
$D$-dimensional Planck scale
$\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi$ is related to the large radius $R_n$ and the reduced Planck mass via
\cite{add,addone,giud}
\begin{equation}
(\ifmmode{{\bar M}_P} \else ${\bar M}_P$\fi/\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi)^2 = (\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi R_n)^{n}\ \ ,
\labeq{msr}
\end{equation}
so that $\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi$ can range from $\sim \ \mbox{TeV}$ to $M_P$ for $R\le$1 mm as long as
$n\ge 2.$ The resulting Kaluza-Klein tower of spin-2 gravitons (and spin-0
partners, the radions) can have very small mass splitting $\Delta
m^2=(1/R_n)^2.$ This scale also characterizes the surface tension of the soliton
(say a D-brane) to which is tied the open string containing ordinary matter.
Feynman rules have been developed \cite{giud,lykk} for these couplings, and a
large number of authors have explored the phenomenological implications of this
view of gravity.
Thus, on the RHS of \req{adda}, the lowest order contributions are the tree
processes
$\gamma\ell\rightarrow G \ell,$ $\gamma\ell\rightarrow \Phi\ell$ where $G$ is one of the spin-2
graviton, and $\Phi$ is its scalar partner (the radion). The cross section for
the latter process is suppressed by a factor of $m_{\ell}^2,$ so it does not enter
the present consideration.\footnote{In accordance with the scaling argument in
\cite{brodsky}, the radion contribution should cancel when combined with
\order{m_{\ell}^2}\ corrections to the tree-level $\Delta\sigma(\gamma \ell\ra G\ell).$}
The calculation of $\Delta\sigma(\gamma \ell\ra G\ell)$ is straightforward \cite{peskin}. I fix the
kinematics so that the photon is incident along the $+z$-axis with momentum
$q,$ helicity +1, the lepton with momentum $p_1$ along the $-z$-axis. For
massless leptons, the amplitude
\req{ampl} is helicity conserving, and the polarization amplitudes for
$\gamma\ell\rightarrow G\ell$ are then written as
\begin{equation}
{\cal M}_{P(A)}=\bar u_{L(R)}(p_2)\ {\cal O}^{\mu\nu\rho}\ u_{L(R)}(p_1)
\ \epsilon_{\rho}^{(+1)}(q)\ \left(\epsilon_{\mu\nu}^{\Lambda}(k)\right)^*\ \ ,
\labeq{em}
\end{equation}
Squaring and summing over the final state graviton helicity, one finds (for all
particles massless except for the graviton, with mass $m$) the differential
cross sections in the $c.m.$
\begin{equation}
d\sigma_{P(A)}/d\cos\theta=\displaystyle\sum_{\Lambda}\left|{\cal
M}_{P(A)}\right|^2/(8\pi\sqrt{s})^2\ \cdot (1-x)\ .
\labeq{diffa}
\end{equation}
where $x\equiv m^2/s,$ and
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle\sum_{\Lambda}\left|{\cal
M}_{P(A)}\right|^2 =
(\epsilon_{\rho\prime}^{(+1)}(q))^*\mbox{Tr}\left(\widetilde{\cal
O}^{\mu^{\, \prime}\nu^{\, \prime}\rho^{\, \prime}}p_2\hspace{-10pt}/\ \ {\cal
O}^{\mu\nu\rho}p_1\hspace{-10pt}/\ \ (1+(-)\gamma_5)/2\right)\
\epsilon_{\rho}^{(+1)}(q)\ {\cal P}_{\mu^{\, \prime}\nu^{\, \prime};\mu\nu}(k)\ \ ,
\labeq{diffb}
\end{equation}
The graviton spin-2 projection operator ${\cal P}$ is given in
Refs.\cite{giud,lykk}, and $\widetilde {\cal O}=\gamma^{0\dagger}{\cal
O}^{\dagger}\gamma^0.$ Finally, from
\req{diffa} and \req{diffb},
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\sigma_P}{d\cos\theta}-\frac{d\sigma_A}{d\cos\theta}
&=&(\epsilon_{\rho\prime}^{(+1)}(q))^*
\ \mbox{Tr}\left(\widetilde{\cal
O}^{\mu^{\, \prime}\nu^{\, \prime}\rho^{\, \prime}}p_2\hspace{-10pt}/\ \ {\cal
O}^{\mu\nu\rho}p_1\hspace{-10pt}/\ \ \gamma_5\right)\
\epsilon_{\rho}^{(+1)}(q) \ \cdot\nonumber\\[.1in]
&& \quad{\cal P}_{\mu^{\, \prime}\nu^{\, \prime};\mu\nu}(k)\ \cdot (1-x)\ /\ (8\pi\sqrt{s})^2
\ \ .
\labeq{pol}
\end{eqnarray}
The contributing diagrams are given in Refs.\cite{giud,lykk} and are shown in
Fig.1.
\bigskip
\begin{center}
\SetScale{.7}
\begin{picture}(540,160)(0,0)
\SetOffset(80,0)
\ArrowLine(0,0)(90,0)
\Vertex(90,0){1.5}
\ArrowLine(90,0)(180,0)
\Photon(0,60)(90,60){1.5}{5}
\Vertex(90,60){1.5}
\Photon(90,0)(90,60){1.5}{5}
\Photon(90,60)(180,60){2}{5}
\Photon(90,60)(180,60){-2}{5}
\SetOffset(250,0)
\ArrowLine(0,0)(90,0)
\Vertex(90,0){1.5}
\ArrowLine(90,0)(180,0)
\Photon(0,60)(90,0){1.5}{8}
\Photon(90,0)(180,60){2}{8}
\Photon(90,0)(180,60){-2}{8}
\SetOffset(80,110)
\ArrowLine(0,0)(60,0)\Text(0,-5)[lt]{$p_1$}
\Vertex(60,0){1.5}
\Line(60,0)(120,0)
\Vertex(120,0){1.5}
\ArrowLine(120,0)(180,0)\Text(130,-5)[rt]{$p_2$}
\Photon(0,60)(60,0){1.5}{6}\Text(0,45)[lb]{ $q$}
\Photon(120,0)(180,60){2}{6}
\Photon(120,0)(180,60){-2}{6}
\Text(125,45)[lb]{$k$}
\SetOffset(250,110)
\ArrowLine(0,0)(60,0)
\Vertex(60,0){1.5}
\Line(60,0)(120,0)
\Vertex(120,0){1.5}
\ArrowLine(120,0)(180,0)
\Photon(0,60)(120,0){1.5}{10}
\Photon(60,0)(180,60){2}{10}
\Photon(60,0)(180,60){-2}{10}
\end{picture}
\end{center}\bigskip
\centerline{ Figure 1: {\em Graphs contributing to}
$\gamma\ell\rightarrow G\ell$.}\bigskip
\noindent The amplitude can be obtained from these references,
and I write it here for completeness (kinematics in Fig.1):
\begin{eqnarray}
i{\cal O}_{\mu\nu\rho}&=&
\left(\frac{ieQ_{\ell}}{4\ifmmode{{\bar M}_P} \else ${\bar M}_P$\fi}\right)
\left[
\gamma_{\mu}(P+p_2)_{\nu}
\ (P\hspace{-7pt}/\ /s)\ \gamma_{\rho}+\gamma_{\rho}\ (K\hspace{-7pt}/\ /u)
\ \gamma_{\mu}(p_1+K)_{\nu}\right]\nonumber\\[.1in]
&&- \left(\frac{ieQ_{\ell}}{\ifmmode{{\bar M}_P} \else ${\bar M}_P$\fi}\right)\left[
q_{\mu}Q_{\nu}\gamma_{\rho}+(q\cdot Q)
\eta_{\mu\rho}\gamma_{\nu}
-\eta_{\mu\rho}Q_{\nu}q\hspace{-6pt}/\
-\gamma_{\mu}q_{\nu}Q_{\rho}\right]/t\nonumber\\[.1in]
&&-\left(\frac{ieQ_{\ell}}{2\ifmmode{{\bar M}_P} \else ${\bar M}_P$\fi}\right)\gamma_{\mu}\eta_{\nu\rho}\quad +
\mu\leftrightarrow\nu\ \ .
\labeq{ampl}
\end{eqnarray}
In \eq{ampl}, $Q_{\ell}$ is the charge on the lepton, $\ifmmode{{\bar M}_P} \else ${\bar M}_P$\fi=(8\pi G_N)^{-1/2},\
P=p_1+q,\ Q=k-q,\ \mbox{and}\ K=p_1-k$ (see Fig. 1).
{}From \req{pol} and \req{ampl} I find
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\sigma_P}{d\cos\theta}-\frac{d\sigma_A}{d\cos\theta}&=&\frac{1}{16}\ \frac{\alpha}
{\ifmmode{{\bar M}_P} \else ${\bar M}_P$\fi^2}\ (1-x) \ \left[ \left(\frac{s}{t}\right)( 4x^2 - 8x ) +
\left(\frac{s}{u}\right)(x- 2x^2)\right.\nonumber\\[.1in]
&&\left. +\ (2x^2-4x-4 ) + \left(\frac{u}{s}\right)(4-x )\right]\ \ ,
\labeq{dsig}
\end{eqnarray}
where $t=Q^2,\ u=K^2.$ The cross section has a smooth massless limit $(x=0)$
which coincides with that obtained from starting with massless gravitons.
With the substitutions $(t,u)=-\tfrac{1}{2} s(1-x)(1\mp \cos\theta),$ and the
imposition of a collinear cutoff
$-1+\delta\le
\cos\theta\le 1-\delta$, the total polarization cross section is obtained
by integrating \req{dsig} over $\cos\theta:$
\begin{equation}
\Delta\sigma_{\gamma\ell\ra G \ell}(s,m^2)=\frac{1}{16}\ \frac{\alpha}
{\ifmmode{{\bar M}_P} \else ${\bar M}_P$\fi^2}\ \left[\log\left(\frac{2}{\delta}-1\right)( 14x - 4x^2 ) - (12
-9x-6x^2+3x^3)\right]\ \ .
\labeq{cs}
\end{equation}
The contribution to $\Delta\sigma_{\gamma\ell\ra G \ell}(s)$ from an entire KK tower of gravitons is given
(approximately) by integrating over the density of states\
\cite{giud,lykk,peskin} up to the kinematic limit
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\sigma_{\gamma\ell\ra G \ell}(s)&=&\frac{2\pi^{n/2}}{\Gamma(n/2)}\ R^n\
\int_0^{\sqrt{s}\ }\Delta\sigma_{\gamma\ell\ra G \ell}\ (s,m^2)\ m^{n-1}\ dm\nonumber\\[.1in]
&=&\frac{\pi^{n/2}}{\Gamma(n/2)}\
\frac{\ifmmode{{\bar M}_P} \else ${\bar M}_P$\fi^2}{\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi^2}\left(\frac{s}{\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi^2}\right)^{n/2}\ \int_0^1\Delta\sigma_{\gamma\ell\ra G \ell}\ (x)\
x^{n/2-1}\ dx\nonumber\\[.1in] &=&\frac{1}{16}\
\frac{\alpha}{\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi^2}\cdot\ \left(\frac{s}{\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi^2}\right)^{n/2}\ A_n\ \ ,
\labeq{intm}
\end{eqnarray}
where, {\em e.g.,}
\begin{eqnarray*} A_2&=&\pi\left(-25/4+(17/3)\log(2/\delta-1)\right)\\
A_4&=&\pi^2\left(-21/10+(11/3)\log(2/\delta-1)\right)\end{eqnarray*}
Finally, the contribution of \req{intm}, integrated up to some upper limit
$\bar s\le \ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi^2$ to the RHS of the sum rule
\req{adda} is
\begin{equation}
\frac{m_{\ell}^2}{2\pi^2\alpha}\ \int_{s_{th}}^{\bar s}\ \frac{ds}{s}\ \Delta\sigma_{\gamma\ell\ra G \ell}(s)=
\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\ \left(\frac{m_{\ell}^2}{\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi^2}\right)\
\left(\frac{A_n}{n}\right)\ \kappa^{n/2}\ \ ,
\labeq{dhgb}\end{equation}
where $\kappa\equiv \bar s/\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi^2.$
\noindent On the LHS of \req{adda}, $\al^{\rm QED}\sim\order{\alpha}$ and
(using the same cutoff at $\bar s)$ $\al^{\rm QG}\sim\kappa^{n/2}\order{\ml^2/\md^2}$ \cite{graesser};
thus
\req{dhgb} by itself violates the DHG sum rule at the one-loop level. Before
discussing this result, I will present the
analogous result for the case with no extra dimensions.
\noindent\underline{\boldmath $n=0$}\bigskip
\noindent As mentioned after \eq{dsig}, the $D=4$ case is obtained by setting $x=0$ in
that equation, or in \eq{cs}:
\begin{equation}
\Delta\sigma_{\gamma\ell\ra G \ell}(s)=\Delta\sigma_{\gamma\ell\ra G \ell}(s,0)=-\frac{3}{4}\ \frac{\alpha} {\ifmmode{{\bar M}_P} \else ${\bar M}_P$\fi^2}=-\frac{6\pi\alpha}{\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi^2}\ \ .
\labeq{csfour}
\end{equation}
Then, integration up to $\bar s\le \ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi^2$ gives a contribution to the RHS of
the sum rule
\begin{equation}
\frac{m_{\ell}^2}{2\pi^2\alpha}\ \int_{s_{th}}^{\bar s}\ \frac{ds}{s}\ \Delta\sigma_{\gamma\ell\ra G \ell}(s)=
-\frac{3}{\pi}\ \frac{m_{\ell}^2}{\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi^2}
\cdot\ \log\left(\frac{\bar s}{s_{th}}\right)
\ \ .
\labeq{dhgbfour}
\end{equation}
Again, since $\al^{\rm QED}\sim\order{\alpha}$ and $\al^{\rm QG}\sim\order{m_{\ell}^2/\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi^2}$
\cite{berends}, this contribution by itself violates the sum rule \req{adda}.
I now turn to discuss these results.
\section{Discussion}
The failure of the gravitational contributions integrated to a large scale
$\bar s$ to satisfy the DHG sum rule at the one-loop level suggests at least two
possibilities: (1) the sum rule is not valid for processes involving quantum
qravity (2) there are contributions from $s>\bar s$ which cancel the low
energy contribution and render the sum rule valid.
As mentioned in the introduction, and discussed at length in Ref. \cite{jaffe},
the sum rule can fail because the spin-difference forward Compton amplitude
$f_2(s)$ has fixed poles ({\em i.e.,} a polynomial piece to the real part), or
an imaginary part whose asymptotic behavior requires a subtraction for the
dispersion relation. One or both of these is certainly possible: for example,
in the $n=0$ case, there may be at order $\alpha/\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi^2$ a
gravity-induced ``seagull'' term in
$f_2.$ It is not immediately apparent, however, how this can cancel
against the logarithmic cutoff in \req{dhgbfour}. As far as the imaginary part is
concerned, one may certainly conceive of spin-dependent
gravitational contributions ({\em e.g.,} spinning black holes) whose
contributions vitiate the sum rule. In such cases, within the present state
of knowledge about non-perturbative quantum gravity, there is not much more
to say. It is then interesting to speculate about the second possibility above,
the possibility of cancellation.\bigskip
\noindent {\large {\bf Possible Role of String Theory}}\medskip
\noindent String theory
suggests that $f_2$ Reggeizes for
$s$ larger than the string scale
$\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi^2,$ at once eliminating the possibility of the fixed poles and the
non-convergence. Moreover, the required Reggeization takes place at the
tree-level (the Veneziano amplitude being equivalent to a sum of poles), so that
according to the loop-counting criteria discussed in \cite{brodsky}, the
additive form of
\req{adda} is valid. I will discuss in turn the two cases of
large extra dimensions $(n>0)$ and no large extra dimensions $(n=0)$.\medskip
\noindent {\boldmath $n>0$:} In this case, I will adopt the string
description presented in \cite{ant}, with reference to previous work in
\cite{lykken} and \cite{polchwitt}, and detailed in \cite{addone,tye}. This is
based on a type I theory of open and closed strings, with a $T$-duality
transformation allowing a large radius in the $n$ extra dimensions, as well as
a weak coupling description. Matter resides in open strings tied to D3-branes
and $\lambda=2\alpha$ serves as the string coupling expansion parameter
\cite{ant}. The 4-point open string Compton amplitude is then written as in
\cite{green}, with the appropriate kinematic factors assuring the behavior (for
$s\gg\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi^2)$
\begin{equation}
\mbox{Im} f_2(s)\ \sim\ \alpha\ \cdot\ const,\quad \Delta\sigma^{\, \prime}\sim \alpha/s
\labeq{asym}
\end{equation}
which allows convergence. The contribution to the DHG sum rule from the Regge
region is
\begin{equation}
\frac{m_{\ell}^2}{2\pi^2\alpha}\ \int_{\bar s}^{\infty}\
\frac{ds}{s}\ \Delta\sigma^{\, \prime}(s)\sim
\left(\frac{m_{\ell}^2}{\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi^2}\right)\ \left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right)\ \ .
\labeq{regge}
\end{equation}
A necessary (but certainly not sufficent!) condition that \req{regge} could
cancel the lower energy integral
\req{dhgb} is that
$\kappa\sim
\order{1}$, {\em i.e.,} the perturbative treatment of $\gamma \ell\rightarrow G\ell$ is
reliable for $\sqrt{s}\ \raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$}\ \ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi.$ Some discussion of this point is given in
\cite{giud}. An important ingredient is that the D-brane surface tension, which
controls the ``soft'' scale for gravitons emitted transverse to the brane, is
larger than the string scale \cite{garousi}, so that $\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi$ may be reasonable
as an energy cutoff for the perturbative treatment of graviton emission.
The requirement $\bar s\sim \ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi^2$ {\em vs.} the expected $\bar
s\sim \ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi^2$ is perhaps disconcerting, and some discussion will be presented in
a following section. All of this is a long way from claiming that
cancellation occurs: for
example, the the collinear cutoff dependence (which occurs only in this
extra-dimension case) in
\req{intm} has no counterpart in \req{regge}. One is assured by the
Lee-Nauenberg theorem \cite{lee} that including all channels will regulate such
singularities to measurable quantities, but how (and whether) this happens
smoothly over the whole energy range in the present case certainly remains to
be shown.\medskip
\noindent {\boldmath $n=0$:} I use the same model here as above, except with no
large dimensions. In addition to $\lambda=2 \alpha,$ one also has (after the
T-duality transformation on all six compact coordinates)\cite{tye}
\begin{equation}
\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi=(1/\sqrt{2})\alpha\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi/r^3\ \ ,
\labeq{msmp}
\end{equation}
where $r\ge 1,$ the compactification radius in units of $\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi^{-1},$ can be used
to adjust $\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi=M_{GUT}.$ The Compton amplitude in the Regge region is the same
as in \req{asym}, so that the contribution from $s\ge \bar s$ to the DHG
integral is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{m_{\ell}^2}{2\pi^2\alpha}\ \int_{\bar s}^{\infty}\
\frac{ds}{s}\ \Delta\sigma^{\, \prime}(s)
\sim\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}\ \frac{m_{\ell}^2}{\bar s}
\sim\left(\frac{m_{\ell}^2}{\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi^2}\right)\left( \frac{\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi^2}{\bar s}\right)\ \ .
\labeq{reggefour}
\end{equation}
In this case, cancellation of the lower energy contribution \req{dhgbfour} is
possible only for $\bar s\sim\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi^2\ \raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$}\ \ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi^2/\alpha^2.$ Again, this is
merely a necessary condition -- there is no demonstration of cancellation, and
problems attached to it as well: for example, the logarithmic
cutoff factor in \req{dhgbfour} does not appear in the purported cancelling
term \req{reggefour}.\bigskip
\noindent {\large {\boldmath $\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi$ (or $\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi$) {\em vs.} $\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi$}}\medskip
\noindent To pursue the possibility of cancellation, one must
reconcile the appearance of $\bar s=\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi^2 (\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi^2)$ with the expected $\bar s=
\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi^2$ as the cutoff. As discussed above, there may be plausible arguments why
graviton emission into the bulk may be adequately described by perturbation
theory for energies up to $\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi;$ however, it is difficult to understand why the
open string contribution to Compton scattering would be delayed for energies
above $\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi,$ until $\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi.$ It might be thought that the difference is not
significant, since in the string theory model $\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi$ and $\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi$ are numerically
close \cite{ant,addone}; however, this is not the case. The insertion of $\bar
s=\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi^2$ as the cutoff would cause a mismatch of a factor of $\alpha^2$ between
the contributions below and above $\bar s:$ in the case $n>0,$ this occurs when
the relation $\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi\sim\alpha^{-2/(n+2)}\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi$ \cite{ant,addone} (along with $\bar
s=\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi^2)$ is inserted into
\req{dhgb} and $\bar s=\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi^2$ in \req{regge}; for $n=0,$ one has a
similar situation, with $\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi\sim \ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi/\alpha$ in \req{dhgbfour} and $\bar
s=\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi^2$ in
\req{reggefour}. There is only one parameter available to play with, namely
the compactification radius $R_{6-n}$ of the $6-n$ remaining dimensions in the
bulk. Can this be of a form such as to remove this parametric disparity between
$\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi(\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi)$ and $\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi?$ Consider again the Type I$^{\, \prime}$ theory
\cite{ant,addone,tye}, with the standard model fields residing in open strings
tied to a D3-brane, and gravity propagating in the 10-dimensional bulk.
Allowing (as before) $n$ of the compact dimensions to be large, of equivalent
toroidal radius $R_n$, and $6-n$ to be small (of radius $R_{6-n}\sim \ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi^{-1}$),
one obtains the relation \cite{ant,addone}
\begin{equation}
(\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi/\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi)^{n+2}=\frac{1}{4\pi\alpha^2}\ (R_{6-n}\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi)^{6-n}\ \ .
\labeq{trms}
\end{equation}
Thus, for $\alpha\sim 0.1$ it is possible to simultaneously have $R_{6-n}\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi>1$
and $\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi\sim \order{\alpha^0}\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi$ if
\begin{equation}
(R_{6-n}\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi)^{6-n}\ \raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$}\ 100\ \alpha^2\ =\ 25\ \lambda_{I^{\, \prime}}^2\ \ .
\labeq{six}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{I^{\, \prime}}$ is the Type I$^{\, \prime}$ string coupling constant. This is a
statement that the compactification scale is parametrically tied to the dilaton
expectation value \cite{dine}. It is not meant to be a perturbative statement,
but as a constraint on the non-perturbative minima in the $S-T$ modular space.
Needless to say, this is very {\em ad hoc}
-- I only present it as a hypothetical way of reconciling the $\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi/\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi$
problem.
This scenario is more circumscribed when there are no large extra
dimensions. In that case one has, in analogy to
\req{trms}, $(\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi/\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi)^2=(2/\alpha^2)(R_6\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi)^6$\ \cite{tye}. However, now $\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi$
is identified with $M_{GUT},$ so that $\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi/\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi\simeq 500.$ If this be due to
modular geometry rather than a factor of $\alpha,$ we must impose
$(R_6\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi)^6\simeq 30,000\ \lambda_{I^{\, \prime}}^2$ on the compactification volume, or
$R_6\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi\simeq 6\
\lambda_{I^{\, \prime}}^{\tfrac{1}{3}},$ on the compactification radius.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
The finiteness of the one-loop gravitation contribution to the anomalous
magnetic moment \ifmmode a_{\ell}\else $a_{\ell}$\fi\ led naturally to the question of whether the DHG sum rule for
\ifmmode a_{\ell}\else $a_{\ell}$\fi$^2$ is
satisfied. The failure to satisfy the sum rule for perturbative contributions
below an arbitrary scale $\bar s$ could be ascribed to the failure to understand
quantum gravity in the strong coupling (high energy) region. Alternatively,
there were presented some speculations concerning
possibly compensating contributions above the string scale.
In both cases $(n>0\ \mbox{and}\ n=0)$ this possibility was beset with
uncertainty concerning various logarithmic cutoff factors, not to speak of
the absence of an exact calculation. In the simplest (Regge) approximation,
the possibility of a string `fix' for the
validity of the sum rule imposed a {\em necessary} parametric condition:
namely, that the ordinary tree level perturbative contribution be included all
the way to the respective Planck scales $\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi,\ \ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi$ (rather than the expected
string scale $\ifmmode{M_s} \else $M_s$\fi),$ and that the string Compton amplitude used thereafter.
Identifying the string and Planck scales is possible through a certain
dependence of the compactification volume for the $6-n$ `small' dimensions on
the dilaton expectation value. The
simple analysis presented here, using only an open string Compton amplitude,
ignores specifically non-perturbative gravitational contributions (such as
black hole formation \cite{nussinov}) which may set in at $\ifmmode{M_D} \else $M_D$\fi\ (\ifmmode{M_P} \else $M_P$\fi)$. Perhaps
these do not contribute to the forward spin-difference amplitude
$f_2$ (the leading graviton trajectory considered in \cite{nussinov}
does not contribute to $f_2(0)$);
however, no such statement is possible in the presence of spinning black holes.
It is certainly an open question whether these have been eliminated in the
strong-weak duality transformation particular to the model considered.
In sum, the principal finding is that the DHG sum rule is not satisfied at the
one-loop level. Although one may speculate
along certain stringy fixes to this situation, there is at present no
compelling reason to adopt these in preference to simply pleading ignorance
about the convergence properties of $f_2$ in the non-perturbative regime of quantum gravity.
\subsection*{Acknowledgement} I would like to thank Zurab Kakushadze and Tom Taylor
for helpful conversations. This research was supported in part by the National
Science Foundation through Grant No. PHY-9722044.
|
\section*{Introduction}
The convexity theorem of Atiyah \cite{at} and Guillemin-Sternberg
\cite{gs} says that if $T$ is a torus acting in a Hamiltonian fashion
on a compact, connected symplectic manifold $M$, then the image of the
corresponding moment mapping is a {\em rational} convex polytope. One of the
most interesting applications of this theorem is a classification
theorem of Delzant \cite{d}, which states that if $\dim{M}=2\dim{T}$
and the action is effective, then the space is completely
characterized by the image of the moment mapping, which is a simple
rational convex polytope satisfying a special integrality condition.
One of the features of Delzant's result is that it provides an
explicit construction for associating to each polytope the
corresponding space; this construction involves the technique of
symplectic reduction. The results of Atiyah, Guillemin-Sternberg and
Delzant have subsequently been extended by Lerman-Tolman
\cite{lt} to the case of torus actions on symplectic orbifolds;
the image of the moment mapping in this case is still a rational
polytope, and the extension of Delzant's theorem involves simple
rational polytopes.
However, it is very natural to ask oneself whether a simple convex
polytope that is {\em not} rational can also be viewed as the image of
the moment mapping for a suitable symplectic space. Answering
affirmatively to this question amounts to being able to perform
symplectic reduction under rather general assumptions, thus allowing
the resulting space to be pathological. This has lead us to consider a
new class of spaces which we call {\em quasifolds}. Roughly speaking,
a quasifold of dimension $k$ is a space that is locally modeled on
orbit spaces of discrete group actions on open subsets of the space $\R^k$.
Manifolds and orbifolds are special cases of quasifolds, but
quasifolds in general are not Hausdorff topological spaces. Just as
for orbifolds, geometric objects on quasifolds may be thought of as
collections of objects on the open sets of the space $\R^k$ that are invariant
under the discrete group actions, and that behave correctly under
coordinate changes. The natural analogue of a torus in this geometry
is a {\em quasitorus}, which is the quotient of a vector space by a
{\em quasilattice}. It is then possible to define Hamiltonian
quasitorus actions on symplectic quasifolds and to extend the Delzant
construction to show that every simple convex polytope $\Delta$ is the
image of the moment mapping for quasitorus actions on a family, ${\cal
M}_{\Delta}$, of quasifolds.
We remark that the initial motivation for this article came from a discussion
with Traynor on the role of non-rational polytopes in the study
of symplectic packings \cite{mp, t}.
Orbit spaces of discrete group actions have been
studied by Connes in the context of {\em noncommutative geometry}
\cite[chapter II]{c}; our approach is different and we do not
fully understand the connection. Quasitori of
dimension one have been studied by Donato, Iglesias and Lachaud
\cite{di, i, il} in the framework of the theory of {\em diffeological
spaces}; on this occasion Iglesias introduced the terminology {\em
irrational tori}. On the other hand Weinstein considered quasitori of dimension
one to prequantize arbitrary symplectic manifolds \cite{w1, w2}; he
introduced the term {\em infracircles}. The subject of this article is also related to the
{\em geometry of quasicrystals} \cite{ar, se}; for example the regular
pentagon is not only a celebrated quasicrystal but is also a simple
non-rational convex polytope. This is the reason underlying our
choice of the terms quasifold and quasitorus; the term quasilattice on
the other hand had already been introduced by quasicrystallographers.
The article is structured as follows: in Section~\ref{folds} we define
quasifolds and the essentials of their geometry, in Section~\ref{tori}
we define quasitori and Hamiltonian actions, in Section~\ref{delzant}
we prove a symplectic reduction theorem and the extension of Delzant's
construction to this setting. A brief appendix recalls the definitions
of rational and simple convex polyhedral sets. All definitions and
results are illustrated by examples.
The contents of this article have been announced in \cite{p}. In the
sequel we will give a more thorough treatment of the convexity theorem
and of the failure of the uniqueness part of Delzant's theorem.
In an article in collaboration with Battaglia \cite{bp} we introduce
complex and K\"ahler structures on quasifolds, and see how the spaces
in the family ${\cal M}_{\Delta}$ can be viewed as natural generalizations
of the toric varieties that are usually associated to those simple
convex polytopes that are rational.
We wish to thank Ana Cannas da Silva, Patrick Iglesias, Reyer Sjamaar and
the Referee for their helpful remarks. We are also very grateful
to Fiamma Battaglia for her crucial help on several aspects of this work.
\section{Quasifolds}\label{folds}
We begin by introducing the local model for quasifolds.
\begin{defn}[Model]\label{model}{\rm
Let $\tilde{U}$ be a connected, simply connected manifold of
dimension $k$ and let $\Gamma$ be a discrete group acting
smoothly on the manifold $\tilde{U}$ so that the set of points, $\tilde{U}_0$, where the action is free,
is connected and dense. Consider the space of orbits, $\tilde{U}/\Gamma$,
of the action of the group $\Gamma$ on the manifold $\tilde{U}$,
endowed with the quotient topology, and
the canonical projection $p\,\colon\,\tilde{U}\rightarrow\tilde{U}/\Gamma$. A {\em model} of dimension $k$
is the triple $(\tilde{U}/\Gamma, p, \tilde{U})$, shortly $\tilde{U}/\Gamma$.}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\end{defn}
\begin{remark}\label{simplyc}{\rm
We remark that the assumption in Definition~\ref{model} that the manifold
$\tilde{U}$ be simply connected could be omitted,
at the expense of the definitions of smooth mapping, diffeomorphism,
vector field and form, which would then become more complicated. This assumption happens to
be very natural in our setting and, in practice, is not as strong as one may think.
Assume in fact that the manifold $\tilde{U}$ is connected, but
not simply connected. Consider its universal cover, $\pi\,\colon\,U^{\#}\rightarrow\tilde{U}$, and its fundamental group,
$\Pi$; the manifold $U^{\#}$ is connected and simply connected, the mapping $\pi$ is smooth, the
discrete group $\Pi$ acts smoothly, freely and properly on the manifold $\tilde{U}$ and
$\tilde{U}=U^{\#}/\Pi$. Consider the extension of the group $\Gamma$ by the group $\Pi$,
$1\longrightarrow \Pi\longrightarrow\Lambda
\longrightarrow\Gamma\longrightarrow 1$, defined as follows
$$\Lambda=\left\{\;\lambda\in\mbox{Diff}(U^{\#})\;|\;\exists\;
\gamma\in\Gamma\;\mbox{s. t.}\;\pi(\lambda(u^{\#}))=\gamma\cdot
\pi(u^{\#})\;\forall\; u^{\#}\inU^{\#}\;\right\}.$$
It is easy to verify that $\Lambda$ is a discrete group, that
it acts on the manifold $U^{\#}$ according to the assumptions of
Definition~\ref{model} and that $\tilde{U}/\Gamma=U^{\#}/\Lambda$.}
\nolinebreak\hfill{$\bigtriangledown$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{remark}
\begin{defn}[Tangent space]{\rm
Consider a model $(\tilde{U}/\Gamma, p, \tilde{U})$. The group
$\Gamma_{\tilde{u}}=\mbox{Stab}(\tilde{u},\Gamma)$ acts on the vector space $T_{\tilde{u}}\tilde{U}$ for any
point $\tilde{u}$ in $\tilde{U}$. We define
the {\em tangent space} of the model $\tilde{U}/\Gamma$ at the point $u=p(\tilde{u})$, denoted
$T_u(\tilde{U}/\Gamma)$, to be the space of orbits $(T_{\tilde{u}}\tilde{U})/\Gamma_{\tilde u}$.\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
}\end{defn}
\begin{remark}{\rm We remark that $T_u(\tilde{U}/\Gamma)$ itself defines a
model and that it is a true vector space for all points $u$ in $p(\tilde{U}_0)$.}
\nolinebreak\hfill{$\bigtriangledown$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{remark}
\begin{defn}[Smooth mapping, diffeomorphism of models]\label{smloc}{\rm
A {\em smooth mapping} of the models $(\tilde{U}/\Gamma, p, \tilde{U})$ and $(\tilde{V}/\Delta, q, \tilde{V})$ is a mapping
$f\,\colon\, \tilde{U}/\Gamma\longrightarrow \tilde{V}/\Delta$ having the property that
there exists a smooth mapping
$\tilde{f}\,\colon\,\tilde{U}\longrightarrow\tilde{V}$ such that $q\circ \tilde{f}=f\circ p$;
we will say that $\tilde{f}$ is a {\em lift} of $f$. We will say that the smooth
mapping $f$ is a {\em diffeomorphism of models} if it is bijective and if the lift
$\tilde{f}$ is a diffeomorphism.}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\end{defn}
If the mapping $\tilde{f}$ is a lift of a smooth mapping of models
$f\,\colon\,\tilde{U}/\Gamma\longrightarrow \tilde{V}/\Delta$
so are the mappings $\tilde{f}^{\gamma}(-)=\tilde{f}(\gamma\cdot -)$, for all elements
$\gamma$ in $\Gamma$ and $^{\delta}\tilde{f}(-)=\delta\cdot\tilde{f}(-)$, for all elements $\delta$ in $\Delta$.
We are about to show that if the mapping $f$ is a diffeomorphism, then these are the only other possible lifts.
\begin{lemma}[The orange lemma]
Consider two models, $\tilde{U}/\Gamma$ and $\tilde{V}/\Delta$, and let
$f\,\colon\,\tilde{U}/\Gamma\longrightarrow\tilde{V}/\Delta$ be a diffeomorphism
of models. For any two lifts, $\tilde{f}$ and $\bar{f}$, of the diffeomorphism $f$ there exists a unique element
$\delta$ in $\Delta$ such that $\bar{f}={}^\delta\tilde{f}$.
\end{lemma}
\mbox{\bf Proof.\ \ } Let $\tilde{V}_0$ be the connected and dense set of points
in the manifold $\tilde{V}$ where the action of the group $\Delta$ is free, and
consider a point $\tilde{v}$ in $\tilde{V}_0$, and the corresponding point $\tilde{u}=\tilde{f}^{-1}(\tilde{v})$.
Then there is a unique element $\delta(\tilde{v})$ in $\Delta$ such that $\bar{f}(\tilde{u})=
\delta(\tilde{v})\cdot\tilde{f}(\tilde{u})$. Since the group $\Delta$ is discrete,
and the set $\tilde{V}_0$ is connected and dense,
there exists a unique element $\delta$ in $\Delta$ such that
$\bar{f}={}^\delta\tilde{f}$.
\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Box$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\begin{lemma}[The green lemma]\label{green} Consider two models, $\tilde{U}/\Gamma$ and $\tilde{V}/\Delta$, and
a diffeomorphism $f\,\colon\,\tilde{U}/\Gamma\longrightarrow\tilde{V}/\Delta$. Then, for a given lift,
$\tilde{f}$, of the diffeomorphism $f$, there exists
a group isomorphism $F\,\colon\,\Gamma\longrightarrow\Delta$
such that $\tilde{f}^{\gamma}={}^{F(\gamma)}\tilde{f}$, for all elements $\gamma$ in $\Gamma$.
\end{lemma}
\mbox{\bf Proof.\ \ } Take an element $\gamma$ in $\Gamma$. Apply the orange lemma
to the lifts $\tilde{f}$, $\bar{f}=\tilde{f}^\gamma$, and define
$F(\gamma)=\delta$. Repeat for all elements $\gamma$ in $\Gamma$ and check that
$F$ is an isomorphism with the required property.
\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Box$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\begin{defn}[Vector field, $h$-form on a model]{\rm
A {\em vector field}, $\mbox{X}$, [respectively {\em $h$-form}, $\omega$,]
on a model $\tilde{U}/\Gamma$ is the assignment of a
$\Gamma$-invariant vector field, $\tilde{\mbox{X}}$, [respectively $h$-form,
$\tilde{\omega}$,] on the manifold $\tilde{U}$.\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}}\end{defn}
\begin{defn}[Pushforward of a vector field]{\rm Consider two models, $\tilde{U}/\Gamma$ and
$\tilde{V}/\Delta$, and a diffeomorphism $f\,\colon\,\tilde{U}/\Gamma\longrightarrow\tilde{V}/\Delta$.
Let $\mbox{X}$ be a smooth vector field on the model $\tilde{U}/\Gamma$; we
define the {\em pushforward} of $\mbox{X}$ via $f$, denoted $f_*\mbox{X}$, to be
the vector field on the model $\tilde{V}/\Delta$ that corresponds to
the assignment of the $\Delta$-invariant vector field
$\tilde{f}_*\tilde{\mbox{X}}$, for any lift $\tilde{f}$ of the diffeomorphism $f$.\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}}\end{defn}
The notions of differential and pullback of a form, and the notion
of interior product of a form with a vector field are defined in an analogous way.
\begin{defn}[Symplectic form on a model]{\rm
A {\em symplectic form}, $\omega$, on a model $\tilde{U}/\Gamma$ is the assignment of a
$\Gamma$-invariant symplectic form, $\tilde{\omega}$, on the manifold $\tilde{U}$.\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}}\end{defn}
We are now ready to define quasifolds.
\begin{defn}[Quasifold]
{\rm A dimension $k$ {\em quasifold structure} on a topological space
$M$ is the assignment of an {\em atlas}, or collection of {\em charts}, ${\cal A}= \{\;
(U_{\alpha},\phi_{\alpha},\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha})\;|\;\alpha\in A\;\}$ having the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The collection $\{\;U_{\alpha}\;|\;\alpha\in A\;\}$ is a cover of $M$.
\item For each index $\alpha$ in $\cal A$, the set $U_{\alpha}$ is open, the space
$\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha}$ defines a model, where the set $\ut_{\alpha}$ is an open, connected and simply connected
subset of the space $\R^k$, and the mapping $\phi_{\alpha}$ is a homeomorphism of the space
$\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha}$ onto the set $U_{\alpha}$.
\item For all indices $\alpha, \beta$ in $A$ such that
$U_{\alpha}\capU_{\beta}\neq\emptyset$, the sets $\phi_{\alpha}^{-1}(U_{\alpha}\capU_{\beta})$
and $\phi_{\beta}^{-1}(U_{\alpha}\capU_{\beta})$ define models
and the mapping $$g_{\alpha\beta}=\phi_{\beta}^{-1}\circ\phi_{\alpha}\,\colon\phi_{\alpha}^{-1}(U_{\alpha}\capU_{\beta})
\longrightarrow\phi_{\beta}^{-1}(U_{\alpha}\capU_{\beta})$$
is a diffeomorphism. We will then say that the mapping
$g_{\alpha\beta}$ is a {\em change of charts} and that the corresponding
charts are {\em compatible}.
\item The atlas ${\cal A}$ is {\em maximal}, that is:
if the triple $(U,\phi,\tilde{U}/\Gamma)$ satisfies property 2. and is compatible with
all the charts in ${\cal A}$, then $(U,\phi,\tilde{U}/\Gamma)$ belongs to ${\cal A}$.
\end{enumerate}
We will say that a space $M$ with a
quasifold structure is a {\em quasifold}.
}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\end{defn}
\begin{remark}{\rm
A quasifold where all the groups $\Gamma_{\alpha}$ are trivial is a manifold,
one where all the groups $\Gamma_{\alpha}$ are finite is an orbifold.
\nolinebreak\hfill{$\bigtriangledown$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}}\end{remark}
\begin{ex}[The quasisphere]\label{qsphere1}{\rm
Let $s,t$ be two positive real numbers such that $s/t\notin\mbox{\bbb{Q}}$.
Consider the space $\C^2$ with the standard symplectic form
$\omega_0=\frac{1}{2\pi i}(dz_1\wedge d\bar{z}_1 +
dz_2\wedge d\bar{z}_2)$ and with the
$\mbox{\bbb{R}}$-action: $(\theta, (z_1,z_2)) = ( \e z_1, e^{2\pi i\theta\frac{s}{t}} z_2)$ of
moment mapping
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Psi\,\colon&\C^2 &\longrightarrow \mbox{\bbb{R}} \\
&(z_1,z_2)&\longmapsto |z_1|^2 +\frac{s}{t}|z_2|^2-s.
\end{eqnarray*}
Consider the level set $\Psi ^{-1} (0)$; this space is an ellipsoid of
dimension $3$ with center the origin and radii $(\sqrt{s},\sqrt{t})$.
Consider now the space of orbits $M=\Psi^{-1}(0)/\mbox{\bbb{R}}$. We want to show that
it is a quasifold of dimension $2$. We cover it with
two open sets, $U_S=\{\,[z_1:z_2]\in M\;|\;z_2\neq 0\,\}$ and
$U_N=\{\,[z_1:z_2]
\in M\;|\;z_1\neq 0\,\}$. Denote by $B(r)$, for any $r>0$,
the open ball in the space $\mbox{\bbb{C}}$ of center the origin and radius $\sqrt{r}$. Then
the discrete group $\Gamma_S=\mbox{\bbb{Z}}$ acts on the open set $\tilde{U}_S=B(s)$
by the rule $(k,z)\mapsto e^{2\pi ik\frac{t}{s}}\cdot z$;
this action is free on the connected, dense subset
$\tilde{U}_S-\{0\}$ and the mapping
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi_S\,\colon\tilde{U}_S/\Gamma_S &\longrightarrow &U_S\\
\left[z\right]&\longmapsto &\left[z:\sqrt{t-\frac{t}{s}|z|^2}\right]
\end{eqnarray*}
is a homeomorphism.
Similarly the group $\Gamma_N=\mbox{\bbb{Z}}$ acts on the open set $\tilde{U}_N=B(t)$
by the rule $(m,w)\mapsto e^{2\pi im\frac{s}{t}}\cdot w$;
this action is free on the connected, dense subset
$\tilde{U}_N-\{0\}$ and the mapping
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi_N\,\colon\tilde{U}_N/\Gamma_N &\longrightarrow &U_N\\
\left[w\right]&\longmapsto &\left[\sqrt{s-\frac{s}{t}|w|^2}:w\right]
\end{eqnarray*}
is a homeomorphism. Let us check that these two charts are
compatible. The set $\phi_S^{-1}(U_S\cap U_N)$ defines a model: it is the
quotient of $\mbox{\bbb{R}}\times \left(0,\sqrt{s}\right)$ by the following action of $\Z^2$:
$\left(\left( h,k\right) ,\left( \sigma, \rho\right)\right)\mapsto \left(\sigma+h+k\frac{t}{s},\rho\right).$
Similarly the set $\phi_N^{-1}(U_S\cap U_N)$ is the
quotient of $\mbox{\bbb{R}}\times (0,\sqrt{t})$ by the following action of $\Z^2$:
$\left(\left( l,m\right),\left( \tau, \upsilon \right)\right)
\mapsto \left(\tau+l+m\frac{s}{t},\upsilon\right)$.
Remark that
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_{SN}=\phi_N^{-1}\circ\phi_S\,\colon \phi_S^{-1}(U_S\cap U_N)
&\longrightarrow &\phi_N^{-1}(U_S\cap U_N)\\
\left[z=e^{2\pi i\sigma}\rho\right]&\longmapsto
&\left[w=e^{-2\pi i \sigma\frac{s}{t}}\sqrt{t-\frac{t}{s}\rho^2}
\right]
\end{eqnarray*}
is a diffeomorphism of models: its lift is given by
$(\sigma,\rho)\longmapsto \left( -\sigma\frac{s}{t},\sqrt{t-\frac{t}{s}\rho^2}\right)$.
Now complete this collection with all other compatible charts.
}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Diamond$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{ex}
We now proceed to give quasifolds all the necessary geometrical
structure.
\begin{defn}[Smooth mapping, diffeomorphism of quasifolds]\label{smglob}
{\rm Let $M$ and $N$ be two quasifolds. A continuous mapping $f\,\colon\, M\rightarrow N$
is said to be a {\em smooth mapping of quasifolds} if there exists a chart $(U_{\alpha}, \phi_{\alpha}, \ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha})$
around each point $m$ in the space $M$, a chart $(V_{\alpha}, \psi_{\alpha}, \vt_{\alpha}/\Delta_{\alpha})$
around the point $f(m)$, and a smooth mapping of models
$f_{\alpha}\,\colon\,\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha}\rightarrow \vt_{\alpha}/\Delta_{\alpha}$ such that $\psi_{\alpha}\circf_{\alpha}=f\circ\phi_{\alpha}$.
If the smooth mapping $f$ is bijective, and if its inverse is smooth, we will say that
it is a {\em diffeomorphism of quasifolds}.
}\end{defn}
Let us say a word about the definition of smooth mapping.
Consider Definition \ref{smglob} and denote by $\tilde{\fa}$ a lift of the smooth mapping of models
$f_{\alpha}$, by $p_{\alpha}$ the canonical projection $\ut_{\alpha} \rightarrow \ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha}$, and
by $q_{\alpha}$ the canonical projection $\vt_{\alpha} \rightarrow \vt_{\alpha}/\Delta_{\alpha}$. Then, by
combining Definitions \ref{smloc} and \ref{smglob}, we get that the following diagram commutes
$$
\begin{array}{ccl}
\ut_{\alpha} & \stackrel{\tilde{\fa}}{\mbox{\LARGE $\longrightarrow$}} &\vt_{\alpha}\\
{}\!\!\!\!\!\stackrel{p_{\alpha}}{}\,\stackrel{}{\mbox{\LARGE $\downarrow$}} & &
\stackrel{}{\mbox{\LARGE $\downarrow$}}\,\stackrel{q_{\alpha}}{}\\
\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha} &\stackrel{f_{\alpha}}{\mbox{\LARGE $\longrightarrow$}} & \vt_{\alpha}/\Delta_{\alpha}\\
{}\!\!\!\!\!\stackrel{\phi_{\alpha}}{}\,\stackrel{}{\mbox{\LARGE $\downarrow$}} & &
\stackrel{}{\mbox{\LARGE $\downarrow$}}\,\stackrel{\psi_{\alpha}}{}\\
U_{\alpha} & \stackrel{f}{\mbox{\LARGE $\longrightarrow$}} & V_{\alpha}.
\end{array}
$$
Let us look at the special case
$N=V$, a vector space (this includes all moment maps;
see Definition~\ref{mmap}). The space $V$ is a smooth quasifold of one chart
so a mapping $f\,\colon\, M\longrightarrow V$ is smooth
if, and only if, there exists a chart
$\phi_{\alpha}\,\colon\,\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha}\longrightarrowU_{\alpha}$ around each point $m$ in
the space $M$, such that the mapping
$\tilde{\fa}=f\circ\phi_{\alpha}\circp_{\alpha}\,\colon\,\ut_{\alpha}\longrightarrow V$ is smooth (here
$p_{\alpha}$ still denotes the canonical projection $\ut_{\alpha} \rightarrow \ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha}$).
\begin{defn}[Vector field, $h$-form on a quasifold]\label{vff}{\rm
A {\em vector field}, $X$, [respectively {\em $h$-form}, $\omega$],
on a quasifold $M$ is the assignment
of a chart $(U_{\alpha}, \phi_{\alpha},\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha})$ around each point $m$ in the space $M$ and of a
vector field, $\mbox{X}_{\alpha}$, [respectively $h$-form, $\omega_\alpha$,]
on the model $\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha}$. We require that whenever
we have two such charts, $(U_{\alpha}, \phi_{\alpha},\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha})$ and $(U_{\beta}, \phi_{\beta},\ut_{\beta}/\Gamma_{\beta})$,
with the property that
$U_{\alpha}\capU_{\beta}\neq\emptyset$, then $(g_{\alpha\beta})_*\mbox{X}_{\alpha} = \mbox{X}_{\beta}$ [respectively
$(g_{\alpha\beta})^*\omega_\beta = \omega_\alpha$] for the corresponding change of charts $g_{\alpha\beta}$. }\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{defn}
\begin{defn}[Pushforward of a vector field]{\rm Let $M$ and $N$ be two
quasifolds, let $X$ be a vector field on the quasifold $M$, and let $f\,\colon\, M\rightarrow N$
be a diffeomorphism; then there exists
a chart $(U_{\alpha}, \phi_{\alpha},\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha})$ around any given point $m$ in the space $M$, a chart
$(V_{\alpha}, \psi_{\alpha},\vt_{\alpha}/\Delta_{\alpha})$ around the point $n=f(m)$, a vector field $\mbox{X}_{\alpha}$ on the model $\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha}$, and
a smooth mapping $f_{\alpha}\,\colon\, U_{\alpha}\rightarrowV_{\alpha}$ such that $\psi_{\alpha}\circf_{\alpha}=f\circ\phi_{\alpha}$.
We define the {\em pushforward} of $\mbox{X}$ via $f$, denoted
$f_*\mbox{X}$, to be the vector field on the quasifold $N$ given by the assignment
of the chart $(V_{\alpha}, \psi_{\alpha},\vt_{\alpha}/\Delta_{\alpha})$ around the point $n$ and of the vector field
${f_{\alpha}}_*\mbox{X}_{\alpha}$ on the model $\vt_{\alpha}/\Delta_{\alpha}$.}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{defn}
Completely analogous definitions hold for the notions of differential and pullback
of a form, and for the notion of interior product of a form with a vector field.
\begin{defn}[Symplectic form-structure-quasifold, symplectomorphism]{\rm
A {\em symplectic form} on a quasifold $M$ is a $2$-form,
$\omega$, such that each form $\omega_\alpha$ (see Definition~\ref{vff}) is
symplectic. A {\em symplectic structure} on a quasifold $M$ is the assignment
of a symplectic form $\omega$, and we will say that $(M,\omega)$,
or shortly $M$, is a {\em symplectic quasifold}.
A {\em symplectomorphism} between two
symplectic quasifolds $(M,\omega)$ and $(N,\sigma)$
is a diffeomorphism $f\,\colon\, M\longrightarrow N$
such that $f^*\sigma=\omega$.\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}}\end{defn}
\begin{ex}[Quasilinear model]\label{darboux1}{\rm
Let $V$ be a symplectic vector space with a linear, effective
and symplectic action of a torus $T$.
Take any discrete subgroup $\Gamma\subset T$, and consider its
induced action on the space $V$. The group $\Gamma$ acts freely on a
connected, dense subset of the space $V$, thus the space of orbits $V_{\G}=V/\Gamma$
is a symplectic quasifold of dimension $2l=\dim{V}$.
}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Diamond$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{ex}
The quasisphere in Example~\ref{qsphere1} can also be
endowed with a symplectic structure.
\begin{ex}[Quasisphere]\label{qsphere2}{\rm
Consider the quasisphere of Example~\ref{qsphere1}
and define a symplectic form by assigning the
$\Gamma_S$-invariant symplectic form $\tilde{\omega}_S=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\,
dz\wedge d\bar{z}$ to the set $\tilde{U}_S$ and the $\Gamma_N$-invariant
symplectic form $\tilde{\omega}_N=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\, dw\wedge d\bar{w}$ to the set $\tilde{U}_N$.
}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Diamond$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{ex}
\section{Quasitori and their actions on quasifolds}\label{tori}
We devote this section to quasitori and their Hamiltonian actions
on symplectic quasifolds. We start with a number of
definitions and properties and we end with some crucial examples.
\begin{defn}[Quasilattice, quasitorus]{\rm Let $\mbox{\frak d}$ be a vector space of dimension $n$.
A {\em quasilattice} in $\mbox{\frak d}$ is the $\mbox{\bbb{Z}}$-span, $Q$, of a set of
$\mbox{\bbb{R}}$-spanning vectors $X_1,\ldots,X_d$ in $\mbox{\frak d}$.
We call {\em quasitorus} of dimension $n$ the group and quasifold of one chart
$D=\mbox{\frak d}/Q$.}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\end{defn}
Notice that in the previous definition $d\geq n$ and that if $d=n$, then the quasilattice
$Q$ is a lattice and the quasitorus $D$ is a honest torus. A quasitorus is compact,
connected and abelian, and the group operations of multiplication and
inversion are smooth quasifold mappings.
\begin{ex}[A quasicircle]\label{quasicircle}{\rm The first example
of a (non-smooth) quasitorus is
the quasitorus of dimension $1$ ({\em quasicircle})
$D^1=\mbox{\bbb{R}}/Q$, where $Q=s\mbox{\bbb{Z}}+t\mbox{\bbb{Z}}$, $s/t\notin\mbox{\bbb{Q}}$. To discover
everything about this innocuous-looking group we refer the reader
to \cite{di,i,il}.
}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Diamond$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{ex}
The quasifold tangent space at the identity of a quasitorus $D=\mbox{\frak d}/Q$
is always the vector space $\mbox{\frak d}$. By analogy with the smooth case we make the following
\begin{defn}[Quasi-Lie algebra, exponential mapping]
{\rm Let $D=\mbox{\frak d}/Q$ be a quasitorus. We define the {\em quasi-Lie algebra} of $D$
to be the vector space $\mbox{\frak d}$. The natural projection of $\mbox{\frak d}$ onto
$D$ is called {\em exponential mapping}, denoted $\exp_{D}$,
or simply $\exp$.}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}[Quasitorus homomorphism, isomorphism and epimorphism]
{\rm A group
homomorphism [respectively epimorphism and isomorphism] between quasitori that is
a smooth quasifold map is called {\em quasitorus homomorphism}
[respectively {\em epimorphism} and {\em isomorphism}].}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\end{defn}
Given two quasitori, $D_1=\mbox{\frak d}_1/Q_1$ and $D_2=\mbox{\frak d}_2/Q_2$, and a quasitorus homomorphism
$f\,\colon\, D_1\rightarrow D_2$,
it is easy to check that the unique lift, $\tilde{f}$, of the homomorphism $f$ satisfying $\tilde{f} (0)=0$
is a linear mapping $\tilde{f}\,\colon\, (\mbox{\frak d}_1,Q_1)\rightarrow (\mbox{\frak d}_2,Q_2)$,
and is an epimorphism, respectively isomorphism, whenever the homomorphism $f$ is.
Again by analogy with honest tori, we will call this lift
the quasi-Lie algebra homomorphism associated to the
quasitorus homomorphism $f$.
The following proposition explains why we are
interested in quasitori.
\begin{prop}\label{groupquotient}
Let $T$ be a torus and $N$ a Lie subgroup
\footnote{We allow and actually prefer immersed subgroups.}. Then $T/N$ is a
quasitorus of dimension $n=\dim{T}-\dim{N}$.
\end{prop}
\mbox{\bf Proof.\ \ }
Choose a complement, $\mbox{\frak d}$, of the vector subspace $\mbox{\frak n}=\mbox{Lie}(N)$ in
the vector space $\mbox{\frak t}=\mbox{Lie}(T)$;
consider the surjective mapping $p_{\mbox{\sfrak d}}=\Pi\circ{\exp_T}|_{\mbox{\frak d}}
\,\colon\,\mbox{\frak d}\longrightarrow T/N$
where $\Pi\,\colon\, T\longrightarrow T/N$ denotes the canonical projection.
Then the set $Q=\ker{p_{\mbox{\sfrak d}}}$ is a quasilattice (a lattice if the group $N$ is compact)
and the mapping $p_{\mbox{\sfrak d}}$ induces a group isomorphism $\mbox{\frak d}/Q\simeq T/N$.
Notice that two different choices of a complement
$\mbox{\frak d}$ yield isomorphic quasitori; the group
$T/N$ thus inherits a well defined structure of quasitorus.
\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Box$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\vspace{.4cm}
\noindent
We remark that the subspace $\mbox{\frak d}$ of the preceding proof
is the quasi-Lie algebra of the quasitorus $D\simeq T/N$ and that $p_{\mbox{\sfrak d}}=\exp_D$.
One important special case is the quotient of a torus $T$ by any of its
discrete subgroups, $\Gamma$. In this case we have $T/\Gamma=\mbox{\frak d}/Q$,
where $\mbox{\frak d}\simeq\mbox{\frak t}$. Another example is the quotient of a
two-dimensional torus by an immersed line of slope $s/t\notin\mbox{\bbb{Q}}$
({\em Kronecker foliation}); the corresponding quasitorus
is the quasicircle of Example~\ref{quasicircle}.
\begin{defn}[Smooth action]
{\rm A {\em smooth action} of a quasitorus $D$ on a quasifold $M$
is a smooth mapping $\tau\,\colon\, D\times M\longrightarrow M$
such that $\tau(d_1\cdot d_2,m)=\tau(d_1,\tau(d_2,m))$ and
$\tau(1_{D},m)=m$ for all elements $d_1, d_2$ in the quasitorus $D$ and for each point $m$ in
the space $M$.}
\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{defn}
According to this definition, there exist charts $(U_{\alpha},\phi_{\alpha},\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha})$
and $(V_{\alpha},\psi_{\alpha},\vt_{\alpha}/\Delta_{\alpha})$ around each point $m$ in the space $M$,
and smooth mappings $\tilde{\tau}_{\alpha},\tau_{\alpha}$ such that the following diagram commutes
$$
\begin{array}{ccl}
\mbox{\frak d}\times \ut_{\alpha} & \stackrel{\tilde{\tau}_{\alpha}}{\mbox{\LARGE $\longrightarrow$}} & \vt_{\alpha} \\
{}\!\!\!\!\!\stackrel{}{}\,\stackrel{}{\mbox{\LARGE $\downarrow$}} & &
\stackrel{}{\mbox{\LARGE $\downarrow$}}\,\stackrel{}{}\\
D\times(\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha}) & \stackrel{\tau_{\alpha}}{\mbox{\LARGE $\longrightarrow$}} &
\vt_{\alpha}/\Delta_{\alpha}\\
{}\!\!\!\!\!\stackrel{}{}\,\stackrel{}{\mbox{\LARGE $\downarrow$}} & &
\stackrel{}{\mbox{\LARGE $\downarrow$}}\,\stackrel{}{}\\
D\timesU_{\alpha} & \stackrel{\tau}{\mbox{\LARGE $\longrightarrow$}} & V_{\alpha}
\end{array}
$$
Notice that, since
$\tau(1_{D},p)=p$ for each point $p$ in the space $M$, we have that the set $U_{\alpha}$ is contained in
the set $V_{\alpha}$;
it is therefore possible to assume that $\tilde{\tau}_{\alpha}(0,\tilde{u})=
\tilde{u}$ for each point $\tilde{u}$ in the set $\ut_{\alpha}$, and
that the set $\ut_{\alpha}$ is contained in the set $\vt_{\alpha}$. Now fix an element
$X$ in the space $\mbox{\frak d}$; then, for small enough real numbers $t$, the points $\tilde{\tau}_{\alpha}(tX,\tilde{u})$ belong to
the set $\ut_{\alpha}$ whenever the point $\tilde{u}$ does. These data allow us to define the
fundamental vector field of the smooth action $\tau$.
\begin{defn}[Fundamental vector field]{\rm
Consider a smooth action, $\tau$, of a quasitorus $D=\mbox{\frak d}/Q$
on a quasifold $M$. For any element $X$ in the space $\mbox{\frak d}$ we define a vector field $\mbox{X}_M$ on
the space $M$, called {\em fundamental vector field of the action} corresponding
to $X$, which is given
by the assignment, for each point $m$ in the space $M$, of the chart $(U_{\alpha},\phi_{\alpha},\ut_{\alpha}/\Gamma_{\alpha})$
(see discussion above) and of the $\Gamma_{\alpha}$-invariant vector field on the set $\ut_{\alpha}$ given by
$$
\tilde{\mbox{X}}_M(\tilde{u})=\frac{d}{dt}|_0 \,\tilde{\tau}_{\alpha}(tX,\tilde{u}),\quad \tilde{u}\in\ut_{\alpha}.
$$
}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{defn}
Notice that, for a fixed element $d$ in the quasitorus $D$, the mapping $\tau_{d}(-)=\tau(d,-)$ is a
diffeomorphism of the quasifold $M$.
\begin{defn}[Hamiltonian action, moment mapping]\label{mmap}{\rm
A smooth action, $\tau$, of a quasitorus $D=\mbox{\frak d}/Q$
on a symplectic quasifold $(M,\omega)$
is {\em Hamiltonian} if it preserves the symplectic form
($\tau_{d}^*\omega=\omega$ for all $d$ in the quasitorus $D$) and if
there exists a smooth $D$-invariant mapping
$\Phi\,\colon\, M\rightarrow\d^*$,
which we call {\em moment mapping}, such that $\imath(\mbox{X}_M)\omega=
d<\Phi,X>$, for each element $X$ in the space $\mbox{\frak d}$.}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\triangle$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\end{defn}
\begin{ex}[The quasilinear model]\label{darboux3}{\rm
Consider the quasilinear model $V_{\G}$
of Example~\ref{darboux1}. The linear,
effective and symplectic action of the torus $T$ on the space $V$
is Hamiltonian and it can be described as follows.
Write $T=\mbox{\frak t}/L$, where $\mbox{\frak t}$ denotes the Lie algebra of the torus $T$ and $L$
is the lattice $\ker\exp_T$, and consider the corresponding weight lattice
$$L^*=\{\;\mu\in\t^*\;|\;\mu(X)\in\mbox{\bbb{Z}}\quad\forall X\in L\;\}.$$
The space $V$ decomposes into $l$ complex
$1$-dimensional $T$-invariant subspaces $V_j$ and there
exist weights $\alpha_j$ in the lattice $L^*$, $j=1,\ldots, l$, such that
the action is given by
$$
\begin{array}{cccccl}
\hat{\tau}\,\colon& T&\times&V&\longrightarrow& V\\
&(\exp_T(X)&,&v)&\longmapsto&(e^{2\pi i \alpha_1(X)} v_1,\ldots,
e^{2\pi i \alpha_l(X)} v_l),
\end{array}
$$
and the moment mapping is given by
$$
\begin{array}{cccl}
\hat{\Phi}\,\colon&V&\longrightarrow &\t^*\\
&v&\longmapsto & \sum_{j=1}^l |v_j|^2 \alpha_j.
\end{array}
$$
The image of $\hat{\Phi}$ is the rational convex polyhedral cone $\hat{\cal C}$ of
vertex $O$ and spanned by the weights $\alpha_j$.
Denote by $p$ the projection $V\rightarrowV_{\G}$, by $D$ the quasitorus $\mbox{\frak d}/Q\simeq T/\Gamma$,
by $\Pi$ the projection $T\rightarrow D$,
and by $\pi\,\colon(\mbox{\frak t},L)\rightarrow(\mbox{\frak d},Q)$ the corresponding
quasi-Lie algebra isomorphism. The action of the torus
$T$ on the vector space $V$ induces an action, $\tau$, of the quasitorus $D$ on
the space $V_{\G}$ as follows
$$
\begin{array}{ccl}
T\times V & \stackrel{\hat{\tau}}{\mbox{\LARGE $\longrightarrow$}} & V \\
{}\!\!\!\!\!\stackrel{\Pi\times p}{}\,\stackrel{}{\mbox{\LARGE $\downarrow$}} &
&
\stackrel{}{\mbox{\LARGE $\downarrow$}}\,\stackrel{p}{}\\
D\timesV_{\G} & \stackrel{\tau}{\mbox{\LARGE $\longrightarrow$}} & V_{\G}.
\end{array}
$$
This action is Hamiltonian and
the corresponding moment mapping $\Phi$ is given by
$$
\begin{array}{ccl}
V & \stackrel{\hat{\Phi}}{\mbox{\LARGE $\longrightarrow$}} & \t^*\\
{}\!\!\!\!\!\stackrel{p}{}\,\stackrel{}{\mbox{\LARGE $\downarrow$}} & &
\stackrel{}{\mbox{\LARGE $\uparrow$}}\,\stackrel{\pi^*}{}\\
V_{\G} & \stackrel{\Phi}{\mbox{\LARGE $\longrightarrow$}} &\d^*.
\end{array}
$$
Notice that the image of the mapping $\Phi$ is the convex
polyhedral cone ${\cal C}=(\pi^*)^{-1}(\hat{\cal C})$, which is spanned
by the elements $\beta_j=(\pi^*)^{-1}(\alpha_j)$ in the space $\d^*$.
}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Diamond$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{ex}
\begin{ex}[The quasisphere]\label{qsphere3}{\rm
Let us go back to the quasisphere $M$ of Examples~\ref{qsphere1}
and \ref{qsphere2}.
Consider now the quasilattice $Q=s\mbox{\bbb{Z}}+t\mbox{\bbb{Z}}$ and the quasicircle
$D^1=\mbox{\bbb{R}}/Q$. The mapping
$$
\begin{array}{cccl}
\tau\,\colon&D^1\times M&\longrightarrow &M\\
&([\theta],[z:w])&\longmapsto &[\eones z:w]
\end{array}
$$
defines a Hamiltonian action of the quasicircle $D^1$ (a quasirotation) on
the quasifold $M$, with moment mapping
$$
\begin{array}{cccl}
\Phi\,\colon&M&\longrightarrow &\R^*\\
&[z:w]&\longmapsto &\frac{|z|^2}{s}=1-\frac{|w|^2}{t}.
\end{array}
$$
Notice finally that $\Phi(M)=[0,1]$ just like for truly rotating
spheres, teardrops, or rugby balls.
}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Diamond$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{ex}
We conclude with an example of a honest torus acting
on a quasifold. This example
has a different flavor than all the others that we treat.
\begin{ex}[The horocycle foliation]{\rm
Let us consider the upper half-plane
${\cal H}=\{\,(x,y)\in\R^2\;|\;\mbox{s.t.}\quad y>0\}$
with the standard symplectic form
$dx\wedge dy$. We let the group $\mbox{\bbb{Z}}$ act on the space ${\cal H}$ as follows:
$(k,(x,y))\longmapsto(x+ky,y)$. This action is free
and symplectic. We now consider the following free
and Hamiltonian $S^1$-action on the quotient space
${\cal H}/\mbox{\bbb{Z}}$: $(\e, [x:y])\longmapsto [x+\theta y:y]$;
the moment mapping is given by $[x:y]\longmapsto
\frac{1}{2}y^2$.}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Diamond$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{ex}
\section{From simple polytopes to symplectic quasifolds}
The aim of this section is to
extend Delzant's construction and to show that any simple convex
polytope is the image of the moment mapping for
a family of effective Hamiltonian quasitorus actions
on symplectic quasifolds of the appropriate dimension. This is
a consequence of the following symplectic reduction theorem.
\label{delzant}
\begin{thm}\label{reduction} Let $T$ be a torus of Lie algebra
$\mbox{\frak t}$, let $T\times X \longrightarrow X$ be a Hamiltonian action of
the torus $T$ on a symplectic manifold
$X$ and assume that the moment mapping $J\,\colon\, X \longrightarrow
\t^*$ is proper. Consider the induced action of any Lie subgroup $N$ of
$T$ and suppose that 0 is a regular value of the corresponding
moment mapping $\Psi\,\colon \,X \longrightarrow \n^*$ ($\mbox{\frak n}$
denotes the Lie algebra of $N$). Then $M=\Psi^{-1}(0)/N$ is a symplectic quasifold
of dimension $\dim{X}-2\dim{N}$ and the induced ($T/N$)-action on
the quasifold $M$ is Hamiltonian.
\end{thm}
\mbox{\bf Proof.\ \ } The slice theorem (see \cite{k}) applied to the $T$-action on the manifold $\Psi^{-1}(0)$
gives invariant neighborhoods of the orbits $T\cdot x$ that are of the
form $T\times_{T_x} B_x$, where $T_x=\mbox{Stab}(x,T)$, and
$B_x$ is an open ball in the space $T_x(\psi^{-1}(0))/T_x(T\cdot x)$.
The quotient $(T\times_{T_x} B_x)/N$ is a
($T/N$)-invariant neighborhood of the orbit $(T/N)\cdot [x]$
in the space $M$. Let us check that this neighborhood is a quasifold chart;
the argument is quite similar to the one in the proof of
Proposition~\ref{groupquotient}. Denote by $\mbox{\frak t}_x$ the
Lie algebra of the group $T_x$. Since the value $0$ is regular for the mapping $\Psi$, we have that
$\mbox{\frak t}_x\cap\mbox{\frak n}=\{0\}$; choose a complement $\mbox{\frak d}_x$ of the vector subspace
$\mbox{\frak t}_x\oplus\mbox{\frak n}$ in the space $\mbox{\frak t}$. Denote
by $\Pi_x$ the projection $T\times_{T_x} B_x\longrightarrow
(T\times_{T_x} B_x)/N$ and define
a surjective mapping $p_x\,\colon\,\mbox{\frak d}_x\times B_x\longrightarrow
(T\times_{T_x} B_x)/N$ according to the following rule:
$p_x(Y,b)=\Pi_x([\exp_T{Y}:b])$, $(Y,b)\in\mbox{\frak d}_x\times B_x$. Now consider
the quasilattice $Q$ of the proof of Proposition~\ref{groupquotient}
chosen relatively to the complement $\mbox{\frak d}=\mbox{\frak d}_x\oplus\mbox{\frak t}_x$
of the subspace $\mbox{\frak n}$ in the space $\mbox{\frak t}$. It is easy to check that the discrete group
$$\Lambda_x=\left\{\;(Y_Q,\exp_TT_Q)\in\mbox{\frak d}_x\times T_x\;|\;
Y_Q+T_Q\in Q\;\right\}$$ acts on the connected, simply connected
open set $\mbox{\frak d}_x\times B_x$ as follows
$$
\begin{array}{cccccc}
&\Lambda_x&\times&(\mbox{\frak d}_x\times B_x)&\longrightarrow& \mbox{\frak d}_x\times B_x\\
&((Y_Q,\exp_TT_Q)&,&(Y,b))&\longmapsto&(Y+Y_Q,\exp_TT_Q\cdot b),
\end{array}
$$
and that the mapping $p_x$ induces a homeomorphism
$(\mbox{\frak d}_x\times B_x)/\Lambda_x\simeq (T\times_{T_x} B_x)/N$.
The remainder of the proof proceeds like the proof of the classical
symplectic reduction theorem. The symplectic form on the manifold $X$
induces a $\Lambda_x$-invariant symplectic form on the open set $\mbox{\frak d}_x\times B_x$, thus
a symplectic form on each chart $(T\times_{T_x} B_x)/N$;
similarly the action of the torus $T$ on the manifold $X$ induces a Hamiltonian
action of the quasitorus $T/N$ on each chart, the corresponding moment mapping
being induced by the one for the $T$-action on the manifold $X$. The required
compatibility properties are satisfied.
\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Box$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\begin{remark}[Quasi-universal covers]{\rm
We like to think of the manifolds $U^{\#}$ in Remark~\ref{simplyc},
$\mbox{\frak d}$ in the proof of Proposition~\ref{groupquotient}, and
$\mbox{\frak d}_x\times B_x$ in the proof of Theorem~\ref{reduction}, as the
{\em quasi-universal covers} of the quasifolds $\tilde{U}/\Gamma$, $T/N$ and
$(T\times_{T_x} B_x)/N$, respectively; the discrete groups
$\Lambda$, $Q$ and $\Lambda_x$ would then be the
corresponding fundamental groups. If the group $\Gamma$ were
finite and the group $N$ were compact this would be in agreement
with Thurston's notion of orbifold universal cover.
\nolinebreak\hfill{$\bigtriangledown$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}}\end{remark}
Let us now apply Theorem~\ref{reduction} to
extend Delzant's construction.
Let $\mbox{\frak d}$ be a vector space of dimension $n$.
The key idea is the observation that any simple convex
polytope in the dual space $\d^*$ can be obtained by slicing a translate of the
positive ortant of the space $(\rd)^*$ with an appropriate subspace.
\begin{thm}\label{del}
Let $\mbox{\frak d}$ be a vector space of dimension $n$.
For any simple convex polytope $\Delta\subset\d^*$ there exists
an $n$-dimensional quasitorus $D$ of quasi-Lie algebra $\mbox{\frak d}$,
a $2n$-dimensional compact symplectic quasifold
$M$, and an effective Hamiltonian action of the quasitorus $D$ on
the quasifold $M$ such that the image of the corresponding moment mapping is
the polytope $\Delta$.
\end{thm}
\mbox{\bf Proof.\ \ }
Consider the space $\C^d$ endowed with the standard symplectic form
$\omega_0=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\sum_{j=1}^d dz_j\wedge d\bar{z}_j$ and
the standard action of the torus $T^d=\R^d/\Z^d$:
$$
\begin{array}{cccccl}
\tau\,\colon& T^d&\times&\C^d&\longrightarrow& \C^d\\
&((\et1,\ldots,e^{2\pi i\theta_d})&,&\underline{z})&\longmapsto&(\et1 z_1,\ldots, e^{2\pi i\theta_d} z_d).
\end{array}
$$
This action is effective and Hamiltonian and its moment mapping
is given by
$$
\begin{array}{cccl}
J\,\colon&\C^d&\longrightarrow &(\rd)^*\\
&\underline{z}&\longmapsto & \sum_{j=1}^d |z_j|^2 e_j^*+\lambda,\quad\lambda\in(\rd)^*
\;\mbox{constant}.
\end{array}
$$
The mapping $J$ is proper and its image is the cone ${\cal C}_\lambda=\lambda+{\cal C}_0$,
where ${\cal C}_0$ denotes the positive ortant in the space $(\rd)^*$.
Write the polytope $\Delta$ as in the appendix, formula~(\ref{polydecomp})
and consider the surjective linear mapping
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pi\,\colon &\R^d \longrightarrow \mbox{\frak d},\\
&e_j \longmapsto X_j.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $Q$ be any quasilattice in the vector space $\mbox{\frak d}$ containing
the vectors $X_1,\ldots,X_d$ (for example $Q=\sum_{j=1}^d X_j\mbox{\bbb{Z}}$),
and consider the dimension $n$ quasitorus $D=\mbox{\frak d}/Q$.
Then the linear mapping $\pi$ induces a quasitorus
epimorphism $\Pi\,\colon\,T^d \longrightarrow D$. Define now $N$ to
be the kernel of the mapping $\Pi$ and choose
$\lambda=\sum_{j=1}^d \lambda_j e_j^*$. Then, according
to Theorem~\ref{reduction}, the quasitorus $T^d/N$
acts in a Hamiltonian fashion on the
symplectic quasifold $M=\Psi^{-1}(0)/N$. Denote by $i$ the Lie algebra inclusion
$\mbox{Lie}(N)\rightarrow\R^d$.
If we identify the quasitori $D$ and $T^d/N$ using the epimorphism $\Pi$, we get a
Hamiltonian action of the quasitorus $D$ whose moment mapping has image equal to
${(\pi^*)}^{-1}({\cal C}_\lambda\cap\ker{i^*})=
{(\pi^*)}^{-1}({\cal C}_\lambda\cap\mbox{im}\,\pi^*)=
{(\pi^*)}^{-1}(\pi^*(\Delta))=\Delta$.
This action is effective since the level set $\Psi^{-1}(0)$ contains points
of the form $\underline{z}\in\C^d$, $z_j\neq0$, $j=1,\ldots,d$, where
the $T^d$-action is free.
Notice finally that $\dim{M}=2d-2\dim{N}= 2d-2(d-n)=2n=2\dim{D}$.
\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Box$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\begin{remark}[Uniqueness?]
{\rm Notice that we had many choices in this construction. To begin
with, the pairs $(X_j,\lambda_j)$ in (\ref{polydecomp}) are far from being
unique; moreover there are infinitely many quasilattices that contain
a fixed choice of the vectors $X_j$. As a consequence, the quasitorus, quasifold
and action are far from being unique (see Example~\ref{segment}
below), but we will return to this matter in future work. For the
moment we just point out that if the polytope $\Delta$ is rational relatively to a
lattice $L$, by choosing the elements $X_j$ to be in the lattice $L$, and the quasilattice
$Q$ to be equal to the lattice $L$ itself, we distinguish among our spaces a family of orbifolds, in
accordance with \cite{lt}; if the polytope $\Delta$ also satisfies Delzant's
integrality condition, by taking the elements $X_j$ to be primitive in the lattice $L$,
we obtain a manifold, in accordance with \cite{d}.
\nolinebreak\hfill{$\bigtriangledown$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}}\end{remark}
We conclude this section with three telling examples, where we apply the construction
described in Theorem~\ref{del} to three different polytopes.
\begin{ex}[The unit interval]\label{segment}
{\rm As a first example we consider the unit interval $[0,1]\subset
\R^*$. We apply the construction with the choice of vectors
$X_1=s, X_2=-t$, $s, t\in\R_+^*$, and with the corresponding
quasilattice $Q=X_1\mbox{\bbb{Z}}+X_2\mbox{\bbb{Z}}$.
We leave it as an
exercise to show that if $s/t\notin\mbox{\bbb{Q}}$ we obtain the
quasisphere of Examples~\ref{qsphere2} and \ref{qsphere3},
while in the remaining cases we get the standard sphere,
and its orbifold cousins, the teardrop and rugby ball.
}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Diamond$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}\end{ex}
\begin{ex}[The right triangle]
{\rm As a second example we consider the right triangle in $(\rtwo)^*$
of vertices $(0,0)$, $(s,0)$ and $(0,t)$, where $s,t$ are two
positive real numbers such that $s/t\notin\mbox{\bbb{Q}}$.
We apply the construction with the choice of vectors $X_1=(1,0)$, $X_2=(0,1)$,
$X_3=(-t,-s)$ and with the corresponding quasilattice $Q=X_1\mbox{\bbb{Z}}+X_2\mbox{\bbb{Z}}+X_3 \mbox{\bbb{Z}}$. Then we have
$\lambda_1=\lambda_2=0$, $\lambda_3= -st$ and a linear mapping
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pi\,\colon &(\R^3,\Z^3) &\longrightarrow (\R^2,Q)\\
&(x,y,z) &\longmapsto (x-tz,y-sz)
\end{eqnarray*}
that induces a quasitorus homomorphism $\Pi\,\colon\,T^3\rightarrow
D^2=\R^2/Q$ whose kernel is given by
$$N=\{\,(e^{2\pi i\sigma t},e^{2\pi i\sigma s},e^{2\pi i\sigma})\;|\; \sigma\in\mbox{\bbb{R}}\,\}.$$
Consider now the standard action
$\tau\,\colon\,T^3\times\C^3\longrightarrow\C^3$
with moment mapping given by
$$
\begin{array}{cccl}
J\,\colon&\C^3&\longrightarrow &(\rthree)^*,\\
&\underline{z}&\longmapsto &(|z_1|^2,|z_2|^2,|z_3|^2-st).
\end{array}
$$
Then the $N$-moment mapping is given by
$$
\begin{array}{cccl}
\Psi\,\colon&\C^3&\longrightarrow &\R^*\\
&\underline{z}&\longmapsto &t|z_1|^2+s|z_2|^2+|z_3|^2-st,
\end{array}
$$
and $$\Psi^{-1}(0)=\{\,\underline{z}\in\C^3\quad|\quad t|z_1|^2+
s|z_2|^2+|z_3|^2=st\,\}$$
is the dimension $5$ ellipsoid of center the
origin and of radii $(\sqrt{s},\sqrt{t},\sqrt{st})$. The quasitorus $D^2$ acts
on the quasifold $M=\Psi^{-1}(0)/N$ with moment mapping
$$
\begin{array}{cccl}
\Phi\,\colon&M&\longrightarrow &(\rtwo)^*\\
&[\underline{z}]&\longmapsto &(|z_1|^2,|z_2|^2),
\end{array}
$$
and $\Phi(M)=\Delta$. We call the quasifold $M$ projective quasispace, by
analogy with the case of the rational right triangle ($s/t\in\mbox{\bbb{Q}}$),
which gives either a weighted or an ordinary projective space.}\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Diamond$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\end{ex}
The unit interval and the right triangle are actually rational (with
respect to the appropriate choice of lattices). Here comes finally an example
of a polytope that is not.
\begin{ex}[The regular pentagon]
{\rm Let us take the regular pentagon
in $(\rtwo)^*$.
We choose the vectors $X_1=(1,0), X_2=(a,b)$, $X_3=(c,d)$,
$X_4=(c,-d)$, $X_5=(a,-b)$ and the corresponding quasilattice
$Q=\sum_{j=1}^{5}X_j\mbox{\bbb{Z}}$, where
$a=\cos{\frac{2\pi}{5}}$, $b=\sin{\frac{2\pi}{5}}$,
$c=\cos{\frac{4\pi}{5}}$, $d=\sin{\frac{4\pi}{5}}$.
Then we have $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=
\lambda_3=\lambda_4=\lambda_5=c$ and a linear
mapping
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pi\,\colon &(\R^5,\Z^5) &\longrightarrow (\R^2,Q)\\
&(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5) &\longmapsto (x_1+a(x_2+x_5)+c(x_3+x_4),
b(x_2-x_5)+d(x_3-x_4)).
\end{eqnarray*}
that induces a quasitorus homomorphism $\Pi\,\colon\,T^5\rightarrow
D^2=\R^2/Q$ whose kernel is given by
$$N=\{\,(e^{2\pi i\phi},\e,e^{2\pi i\sigma},e^{2\pi i[2a(\theta-\sigma)+\phi)]},
e^{2\pi i[2a(\theta-\phi)+\sigma)]})\;|\; (\phi,\theta,\sigma)
\in\R^3 \,\}.$$
Consider now the standard action
$\tau\,\colon\,T^5\times\C^5\longrightarrow\C^5$
with moment mapping given by
$$
\begin{array}{cccl}
J\,\colon&\C^5&\longrightarrow &(\rfive)^*,\\
&\underline{z}&\longmapsto &(|z_1|^2+c,|z_2|^2+c,|z_3|^2+c,|z_4|^2+c,|z_5|^2+c).
\end{array}
$$
Then the $N$-moment mapping is given, for $\underline{z}\in\C^5$,
by $\Psi(\underline{z})=-\left(\frac{\sqrt{5}}{2},\sqrt{5}c,
\frac{\sqrt{5}}{2}\right)+$
$$
\left(|z_1|^2+|z_4|^2-2a|z_5|^2,
|z_2|^2+2a(|z_4|^2+|z_5|^2),|z_3|^2+|z_5|^2-2a|z_4|^2\right),
$$
and $\Psi^{-1}(0)=$
$$\left\{|z_1|^2+|z_4|^2-2a|z_5|^2=
|z_3|^2+|z_5|^2-2a|z_4|^2=\frac{\sqrt{5}}{2},
|z_2|^2+2a(|z_4|^2+|z_5|^2)=\sqrt{5}c\right\}.$$
The quasitorus $D^2$ acts on the quasifold $M=\Psi^{-1}(0)/N$
and $\Phi(M)=\Delta$. }\nolinebreak\hfill{$\Diamond$}\par\vspace{0.5\parskip}
\end{ex}
\setcounter{sect}{1}
\setcounter{thm}{0}\def\Alph{sect}.\arabic{equation}{\Alph{sect}.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}\def\Alph{sect}.\arabic{thm}{\Alph{sect}.\arabic{thm}}
\vspace{4.5ex}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro:ch3}
In van Hoof \& Van de Steene (1999, Paper~I) we presented and tested a new
method to derive simultaneously and self-consistently all physical parameters
of a planetary nebula from a set of observed quantities. A modified version of
the photo-ionization code {\sc cloudy}\ (Ferland 1993) is used to calculate various
models, searching for a best fit of the predictions to the observables in an
automated way. This method uses emission line ratios, the angular diameter,
the radio and the infrared flux to constrain the model. It also takes dust
into account in the radiative transport. With this method we are able to
determine the stellar temperature and luminosity, the inner, Str\"omgren\ and outer
radius of the nebula, the density, the dust-to-gas mass ratio and the
abundances. We investigated the accuracy of the determination of the physical
parameters by applying this method to an artificial set of observables. First
we proved that this method can pass a formal convergence test. Subsequently we
introduced either measurement errors in the observables or changed the model
assumptions, and investigated how this affects the best-fit model. In this way
we gained an understanding of the robustness of our method and hence of the
reliability of the physical parameters. Our method was also compared with
classical methods to determine the electron temperature and density and
nebular abundances. It was shown that our method suffers less from noise in
the spectrum than the classical line diagnostics. However, this advantage may
be lost if the model assumptions are not appropriate for the nebula being
studied. The weakest points are currently the use of a blackbody
approximation, the assumption that the inner dust radius coincides with the
inner gas radius and the assumption of spherical symmetry.
Distance determinations of Planetary Nebulae (PNe) are still very problematic.
Various methods are in use, but the range in distances obtained is often very
large and no method has found general acceptance. Reviews of the current
status can be found in Pottasch \cite{c2:rev}, Terzian \cite{c2:terzian} and
Pottasch \cite{c2:pot:dens}. The lack of a reliable, generally applicable
method to determine distances to PNe poses a problem when using
photo-ionization models. To circumvent this problem we applied the method to a
small sample of galactic bulge nebulae, which can be assumed to be all at the
same well-known distance. Our aim is to study the accuracy of the
determination of physical parameters by comparing our results with other
literature values.
A summary of the method and model assumptions is given in Section~\ref{method}.
The sample selection is presented in Section~\ref{sample} and the modelling
results in Section~\ref{results}. Each PN in the sample is discussed
individually, with special emphasis on the problems encountered during the
modelling in Section~\ref{remarks}. The resulting physical parameters are
discussed by comparing them with results from other studies in the literature
in Section~\ref{discussion}. Our conclusions are given in Section~\ref{conclusions}.
\section{Summary of the model assumptions and the method}
\label{method}
The model assumptions and the method were extensively described and discussed
in Paper~I. This section presents only a brief summary.
To model the planetary nebula, we use a modified version of the
photo-ionization code {\sc cloudy}\ 84.06 (Ferland 1993).
The model for the PN is quite simple, and comprises the following assumptions:
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{(\arabic{enumi})}
\item{The central star has a blackbody spectrum.}
\item{The nebula is spherically symmetric.}
\item{The density is constant inside the Str\"omgren\ radius of the nebula,
and varies as $1/r^2$ outside.}
\item{Dust grains are intermixed with the gas at a constant dust-to-gas mass
ratio; if no information on the composition is available they are assumed to
be a mixture of graphite and silicates.}
\item{The filling factor, describing the small scale clumpiness of the gas,
can be fixed at any value. If no information is available it is taken to be
unity.}
\item{The distance to the nebula is fixed by an independent individual or statistical method.}
\end{enumerate}
The above assumptions leave the following free parameters: the stellar
temperature, the luminosity of the central star, the hydrogen density in the
ionized region, the inner radius of the nebula, the dust to gas ratio, and the
abundances in the nebula. \\ The outer radius of the nebula is not fixed as an
input parameter, but calculated from the long wavelength end of the dust
emission, or, as a fail-safe, when the electron density drops below
0.1~cm$^{-3}$.
Adopting certain values for the input parameters, it is possible to calculate
a model for the nebula with {\sc cloudy}, predicting the continuum and line fluxes,
photometric magnitudes (including the contribution of line emission) and the
Str\"omgren\ radius.
To compare the model predictions with the observed quantities, a
goodness-of-fit estimator is calculated. This estimator is minimized by
varying all the input parameters of the model, using the algorithm {\sc amoeba}\
(Press et~al. 1986).
It is assumed that there exists a unique set of input parameters, for which
the resulting model predictions give the best fit to a given set of
observables. These input parameters are then considered the best estimate for
the physical properties of the PN.
The full set of observed quantities necessary to derive the physical
parameters of a PN are:
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{(\arabic{enumi})}
\item The emission line spectrum of the nebula.
Usually this is an optical spectrum, but might also be an ultraviolet and/or
infrared spectrum. The line ratios make it possible to constrain the
stellar temperature, the density and the electron temperature in the
nebula. They are also required to determine the abundances. For elements for
which no lines are available we assume standard abundances (Aller \& Czyzak
1983).
\item Since dust is included in the model we also need information on the mid-
and far-infrared continuum. For this the {\it IRAS}\ fluxes are used.
\item To constrain the emission measure, either an optically thin
radio continuum measurement (e.g. at 6~cm) is needed, or the absolute flux value
of some hydrogen recombination line (usually \relax\ifmmode{\rm H\beta}\else{\rm H$\beta$}\fi).
\item An accurate angular diameter $\Theta_{\rm d}$ of the nebula is needed,
which we define as $\Theta_{\rm d} = 2r_{\rm str}/D$. Here $r_{\rm str}$ stands
for the Str\"omgren\ radius of the nebula and $D$ is the distance to the nebula.
\end{enumerate}
\section{The sample of galactic bulge PNe}
\label{sample}
We selected a small sample of galactic bulge nebulae from Ratag et al.\ (1997,
RPDM). Galactic bulge nebulae can be assumed to be all at a distance of
approximately 7.8~kpc (Feast 1987). We chose the nebulae from RPDM since they
publish good quality spectra and also carried out their own photo-ionization
analysis of the data which we can use for comparison. The radio observations
for these PNe are described in Gathier et al.\ \cite{c2:gathier}. The
following selection criteria were used:
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{(\arabic{enumi})}
\item
The PNe should have a quality 2 or 3 {\it IRAS}\ 12~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\ flux and quality 3 {\it IRAS}\
25~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\ and 60~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\ fluxes.
\item
The absolute value for the radial velocity should be larger than 100~\relax\ifmmode{\rm km\,s^{-1}}\else{km\,s$^{-1}$}\fi.
\item
The excitation class should not be labelled peculiar.
\end{enumerate}
The resulting five PNe are presented in Table~\ref{ratag:sam}. All nebulae
except M~2$-$4 are indicated by Acker et al.\ \cite{c2:ack:cat} as likely
bulge PNe. In view of the large radial velocity of M~2$-$4, $v_{\rm LSR}$ =
$-$175.8~\relax\ifmmode{\rm km\,s^{-1}}\else{km\,s$^{-1}$}\fi\ (Gathier et al. 1983) it is unlikely to be a foreground
object.
\begin{table}
\caption{Our sample of PNe selected from Ratag et al.\ \protect\cite{c2:ratag}.}
\label{ratag:sam}
\begin{tabular}{ll@{\hspace{6mm}}r@{\hspace{2mm}}r@{\hspace{2mm}}r@{}lr@{\hspace{2mm}}r@{\hspace{2mm}}r}
\hline
& & \ctr{4}{\hspace{-3mm}$\alpha$(2000)}{0} & \ctr{3}{$\delta$(2000)}{-3} \\
\ctr{1}{name}{0} & \ctr{1}{PN G}{6} & h & m & s && \degr & \arcmin & \arcsec \\
\\
H~1$-$40 & 359.7$-$02.6 & 17 & 55 & 36&.0 & $-30$ & 33 & 33 \\
M~1$-$20 & 006.1$+$08.3 & 17 & 28 & 57&.5 & $-19$ & 15 & 53 \\
M~2$-$4 & 349.8$+$04.4 & 17 & 01 & 06&.2 & $-34$ & 49 & 39 \\
M~2$-$23 & 002.2$-$02.7 & 18 & 01 & 42&.6 & $-28$ & 25 & 44 \\
M~3$-$15 & 006.8$+$04.1 & 17 & 45 & 31&.6 & $-20$ & 58 & 02 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Modelling results}
\label{results}
In Table~\ref{ratag:inp} we give the input values for the observables used for
the modelling, together with the resulting model predictions. As can be seen
from this table, not all the lines present in the spectra are predicted by
{\sc cloudy}, most notably the higher Balmer lines of hydrogen and several helium
lines. Also the element chlorine is not included in the code. The resulting
physical parameters for the nebulae are given in Table~\ref{ratag:phys}. The
hydrogen density shown in this table is the constant density within the Str\"omgren\
sphere.
\begin{table*}
\small
\caption{Comparison of the observed quantities (mostly taken from Ratag et al.
1997) and the model fit for our sample of PNe. The strength of the emission
lines is given relative to \relax\ifmmode{\rm H\beta}\else{\rm H$\beta$}\fi\ = 100. The measured line fluxes have been
dereddened. The entries \fb{O}{ii} $\lambda$ 3727, $\lambda$ 7325 and \fb{S}{ii} $\lambda$ 4071 all
stand for the entire multiplet. All observables for which entries in both
columns obs.\ and model are present, have been weighted in the goodness-of-fit
estimator, except where indicated.}
\label{ratag:inp}
\begin{tabular}{l@{}r @{\hspace{6mm}} r@{.}l@{\x{1.5}}r@{.}l@{}r@{.}l@{\x{1.5}}r@{.}l@{}r@{.}l@{\x{1.5}}r@{.}l@{}r@{.}l@{\x{1.5}}r@{.}l@{}r@{.}l@{\x{1.5}}r@{.}l}
\hline
\ctr{1}{ion}{4} & \ctr{1}{$\lambda$}{6} & \ctr{4}{H~1$-$40}{8} & \ctr{4}{M~1$-$20}{7} & \ctr{4}{M~2$-$4}{6} & \ctr{4}{M~2$-$23}{6} & \ctr{4}{M~3$-$15}{2} \\
& \ctr{1}{\AA}{6} & \ctr{2}{\x{-0.5}obs.}{0} & \ctr{2}{\x{-1}model}{8} & \ctr{2}{\x{-1.5}obs.}{0} & \ctr{2}{\x{-1}model}{7} & \ctr{2}{\x{-1}obs.}{0} &
\ctr{2}{\x{-1.5}model}{6} & \ctr{2}{\x{0.5}obs.}{0} & \ctr{2}{\x{-1}model}{7}
& \ctr{2}{\x{-1}obs.}{0} & \ctr{2}{\x{-3}model}{0} \\
\hline
\fb{O}{ii} & 3727 & 32&4\rlap{:}& 38&5 & 55&5 & 83&1 & 97&1 & 125&2 & 14&2 & 20&4 & 48&6 & 101&5 \\
H\,12 & 3750 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 3&4 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
H\,11,\al{O}{iii} & 3771 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 4&2 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
H\,10 & 3798 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 5&5 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 4&0 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 5&1 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
H\,9 & 3835 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 6&7 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 7&1 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 6&5 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
\fb{Ne}{iii} & 3869 & 79&1 & 79&4 & 69&1 & 67&6 & 64&7 & 67&6 & 82&4 & 80&0 & 89&9 & 90&1 \\
H\,8,\al{He}{i} & 3889 & 12&9 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 18&1 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 17&4 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 13&9 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 16&6 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
\fb{Ne}{iii},\relax\ifmmode{\rm H\epsilon}\else{\rm H$\epsilon$}\fi & 3969 & 19&9 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 25&5 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 33&6 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 38&3 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 25&4 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
\al{He}{i} & 4026 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 2&7 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 2&7 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 1&82 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
\fb{S}{ii} & 4071 & 3&3 & 2&5 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 2&3 & 3&6 & 3&0 & 2&5 & 3&8 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 1&8 \\
\relax\ifmmode{\rm H\delta}\else{\rm H$\delta$}\fi,\al{N}{iii} & 4102 & 25&8 & 29&4 & 25&6 & 30&3 & 24&7 & 30&5 & 24&0 & 30&2 & 26&1 & 29&5 \\
\al{C}{ii} & 4267 \\
\relax\ifmmode{\rm H\gamma}\else{\rm H$\gamma$}\fi & 4340 & 47&1 & 50&2 & 49&1 & 51&1 & 45&9 & 51&2 & 48&2 & 50&9 & 49&0 & 50&2 \\
\fb{O}{iii} & 4363 & 4&6\rlap{$^\ddagger$} & 12&0 & 7&5 & 5&4 & 2&9 & 2&1 & 13&9 & 9&9 & 3&3\rlap{:} & 7&5 \\
\al{He}{i} & 4472 & 6&5 & 4&4 & 5&8 & 5&2 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 4&5 & 5&1 & 5&5 & 5&0 & 5&1 \\
\al{N}{iii} & 4641 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 20&3 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
\al{He}{ii} & 4686 & 17&1?\rlap{$^\ddagger$}& 1&9 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&4 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&14 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&6 & 4&1 & 3&5 \\
\fb{Ar}{iv},\al{He}{i} & 4712 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 1&33 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&91 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 1&09 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 1&94 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
\fb{Ar}{iv} & 4740 & 4&45 & 4&70 & 0&71 & 1&16 & 0&33\rlap{:}& 0&69 & 0&80 & 1&42 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 6&67 \\
\relax\ifmmode{\rm H\beta}\else{\rm H$\beta$}\fi & 4861 & 100& & 100& & 100& & 100& & 100& & 100& & 100& & 100& & 100& & 100& \\
\al{He}{i} & 4922 & 1&36\rlap{:}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 1&42 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&87 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
\fb{O}{iii} & 4959 & 307& & 276& & 336&\rlap{$^\dagger$}& 315& & 272&\rlap{$^\dagger$} & 213& & 304& & 350& & 328&\rlap{$^\dagger$}& 219& \\
\fb{O}{iii} & 5007 & 915& & 827& & 1009&\rlap{$^\dagger$}& 946& & 815&\rlap{$^\dagger$} & 640& & 1006& & 1051& & 983&\rlap{$^\dagger$}& 658& \\
\fb{N}{i} & 5201 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&20 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&07 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&22 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&00 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&59 \\
\fb{Cl}{iii} & 5517 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&21 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
\fb{Cl}{iii} & 5538 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&47 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&25 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
\fb{N}{ii} & 5755 & 1&92\rlap{:}& 2&16 & 0&92 & 1&05 & 1&39 & 1&52 & 1&19 & 1&06 & 1&0\rlap{:} & 1&4 \\
\al{He}{i} & 5876 & 15&5 & 15&9 & 15&7 & 16&0 & 13&8 & 13&8 & 17&2 & 17&8 & 16&3 & 16&3 \\
\fb{O}{i} & 6300 & 2&8 & 2&7 & 4&7 & 4&1 & 2&9 & 3&7 & 4&2 & 3&3 & 2&8 & 3&6 \\
\fb{S}{iii} & 6312 & 1&70 & 1&48 & 0&79\rlap{:}& 1&12 & 1&59 & 1&33 & 2&4 & 2&3 & 1&24 & 1&00 \\
\fb{O}{i} & 6364 & 0&88 & 0&88 & 1&46 & 1&35 & 1&00 & 1&23 & 1&42 & 1&09 & 0&79 & 1&19 \\
\fb{N}{ii} & 6548 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 19&9 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 14&6 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 32&1 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 6&4 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 18&8 \\
\relax\ifmmode{\rm H\alpha}\else{\rm H$\alpha$}\fi & 6563 & 280& & 278& & 303& & 269& & 275& & 268& & 283& & 269& & 305& & 278& \\
\fb{N}{ii} & 6584 & 61&4 & 59&7 & 45&4 & 43&8 & 85&6 & 96&2 & 18&9 & 19&2 & 57&6 & 56&3 \\
\al{He}{i} & 6678 & 3&8 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 4&0 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 3&2 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 4&7 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 4&6 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
\fb{S}{ii} & 6716 & 0&99 & 0&96 & 1&17 & 1&45 & 2&72 & 3&16 & 0&78 & 0&47 & 2&65 & 3&38 \\
\fb{S}{ii} & 6731 & 1&71 & 1&99 & 2&32 & 2&91 & 5&0 & 6&0 & 1&55 & 1&05 & 5&4 & 5&2 \\
\al{He}{i} & 7065 & 7&9 & 11&4 & 10&5 & 9&7 & 5&6 & 7&1 & 14&4 & 12&0 & 7&5 & 9&2 \\
\fb{Ar}{iii} & 7136 & 13&6 & 13&3 & 9&1 & 7&5 & 15&2 & 13&0 & 14&0 & 11&2 & 19&2 & 19&3 \\
\al{He}{i} & 7281 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&83 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&3\rlap{:} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&94 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&59 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\
\fb{O}{ii} & 7325 & 9&2 & 14&2 & 14&9 & 17&1 & 8&3 & 14&0 & 19&3 & 21&4 & 6&6 & 8&8 \\
\\
\ctr{1}{obs.}{2} & unit \\
\\
$F_\nu$(12 \relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi) & Jy & 2&38 & 2&38 & 1&13 & 1&00 & 0&56 & 0&53 & 1&93 & 2&10 & $<0$&53\rlap{$^\S$} & 0&19 \\
$F_\nu$(25 \relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi) & Jy & 18&45 & 19&11 & 3&94 & 4&44 & 5&00 & 5&83 & 9&31 & 6&54 & 5&66 & 6&02 \\
$F_\nu$(60 \relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi) & Jy & 11&91 & 11&42 & 2&38 & 2&30 & 5&77 & 5&18 & 1&64 & 1&64 & 8&02 & 7&77 \\
$F_\nu$(100 \relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi) & Jy &$<73$&48 & 3&22 & $<4$&59 & 0&66 & $<12$&59 & 1&73 & $<126$&70 & 0&24 & $<10$&39& 2&72 \\
$F_\nu$(6 cm) & mJy & 31& & 31&0 & 47& & 47&7 & 32& & 32&2 & 41& & 41&5 & 65& & 65&4 \\
$\Theta_{\rm d}$ & arcsec & 1&26 & 1&27 & 1&98 & 1&81 & 2&16 & 2&13 & 0&72 & 0&67 & 5&4 & 5&19 \\
\\
$\chi^2$ & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 0&63 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 1&68 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 2&28 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 4&17 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & 2&75 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\ntd{\rlap{:}\x{4}A colon indicates that the value is uncertain.}
\ntd{\rlap{$^\dagger$}\x{4}The sum of the intensities of the doublet was split using the
ratio 3:1.}
\ntd{\rlap{$^\ddagger$}\x{4}This line was not weighted in the goodness-of-fit estimator
$\chi^2$, see also Section~\ref{remarks}.}
\ntd{\rlap{$^\S$}\x{4}This flux is not listed as an upper limit in the {\it IRAS}\
Point Source Catalog, see also Section~\ref{remarks}.}
\normalsize
\end{table*}
\section{Individual remarks}
\label{remarks}
The PNe in our sample all have nearly the same medium excitation class. This
probably is partially a result of our selection criterion that the nebulae
should have been detected by {\it IRAS}\ in the 12~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\ band (criterion 1). Old
bulge PNe, having a high excitation class and cool dust, might have
insufficient 12~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\ flux to be detected by {\it IRAS}.
In the rest of this section each of the PNe in our sample will be discussed
individually, with special emphasis on the problems encountered during the
modelling.
\subsection{H~1$-$40}
\label{pni:ind}
Two lines were omitted from the list of observables because of the following
reasons. First the \al{He}{ii} $\lambda$ 4686 line was omitted, because the flux
ratio given by RPDM is quite high, indicative of a high stellar temperature.
However, the rest of the observational data are not consistent with such a
high stellar temperature. Also, this line is listed in Table~3 of RPDM, but is
not present in their Table~1. Webster (1988, W88) took a spectrum of this PN,
and she didn't report the detection of this line. She should however have
detected a line of the strength mentioned by RPDM. Tylenda et al. \cite{ty94}
list an upper limit of 5 for the intensity of this line. In view of these
uncertainties we decided to omit this line. Since RPDM included this line in
their modelling, this probably explains the higher stellar temperature they
obtain.
The fitting of the \fb{O}{iii} $\lambda$ 4363 line was also problematic. The observed
flux was far too low to be consistent with the electron temperature predicted
by our model. Since the electron temperature derived from the \fb{N}{ii} line
ratio is much higher (and more consistent with the value determined by our
model), and also because the \fb{O}{iii} $\lambda$ 4363 line is much stronger in the
spectrum of W88 (however not as strong as predicted by our model), we decided
that its value was too uncertain and omitted it from the input.
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\caption{The physical parameters of the galactic bulge PNe in our sample
determined with {\sc cloudy}. Abundances of elements for which only one line was
observed are marked uncertain. Since we only model the core region of
M~2$-$23, no values for the outer radius and total shell mass are entered}
\label{ratag:phys}
\begin{tabular}{l@{\x{2.0}}r@{\x{2.0}}r@{\x{2.0}}r@{\x{2.0}}r@{\x{2.0}}r}
\hline
& H~1$-$40 & M~1$-$20 & M~2$-$4 & M~2$-$23 & M~3$-$15 \\
\\
${\rm log}(T_\ast$/K) & 4.800 & 4.774 & 4.705 & 4.782 & 4.916 \\
${\rm log}(L_\ast$/\relax\ifmmode{\rm L_\odot}\else{L$_\odot$}\fi) & 3.798 & 3.607 & 3.555 & 3.639 & 3.663 \\
${\rm log}(n_{\rm H}$/cm$^{-3}$) & 4.321 & 4.124 & 3.923 & 4.855 & 3.527 \\
$r_{\rm in}$/mpc & 13 & 0.21 & 11 & 9 & 33 \\
$r_{\rm str}$/mpc & 24 & 34 & 40 & 13 & 98 \\
$r_{\rm out}$/mpc & 280\rlap{:} & 360\rlap{:} & 350\rlap{:} & & 520\rlap{:} \\
$M_{\rm ion}$/\relax\ifmmode{\rm M_\odot}\else{M$_\odot$}\fi & 0.042 & 0.092 & 0.088 & 0.015 & 0.47 \\
$M_{\rm sh}$/\relax\ifmmode{\rm M_\odot}\else{M$_\odot$}\fi & 1.3\rlap{:} & 2.3\rlap{:} & 1.9\rlap{:} & & 6.5\rlap{:} \\
${\rm log}\Gamma$ & $-1.70$ & $-3.11$ & $-2.50$ & $-2.46$ & $-2.60$ \\
$\epsilon$(He) & 10.96 & 11.02 & 10.96 & 11.05 & 11.03 \\
$\epsilon$(N) & 7.78 & 7.81 & 8.13 & 7.67 & 7.60 \\
$\epsilon$(O) & 8.23 & 8.72 & 8.84 & 8.67 & 8.22 \\
$\epsilon$(Ne) & 7.39\rlap{:} & 7.82\rlap{:} & 8.15\rlap{:} & 7.75\rlap{:} & 7.53\rlap{:} \\
$\epsilon$(S) & 6.37 & 6.66 & 6.90 & 6.79 & 6.31 \\
$\epsilon$(Ar) & 5.98 & 5.99 & 6.36 & 6.08 & 6.20\rlap{:} \\
$T_{\rm e}$/kK & 12.7 & 9.5 & 8.3 & 10.2 & 12.0 \\
${\rm log} U$ & $-1.40$ & $+2.14$ & $-1.16$ & $-1.80$ & $-1.58$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\nt{\rlap{:}\x{4}A colon indicates that the value is uncertain.}
\normalsize
\end{table}
\subsection{M~1$-$20}
\label{pnii:ind}
The intensity of the \relax\ifmmode{\rm H\alpha}\else{\rm H$\alpha$}\fi\ line seems quite high, and is not fitted well. The
discrepancy is too large to be attributed to measurement errors, hence this
might indicate that the spectrum has not been sufficiently dereddened. There
is however no evidence from the fits to the other lines to support this
suspicion.
Our model gives a very small inner radius, also resulting in a very high
ionization parameter. This is caused by the high {\it IRAS}\ 12~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\ over 25~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\
flux ratio, which might indicate the presence of hot dust. See also the
discussion in Paper I.
\subsection{M~2$-$4}
\label{pniii:ind}
The spectrum is fitted quite well, but there is slight discrepancy for the
\fb{O}{iii} $\lambda$ 4959 and $\lambda$ 5007 lines. This is caused by the \fb{O}{ii} $\lambda$
3727 doublet, which is not fitted well. The latter doublet usually has a
larger uncertainty due to extinction and detector insensitivity.
\subsection{M~2$-$23}
\label{pniv:ind}
This PN has the highest $\chi^2$ of all PNe in our sample. This is mainly
caused by the weak lines, which might indicate that this spectrum has a lower
signal-to-noise when compared to the other spectra. RPDM do not list error
margins for their line flux ratios, so we had to assume reasonable values.
The model is not able to fit the {\it IRAS}\ 25~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\ flux, which is very high
compared both to the 12~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\ and 60~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\ flux. A possible explanation could
be the presence of a 30~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\ dust feature in the spectrum (Hoare 1990). This
would imply that the nebula is carbon-rich, since this feature has only been
observed in carbon-rich nebulae. The central star has spectral type Of (Aller
\& Keyes 1987, AK87).
The large difference between the optical diameter of 8.5\arcsec\ (Acker et al.
1992) and the radio diameter of 0.72\arcsec\ (Gathier et al. 1983) suggests
that this nebula might be a core-halo nebula. All other evidence gathered in
this paper also is consistent with this assumption and we will adopt it
throughout the paper. Since we used the radio diameter for the modelling, our
model is only valid for the core region. The fact that our model is density
bounded and gives a low ionized mass is consistent with the fact that we are
only modelling the core region.
\subsection{M~3$-$15}
\label{pnv:ind}
There is a suggestion of a systematic trend when comparing the observed and
the modelled line flux as a function of wavelength. Also the observed
intensity of the \relax\ifmmode{\rm H\alpha}\else{\rm H$\alpha$}\fi\ line seems quite high. This might indicate that the
spectrum has not been sufficiently dereddened.
This PN has a [WC]-type central star (AK87). The central star temperature, the
excitation class 5.5 (taken from RPDM) and the low {\it IRAS}\ 12~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\ to 25~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\
flux ratio all are consistent with an early spectral type: [WC3-4] (cf.\ Kaler
1989, M\'{e}ndez \& Niemela 1982, and Zijlstra et al. 1994, respectively).
The {\it IRAS}\ 12~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\ flux is not listed as an upper limit in the Point Source
Catalogue. However, when we used this value for the modelling, the resulting
model was unrealistic. We therefore assume that the 12~\relax\ifmmode{\mu{\rm m}}\else{$\mu$m}\fi\ flux suffers from
confusion and took the quoted value to be an upper limit. See also the
discussion in Paper I.
\section{Discussion}
\label{discussion}
In this section the modelling results are discussed by comparing them with
results from other studies in the literature. Since distance dependent
parameters are usually not given by other authors, we will restrict ourselves
to the distance independent parameters of PNe.
\subsection{Stellar temperatures}
In Table~\ref{temp:tab} we present a comparison with the stellar temperatures
given in the literature. These temperatures were derived using the Zanstra
method and photo-ionization modelling. Results using the energy balance or
Stoy method are not listed since we consider this method, or at least the
data for the nebulae being studied here, to be unreliable (Pottasch, private
communication). One can see that the derived values agree quite well with only
a few outliers.
The temperatures determined by our method agree well with the hydrogen Zanstra
temperatures, with the single exception of the temperature for M~2$-$23 given
by Tylenda et al.\ \cite{c2:tylenda}. Since the other three determinations
using the Zanstra method agree quite well, we assume the value given by
Tylenda et al.\ \cite{c2:tylenda} to be erroneous.
\begin{table}
\caption{Comparison of the stellar temperatures for the PNe in our sample. The
temperatures are given in kilokelvin. The abbreviations for the methods have
the following meaning: \al{H}{i}~-- hydrogen Zanstra method, \al{He}{ii}~--
helium Zanstra method, AM~-- photo-ionization modelling using model
atmospheres, BB~-- photo-ionization modelling using blackbody approximation.}
\label{temp:tab}
\begin{tabular}{r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{2}}r}
\hline
H~1$-$40\hspace*{-2.5mm} & M~1$-$20\hspace*{-2.5mm} & M~2$-$4\hspace*{-2.5mm} & M~2$-$23\hspace*{-2.5mm} & M~3$-$15\hspace*{-2.5mm} & ref. & meth.\\
\\
& & 55.\phantom{0}& 64.\phantom{0}& & 3 & \al{H}{i} \\
& 53.\phantom{0}& & 56.\phantom{0}& & 4 & \al{H}{i} \\
& & 51.5 & 65.0 & & 6 & \al{H}{i} \\
& 65.\phantom{0}& & 85.\phantom{0}& & 8 & \al{H}{i} \\
& 49.5 & 49.9 & & & 5 & \al{H}{i} \\
& 59.9 & & & & 5 &\al{He}{ii}\\
& & & 50.\phantom{0}& 62.5 & 1 & AM \\
80.0\rlap{?}& 50.0 & 50.0 & 57.5 & 72.5 & 7 & AM \\
64.\phantom{0} & & & & & 2 & BB \\
63.1 & 59.4 & 50.7 & 60.5 & 82.4 & 9 & BB \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\nt{References ---
1. Aller \& Keyes \cite{c2:aller:keyes} using model atmospheres by Husfeld et al.\ \cite{c2:husfeld}
2. Dopita et al.\ \cite{c2:dopita}
3. Gleizes, Acker \& Stenholm \cite{c2:gleizes}
4. Kaler \& Jacoby \cite{c2:kej}
5. Mal'kov \cite{malkov}
6. Pottasch \& Acker \cite{c2:pot:ack}
7. Ratag et al.\ \cite{c2:ratag} using model atmospheres by Clegg \& Middlemass \cite{c2:cem} and Husfeld et al.\ \cite{c2:husfeld}
8. Tylenda et al.\ \cite{c2:tylenda}
9. This work}
\end{table}
To derive stellar temperatures for photo-ionization modelling, sometimes
certain line-ratios are used as temperature indicators (e.g.\ \al{He}{ii} $\lambda$
4686 over \relax\ifmmode{\rm H\beta}\else{\rm H$\beta$}\fi). Especially for cooler central stars, where few temperature
sensitive lines are available, this makes the determination dependent on one
or two lines. Nevertheless, the results from the photo-ionization models
usually are in good agreement. Exceptions are the temperature for H~1$-$40
derived by RPDM, and the temperatures for M~3$-$15. The deviating value for
H~1$-$40 given by RPDM can probably be attributed to the \al{He}{ii} $\lambda$ 4686
line, which they used as a temperature indicator. We refer to the discussion
in Section~\ref{pni:ind}. For M~3$-$15 we find a higher stellar temperature than
other authors. The largest discrepancy is with the value from AK87. This can
probably be attributed to the fact that AK87 did not report a detection of the
\al{He}{ii} $\lambda$ 4686 line in their spectrum (although a detection of roughly
the same strength as RPDM was reported in Aller \& Keyes 1985). Since M~3$-$15
has a [WC]-type central star, part of the \al{He}{ii} $\lambda$ 4686 flux may
originate from the central star. Unfortunately, no detection of the
\fb{Ar}{iv} $\lambda$ 4740 line has ever been reported, so that no alternative
temperature sensitive line is available. In view of this, the central star
temperature for M~3$-$15 should be viewed with some caution.
We conclude that the temperature determination for the central stars in this
sample is fairly reliable, although the situation for M~3$-$15 is not
completely clear. This confirms our results from Paper I in which we found the
temperature determination to be robust.
\subsection{Electron temperatures}
\label{te:litt}
In Table~\ref{te:tab} the electron temperatures derived by different authors
are compared. The electron temperature determined by {\sc cloudy}\ is a weighted mean
of the temperature in the nebula: $\overline{T_{\rm e}}$ = $\int n_{\rm e}^2
T_{\rm e} \mbox{\rm d} V / \int n_{\rm e}^2 \mbox{\rm d} V$. The observational material shows a
large spread in most cases, even when the same method is used. This indicates
that the electron temperature determination, at least in those cases where
diagnostic lines have been used, is not very reliable. This is in agreement
with our results in Paper I. Note the large difference between the \fb{N}{ii}
and \fb{O}{iii} temperatures in the case of M~2$-$23. This difference is not
caused by measurement error. For this particular object, the temperature
derived from the \fb{N}{ii} lines has no physical meaning (Liu, private
communication).
\begin{table}
\caption{Various determinations of the electron temperature for the nebulae in
our sample. The temperatures are given in kilokelvin. The abbreviations for
the methods have the following meaning: ave.~-- average of \fb{N}{ii} and
\fb{O}{iii}, model~-- average model prediction (see text).}
\label{te:tab}
\begin{tabular}{r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{2}}r}
\hline
H~1$-$40\hspace*{-2.5mm} & M~1$-$20\hspace*{-2.5mm} & M~2$-$4\hspace*{-2.5mm} & M~2$-$23\hspace*{-2.5mm} & M~3$-$15\hspace*{-2.5mm} & ref. & meth.\\
\\
& & & 18.0 & & 1 & \fb{N}{ii} \\
& 17.1 & & & & 2 & \fb{N}{ii} \\
& 12.5 & 12.5 & & & 4 & \fb{N}{ii} \\
& & 10.2 & & & 7 & \fb{N}{ii} \\
& 10.4 & & & & 8 & \fb{N}{ii} \\
13.1 & 10.2 & 9.7 & 19.2 & 9.4\rlap{:}& 9 & \fb{N}{ii} \\
10.1 & & & & & 11 & \fb{N}{ii} \\
& & & 11.0 & & 1 & \fb{O}{iii} \\
& 10.8 & & & & 2 & \fb{O}{iii} \\
& 13.1 & 11.6 & & & 4 & \fb{O}{iii} \\
& & 8.7 & & & 5 & \fb{O}{iii} \\
& & & 12.9 & & 6 & \fb{O}{iii} \\
& 9.9 & & & & 8 & \fb{O}{iii} \\
9.3 & 10.4 & 8.5 & 13.0 & 8.4\rlap{:}& 9 & \fb{O}{iii} \\
9.7 & & & & & 11 & \fb{O}{iii} \\
& & & 12.6 &11.2\rlap{:}& 3 & ave. \\
& & 11.1 & & & 10 & ave. \\
12.7 & 9.5 & 8.3 & 10.2 & 12.0 & 12 & model \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\nt{\rlap{:}\x{4}A colon indicates that the value is uncertain.}
\nt{References ---
1. Acker et~al.\ \cite{c2:ackko}
2. Acker et~al. \cite{c2:ackko2}
3. Aller \& Keyes \cite{c2:aller:keyes}
4. Costa et al.\ \cite{c2:costa}
5. Cuisinier, Acker \& K\"oppen \cite{c2:cuisinier}
6. Kaler \cite{c2:kaler:i}
7. Kaler et al. \cite{c2:kalerea}
8. Kaler et al. \cite{c2:kalerea2}
9. Ratag et al.\ \cite{c2:ratag}
10. Tylenda et al. \cite{c2:tylenda2}
11. Webster \cite{c2:webster}
12. This work}
\end{table}
The electron temperatures derived from our method are in most cases just
outside the range of values found with line diagnostics; three times at the
low end and twice at the high end. The results from Paper~I indicate that the
electron temperature determination with our method should be robust. It is not
apparent to us why the average values of the electron temperature derived from
line diagnostics do not coincide with our results. This might indicate a
problem, although the fact that we find both higher and lower results is not
indicative of a systematic effect. Nevertheless, this issue should be
investigated further in future research, using a larger sample.
\subsection{Electron densities}
\label{eden:disc}
In Table~\ref{ne:tab} the electron densities derived by different authors are
compared. The electron density determined by {\sc cloudy}\ is a weighted mean of the
density in the nebula: $\overline{n_{\rm e}}$ = $\int n_{\rm e}^3 \mbox{\rm d} V / \int
n_{\rm e}^2 \mbox{\rm d} V$. There are enormous differences between the various
determinations in the literature, even when the same method has been applied.
This indicates that the determination of densities with line diagnostics is
unreliable, which confirms our results in Paper~I. Also note the enormous
differences between the \fb{S}{ii}, \fb{Cl}{iii} and \fb{Ar}{iv} densities for
M~1$-$20 derived by Kaler et al. \cite{c2:kalerea2}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Various determinations of the electron density for the nebulae in our
sample. The densities are given in $10^3$~cm$^{-3}$. The abbreviations for the
methods have the following meaning: radio~-- density determined from the radio
flux, model~-- average model prediction (see text).}
\label{ne:tab}
\begin{tabular}{r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{5}}r@{\x{2}}r}
\hline
H~1$-$40\hspace*{-2.5mm} & M~1$-$20\hspace*{-2.5mm} & M~2$-$4\hspace*{-2.5mm} & M~2$-$23\hspace*{-2.5mm} & M~3$-$15\hspace*{-2.5mm} & ref. & meth.\\
\\
& & & 13.6 & & 1 & \fb{S}{ii} \\
10.9 & 4.7 & & & 24.3 & 2 & \fb{S}{ii} \\
& & & 3.0 & 2.5 & 3 & \fb{S}{ii} \\
& 17.8 & 4.5 & & & 5 & \fb{S}{ii} \\
& & 7.0 & & & 6 & \fb{S}{ii} \\
15.0 & & & & & 7 & \fb{S}{ii} \\
& & 4.2 & & & 9 & \fb{S}{ii} \\
& 85.\phantom{0}& & & & 10 & \fb{S}{ii} \\
4.4 & 9.2 & 5.6 & 11.5 & 10.6 & 11 & \fb{S}{ii} \\
& & & & 4.2 & 13 & \fb{S}{ii} \\
& & 3.6 & & & 14 & \fb{S}{ii} \\
35.1 & & & & & 16 & \fb{S}{ii} \\
& & 5.7 & & & 9 & \fb{Cl}{iii} \\
& 7.8 & & & & 10 & \fb{Cl}{iii} \\
& & & 79.\phantom{0}& & 4 & \fb{Ar}{iv} \\
& 1.0 & & & & 10 & \fb{Ar}{iv} \\
& & & 63.\phantom{0}& & 15 & \fb{Ar}{iv} \\
13.5 & & & & & 7 & radio \\
& & & 20.\phantom{0}& & 8 & radio \\
& 10.\phantom{0}& & & & 12 & radio \\
22.7 & 14.6 & 9.1 & 79.3 & 3.7 & 17 & model \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\nt{References ---
1. Acker et al.\ \cite{c2:ackko}
2. Acker et al. \cite{c2:ackko2}
3. Aller \& Keyes \cite{c2:aller:keyes}
4. Boffi \& Stanghellini \cite{c2:boffi}
5. Costa~et al.\ \cite{c2:costa}
6. Cuisinier et al. \cite{c2:cuisinier}
7. Dopita et al.\ \cite{c2:dopita}
8. Kaler \cite{c2:kaler:i}
9. Kaler et al. \cite{c2:kalerea}
10. Kaler et al. \cite{c2:kalerea2}
11. Ratag et al.\ \cite{c2:ratag}
12. Shaw \& Kaler \cite{c2:shaw2}
13. Stanghellini \& Kaler \cite{c2:stang}
14. Tylenda et al. \cite{c2:tylenda2}
15. Webster \cite{c2:web76}
16. Webster \cite{c2:webster}
17. This work}
\end{table}
Our values differ substantially from the values given by RPDM, although they
are based on the same observational data. This is because we use a completely
different method to determine the density. For three out of five nebulae we
find results which are within the range of values found with other methods.
For M~2$-$4 we find a value which is a bit larger. The results in Paper~I
indicate that our determination of the density is somewhat susceptible to
measurement errors and errors in the model assumptions. This might provide an
explanation for the discrepancy. The fact that we model only the core region
of M~2$-$23 provides an explanation for the very high density we find for this
nebula. Webster \cite{c2:web76} and Boffi \& Stanghellini (1994, using the
same spectrum) also find a high value using the \fb{Ar}{iv} line ratio. The
\fb{Ar}{iv} lines are expected to be formed predominantly in the core region
and hence this would confirm our results. On the other hand, the excitation in
the core is too high to form large amounts of S$^+$. Hence the \fb{S}{ii}
lines can be expected to originate predominantly from the halo and should
therefore indicate lower densities. This of course also depends on the exact
position of the slit over the nebula. All of this might be an explanation for
the extremely large spread of values found for this nebula.
The quality of the data in Table~\ref{ne:tab} makes a comparison with our
results meaningless. However, the data are at least consistent with the
assumption that our results are more accurate than the results from line
diagnostics.
\subsection{Nebular abundances}
\begin{table*}
\small
\caption{Comparison of the abundance determinations of the PNe in our sample.}
\label{abun:lit}
\begin{tabular}{lrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
\hline
& \ctr{4}{H~1$-$40}{0} & & \ctr{4}{M~1$-$20}{0} & & \ctr{4}{M~2$-$4}{0} \\
ref:\x{5} &\sctr{4}&\sctr{9}&\sctr{12}&\sctr{13} & &\sctr{2}&\sctr{7}&\sctr{9}&\sctr{13} & &\sctr{2}&\sctr{3}&\sctr{9}&\sctr{13}\\
\noalign{\vskip2pt}
\\
\noalign{\vskip2pt}
$\epsilon$(He) & 11.03 & 11.06 & 11.04 & 10.96 & & 11.07 & 10.94 & 11.02 & 11.02 & & 11.11 &10.96\rlap{:}& 10.99 & 10.96 \\
$\epsilon$(N) & 7.72 & 8.08 & & 7.78 & & 7.39 & 7.80 & 7.75 & 7.81 & & 7.65 & 8.17 & 8.09 & 8.13 \\
$\epsilon$(O) & 8.52 & 8.70 & 8.53 & 8.23 & & 8.30 & 8.65 & 8.62 & 8.72 & & 8.30 & 8.77 & 8.80 & 8.84 \\
$\epsilon$(Ne) & 7.89 & 7.69 & & 7.39\rlap{:}& & & & 7.79 & 7.82\rlap{:}& & & & 7.90 & 8.15\rlap{:}\\
$\epsilon$(S) & 6.88 & 6.77 & & 6.37 & & 6.43\rlap{:}& & 6.52 & 6.66 & & 6.64 & 7.03 & 6.96 & 6.90 \\
$\epsilon$(Ar) & 6.6\phantom{0}& 6.43 & & 5.98 & & & & 6.05 & 5.99 & & 6.31 & 6.36 & 6.25 & 6.36 \\
\\
& \ctr{8}{M~2$-$23}{0} & & \ctr{4}{M~3$-$15}{0} \\
ref:\x{5} &\sctr{1}&\sctr{5}&\sctr{6}&\sctr{8}&\sctr{9}&\sctr{10}&\sctr{11}&\sctr{13} & &\sctr{1}&\sctr{5}&\sctr{9}&\sctr{13}\\
\noalign{\vskip2pt}
\\
\noalign{\vskip2pt}
$\epsilon$(He) & 11.00 & 10.93 & &10.88\rlap{:}& 10.98 & 10.92 & 10.96 & 11.05 & & 11.03 & 11.01 & 11.03 & 11.03 \\
$\epsilon$(N) & 7.68 & 8.20 & 7.70 & 7.55 & 7.40 & 8.13 & & 7.67 & & 8.08 & & 8.14 & 7.60 \\
$\epsilon$(O) & 8.40 & 8.42 & 8.18 & 8.34 & 8.22 & 8.47 & 8.11 & 8.67 & & 8.41 & 8.51 & 8.74 & 8.22 \\
$\epsilon$(Ne) & 7.60 & 7.62 & & 6.46\rlap{:}& 7.15 & 7.65 & & 7.75\rlap{:}& & 7.48 & 7.62 & 7.86 & 7.53\rlap{:}\\
$\epsilon$(S) & 6.6\phantom{0}& & & 6.29 & 6.30 & & & 6.79 & &6.7\rlap{:}\phantom{0}& & 6.86 & 6.31 \\
$\epsilon$(Ar) & 5.75 & & & 5.86 & 5.81 & & & 6.08 & & 6.5\phantom{0}& & 6.53 & 6.20\rlap{:}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\ntd{\rlap{:}\x{4}A colon indicates that the value is uncertain.}
\ntd{References ---
1. Aller \& Keyes \cite{c2:aller:keyes}
2. Costa et al. \cite{c2:costa}
3. Cuisinier et al. \cite{c2:cuisinier}
4. Dopita et al.\ \cite{c2:dopita}
5. Henry \cite{c2:henry}
6. Kaler \cite{c2:kaler:ii}
7. Kaler et al. \cite{c2:kalerea2}
8. K\"oppen (private communication)
9. Ratag et al. \cite{c2:ratag}
10. Walton, Barlow \& Clegg \cite{c2:wal:bar}
11. Webster \cite{c2:web76}
12. Webster \cite{c2:webster}
13. This work}
\normalsize
\end{table*}
In Table~\ref{abun:lit} we give a comparison of the abundances we determined
with other literature values. We did not include the nitrogen abundance for
M~3$-$15 from Henry \cite{c2:henry}. After a discussion with Dr. Henry it was
established that this abundance was flawed by an error in the analysis (as is
also the case for the nitrogen abundances of M~4$-$3 and H~1$-$23 listed in
the same paper; all other results are not affected). We also did not include
the abundances for M~2$-$23 listed in K\"oppen, Acker \& Stenholm
\cite{c2:koppen}. It was established that this analysis was flawed by an error
as well, and Dr. K\"oppen kindly provided us with a re-analysis of his data.
The higher nitrogen abundance given by Walton et al.\ \cite{c2:wal:bar} for
M~2$-$23 might be a result of the inclusion of {\it IUE}\ data in their analysis.
They systematically find higher nitrogen abundances for bulge PNe than other
authors.
One can see that large differences can be found between the various abundance
determinations in the literature. If we exclude our own results, we find the
following statistics. For elements heavier than helium, we find a difference
between the lowest and highest abundance determination larger than or equal to
0.3~dex in 12 out of 22 cases, and larger than or equal to 0.5~dex in 4 out of
22 cases. For the helium abundances we find a spread larger than 0.1~dex in 2
out of 5 cases. Especially the abundances for M~2$-$23 show a large spread and
should be considered uncertain. From this we draw the conclusion that, at
least for the sample studied here, abundance determinations can not be
considered very accurate. Uncertainties exceeding 0.2~dex to 0.3~dex are not
uncommon.
When one compares the abundances for the individual PNe with the values from
RPDM, one can see that for the two objects where the electron temperature is
in good agreement (M~1$-$20 and M~2$-$4), the abundances also agree very well.
For the other objects the abundance determinations differ. We attribute this
to the difference in the determination of the electron temperature. When we
compare our abundance determinations with the other values found in the
literature, we see that our results often are slightly outside the range of
values found by other authors. This behaviour is well correlated: either all
outliers are at the low end or at the high end. This behaviour is also well
correlated with our electron temperature determination. When our electron
temperature determination is at the low end, our abundances are at the high
end, and the reverse is also the case (see also Section~\ref{te:litt}). This
indicates that the main source of uncertainty in the abundance determination
is the electron temperature. Hence the discussion given in Section~\ref{te:litt}
applies here as well.
\subsection{Stellar broadband fluxes}
Since {\sc cloudy}\ calculates the attenuation of the stellar continuum separately
from the transport of the diffuse nebular continuum, we are able to predict
broadband photometric fluxes for the central star as they would appear through
the nebula. In this way we could calculate a prediction for the Johnson~{\rm\sl B}\
and {\rm\sl V}\ magnitudes. However, observed stellar magnitudes will be reddened due
to interstellar extinction as well, and we have to take this into account in
our predictions. To calculate the total extinction towards the nebula, we
averaged all the measurements we could find in the literature. Since the
continuum fluxes predicted by {\sc cloudy}\ already take the internal extinction into
account, we only have to correct the stellar magnitudes for the external
extinction. Hence we used the internal extinction from our model, and
subtracted it from the total extinction. Then we used this value for the
external extinction to predict the reddened {\rm\sl B}\ and {\rm\sl V}\ magnitudes of the
central star. Where necessary, we applied the interstellar reddening law given
by Pottasch \cite{c2:book:pot}. A comparison of the calculated values with the
literature values taken from Acker et al.\ \cite{c2:ack:cat} is given in
Table~\ref{mag:tab}.
\begin{table*}
\small
\caption{For the PNe in our sample we give in column 2 and 3 the Johnson~{\rm\sl B}\
and {\rm\sl V}\ magnitudes resp.\ predicted by our model, in column 4 the internal
extinction in the Johnson~{\rm\sl V}\ band derived from our model, in column 5 the
average total extinction derived from the Balmer decrement and the radio flux,
in columns 6 and 7 the predicted reddened values for the Johnson~{\rm\sl B}\ and {\rm\sl V}\
magnitudes and in column 8 and 9 the measured magnitudes given in Acker et
al.\ \protect\cite{c2:ack:cat}.}
\label{mag:tab}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\hline
name & {\rm\sl B}$_{\rm mod}$ & {\rm\sl V}$_{\rm mod}$ & $A_{\rm\sl V}^{\rm int}$ & $A_{\rm\sl V}^{\rm tot}$ & {\rm\sl B}$_{\rm pred}$ & {\rm\sl V}$_{\rm pred}$ & {\rm\sl B} & {\rm\sl V} \\
& {\rm mag} & {\rm mag} & {\rm mag} & {\rm mag} & {\rm mag} & {\rm mag} & {\rm mag} & {\rm mag} \\
\\
H~1$-$40 & 15.70 & 15.68 & 1.11 & 5.05$\pm$0.26 & 20.86$\pm$0.34 & 19.62$\pm$0.26 & & \\
M~1$-$20 & 14.62 & 14.90 & 0.06 & 2.61$\pm$0.10 & 17.96$\pm$0.13 & 17.45$\pm$0.10 & 17.7 & 17.1 \\
M~2$-$4 & 14.41 & 14.64 & 0.14 & 2.78$\pm$0.15 & 17.87$\pm$0.19 & 17.28$\pm$0.15 & 17.6 & 17.0 \\
M~2$-$23 & 14.63 & 14.90 & 0.08 & 1.81$\pm$0.22 & 16.90$\pm$0.28 & 16.63$\pm$0.22 & 16.7 & \\
M~3$-$15 & 15.52 & 15.80 & 0.10 & 4.69$\pm$0.25 & 21.53$\pm$0.33 & 20.39$\pm$0.25 & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\normalsize
\end{table*}
The predicted magnitudes are slightly fainter than observed, but still in
remarkable good agreement, considering the fact that we use a blackbody
approximation to determine these values. Given the fact that a blackbody of a
given temperature has more ionizing photons than a realistic spectrum with the
same effective temperature, one can expect that in the best-fit model the
total luminosity will be underestimated to compensate for this effect.
However, we find that this effect is only very modest and this can be
understood from the fact that we include the dust emission in the modelling.
Grains can be heated very efficiently by Balmer continuum photons, as well as
by Lyman continuum photons. Therefore, the {\it IRAS}\ fluxes give a good
constraint on the Balmer continuum flux. This counteracts the previously
mentioned underestimation of the total luminosity and explains the remarkable
accuracy of our stellar broadband fluxes.
\subsection{Distances}
\label{dist:discussion}
In our model assumptions we assume the distance to be a fixed number. However,
our method can easily be changed in such a way that the distance would be a
free parameter. When this is done, the best-fit model would also give an
estimate for the distance. We have investigated the possibility to determine
the distance this way (van Hoof \& Van de Steene 1996). We found that, though
possible in principle, the spread in the resulting distance determinations is
large. The distance determination is vulnerable to various observational
errors, but especially to the error in the determination of the angular
diameter. Since the angular diameter is notoriously hard to measure, this
sensitivity makes the results very uncertain. When we determined the distances
to the bulge nebulae in our sample with this method, we found the spread in
the values to be larger than what is obtained from a statistical method (Van
de Steene \& Zijlstra 1995).
Closer investigation reveals that this method of determining distances is in
essence identical to the method described in Phillips \& Pottasch
\cite{c2:phillips}. They already concluded that this method is unreliable. The
use of a wrong value for the distance not only influences the distance
dependent parameters but also some distance independent parameters, as was
already discussed in Paper~I. We therefore do not recommend this method, and
advise the use of separately determined distances.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{conclusions}
We applied our method which enables a fully self-consistent determination of
the physical parameters of a PN, using the spectrum, the {\it IRAS}\ and radio
fluxes and the angular diameter of the nebula, to a sample of five galactic
bulge PNe. Comparison of the distance independent physical parameters with
published data shows that the stellar temperatures generally are in good
agreement and can be considered reliable. The literature data for the electron
temperature, electron density and also for the abundances show a large spread,
indicating that the use of line diagnostics is not reliable. Comparison of the
various abundance determinations indicates that the uncertainty in the
electron temperature is the main source of uncertainty in the abundance
determination. The large spread in the literature data makes a comparison with
our results meaningless. The stellar magnitudes predicted by the
photo-ionization models are in good agreement with observed values.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Drs.\ S.R.\ Pottasch, L.B.F.M.\ Waters and J.M.\ van der Hulst for
helpful comments. Drs.\ R.D.\ Oudmaijer, T. de Jong, G.J. Ferland and the
anonymous referee are thanked for critically reading the manuscript. Drs.
R.B.C. Henry and J. K\"oppen are thanked for re-examining their data. The
authors acknowledge support from the Netherlands Foundation for Research in
Astronomy (ASTRON) through grant no.\ 782--372--033 and 782--372--035. PvH
wishes to thank ESO for their hospitality and financial support during his
stay in Santiago where part of this paper was written. PvH is currently
supported by the NSF through grant no.\ AST 96--17083. The photo-ionization
code {\sc cloudy}\ was used, written by Gary Ferland and obtained from the University
of Kentucky, USA. We thank Gary Ferland for his invaluable help in debugging
and modifying the code.
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the frontiers of current astronomical research is the
observation of supernovae at high-redshift. In fact it is expected
that by using SNe~Ia as distance indicators it will be possible to
constrain the geometry of the Universe within a few years. Equally
important and difficult, is to determine the rate of the different
types of SNe as a function of redshift. The rationale is that the
various types of SNe have progenitors of different ages; in particular
core-collapse SN~II+Ib/c result from young, massive stars and SN~Ia
originate from intermediate to old population stars (eg. Branch et
al. \cite{bnf}). Therefore, the evolution of the relative SN rates
with redshift can be used to probe the average SFR rate history in
galaxies and, in turn, constrain scenarios for galaxy formation and
evolution.
So far, there have been only exploratory attempts in this direction
(J{\o}rgensen et al. \cite{jorg}; Sadat et al. \cite{sadat}; Madau et
al. \cite{madau}), which however have demonstrated the potential of this
approach and motivated new observational efforts.
The accurate determination of the present time SN rates is the
benchmark, crucial to exploiting these efforts to the full. Another
important factor is to compare the rates of various SN types with
different indicators of the stellar population content of galaxies
in the local Universe.
One problem with these rates is that local SNe are rare and therefore it
requires several years or decades to collect sufficient statistics.
In addition, in order to obtain accurate estimates of the SN
rate, it is necessary to know: $i)$ the sample of galaxies which have been
searched for SNe, $ii)$ the frequency and limiting magnitude of
observations and $iii)$ the instruments/techniques which are used for
detection in order to assess search biases.
Very few groups of professional astronomers have had the perseverance
and force to carry out a SN search program long enough to be really
useful for this purpose ({\em cf} Cappellaro et al. \cite{stat95}
hereafter C97). Among the amateurs in this field, an outstanding case
is the visual SN search which has been conducted by Evans since 1980
(Evans \cite{ev:97}). Indeed, estimates of the SN rate based on the
first 10 years of Evans' SN search have already been published (Evans et
al. \cite{ev:89}; van den Bergh
\& Mc~Clure \cite{vdbmc}). In this paper we will analyze the updated log of this survey which doubles the statistics with respect to previously
published estimates (Sec.~\ref{evans}).
Following the protocol described in a previous paper (C97), we pooled
together Evans' log and those of photographic searches and used
the improved statistical basis to test a different approach for the
correction of selection effects (Sec.~\ref{sec_hatano}).
We used this combined database, which is the largest ever built for
such a purpose, to obtain updated estimates of the SN rates
(Sec.~\ref{update}). Finally, we compared the SN rates with other SFR
indicators such as the far infrared luminosity, the integrated
color and the activity of the galaxy.
\section{Evans' visual SN search}\label{evans}
Evans began his search of SNe in 1980 using a 25~cm telescope. The
observations were conducted visually, which has the advantage of being
very fast and inexpensive, but the limiting magnitude for SN
discovery is not very deep ($m_{\rm lim}=14.5$ mag). At the end of
1985 the telescope was replaced with a 41~cm telescope ($m_{\rm
lim}= 15.0$ mag), and most recently complemented by a 100~cm
telescope at Siding Spring Observatory ($m_{\rm lim}=16.0$).
\begin{table*}
\caption{SN rates in spirals of different inclination (not corrected
for the inclination bias.)}\label{inc}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{Evans search} &&
\multicolumn{3}{c}{photographic searches (from C97)} \\
\cline{2-4}\cline{6-8}
inc & N. & N. & rate && N. & N. & rate \\
${\rm [deg]}$& galaxies & SNe & [SNu]$^*$ &&galaxies &SNe&[SNu]$^*$\\
\hline
0-45 & 616 & 18 & $0.88\pm0.21$ && 1581 & 36 & $0.94\pm0.16$ \\
45-65 & 666 & 13 & $0.49\pm0.14$ && 1702 & 25 & $0.59\pm0.12$ \\
65-90 & 592 & 11 & $0.34\pm0.10$ && 1818 & 15 & $0.32\pm0.08$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$*$ $1 \,{\rm SNu} = 1\, {\rm SN}\, (100 {\rm yr})^{-1}\, (10^{10}
L_\odot^{\rm B})^{-1}$. \\
\end{table*}
During the almost two decades of the search, Evans collected over
200,000 individual observations, surveying a sample of more than 3000
nearby galaxies. The search resulted in the discovery of 32 SNe, and
another 22 SNe, which first had been discovered by others were also
detected, for a total sample of 54 SNe. These numbers qualify Evans'
search as the most successful amateur SN search ever and make it very
competitive even to professional searches.
For the calculation of SN rates based on Evans' search log, we
used the control time method and the protocol described in C97. The
essential galaxy data, that is distances, morphological types,
luminosities and axial ratios, have been retrieved from the updated
version of the RC3 catalog (de Vaucouleurs et al. \cite{rc3})
distributed by the ``Centre de Donn{\'e}es Astronomiques de
Strasbourg''. With the improved SN statistics, the Poissonian
errors on SN events were reduced and other sources of errors
became dominant, in particular in the correction
of search biases.
All SN searches suffer from specific biases and therefore it is
important to compare the results of different kinds of searches.
Because it is unique, Evans' visual search is especially useful for
comparisons with traditional photographic surveys (C97). Specific
biases in SN searches occur because SNe appear embedded in their
parent galaxies. Since the detection efficiency of new objects
depends on the contrast against the background, obviously it is more
difficult to discover a SN in the (luminous) inner regions of a galaxy
than in its outskirts. This bias is at its most pronounced if one
uses a wide field/small scale telescope and a detector with a small
dynamic range. Also the fraction of SNe lost is greater in more
distant galaxies because of the small angular size of the galaxy
image. By comparing the radial distributions of SNe in galaxies at
different distances, we estimated that up to 50\% of the SNe exploding
in the more distant galaxies are lost in photographic searches using
Schmidt telescopes. The nuclear bias seems negligible only in CCD and
visual searches of nearby galaxies (C97).
A precursory examination of the general list of SNe reveals another
severe bias against SN detection: that in inclined spirals. In the
past, it has been claimed that this bias does not affect visual and
CCD searches (Evans et al. \cite{ev:89}; Muller et al. \cite{muller})
but so far the evidence has been inconclusive (C97). It is thus of
interest to exploit the improved statistics of Evans' visual
search to address this question.
We began by calculating the overall SN rate in spiral galaxies of
different inclination both for Evans' visual search and for the
combined photographic search sample constructed by C97, including the
SN searches of Asiago (Cappellaro et al. \cite{PI}), Crimea (Tsvetkov
\cite{tsv:83}), OCA (Pollas
\cite{pol}) and Cal\'an/Tololo (Hamuy et al. \cite{mario:93}).
For this particular calculation we turned off the correction for
parent galaxy inclination which was included in the recipe of C97.
The results are reported in Table~\ref{inc}, where the bins were
chosen to give roughly the same number of galaxies in each inclination
bin. It would appear that based only on Evans' log, the SN rate
in edge-on spirals is 2.6 fold less than in face-on ones. This
clearly demonstrates that the bias in inclined spirals also affects
visual searches and is almost as severe as in photographic searches
(2.9).
The natural interpretation of this bias is that SNe occurring in the
disk of inclined spirals appear on the average dimmer than those in
face-on spirals because of the increased optical depth through the
dust layer. As a consequence, the probability of SN discovery in
inclined spirals is reduced. In line with this interpretation, it is
expected that the bias is more severe in searches carried out in the
blue band, (e.g. photographic searches), than in visual ones (CCD
searches in the red would be even less affected).
As a first order approach to correct for the inclination bias, we can
assume a plane parallel geometry for the distribution of dust in the
disk of spirals. In this case the average extinction of the SN
population scales with $\sec i$, where $i$ is the inclination of the
galaxy disk with respect to the line of sight. We showed in C97
that this assumption results in an over-correction of the SN rate in
edge-on galaxies. It was argued that this is evidence that dust is
not uniformly distributed in the disk of spirals but is instead in
discrete clouds. Until more evidence is available we have adopted, in
analogy to C97, a conservative extinction law that is intermediate
between the $\sec i$ and an empirical relation, derived from the
assumption that the SN rate is the same in face-on and edge-on
galaxies (see Section ~\ref{sec_hatano} for an alternative model).
When such a correction is included, we can compute the SN rates for
the complete Evans search and compare it with those obtained from the
first ten years of the search and with those derived from the combined
photographic search sample. The results are reported in
Table~\ref{evares} where the number of galaxies and SNe for each
sample is indicated in the first two rows. We must stress that, since
we adopt the same galaxy catalog, input parameters, bias corrections
and numerical recipe, the differences between the columns in
Table~\ref{evares} are only due to the different logs of observations.
The new Evans rates are consistent with the earlier results but, at
least with respect to the average value, in much better agreement with
the rate from photographic searches. Looking more in detail, it
appears that for early type galaxies (E-S0 and S0a-Sb) the updated
Evans value is in better agreement with the photographic search rate,
whereas for late spirals (Sbc-Sd) the old value was closer. We attribute
these fluctuations to the small statistics of individual SN searches,
which become wider when the sample is divided into bins.
\begin{table}
\caption{Comparison of the SN rate [SNu] obtained from the Evans'
updated statistics (1980-1998), the first 10 years of the search
(1980-1989) and the combined photographic search sample}
\label{evares}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
& Evans 80-98 & Evans 80-89 & ph. search \\
N. galaxies & 3068 & 1377 & 7319 \\
N. SNe & 54 & 24 & 94 \\
\hline
\\
E-S0 & $0.17\pm0.06$ & $0.13\pm0.08$ & $0.18\pm0.05$ \\
S0a-Sb & $0.83\pm0.20$ & $1.22\pm0.41$ & $0.66\pm0.13$ \\
Sbc-Sd & $0.96\pm0.13$ & $1.20\pm0.38$ & $1.34\pm0.20$ \\
\\
All$^*$& $0.66\pm0.09$ & $0.81\pm0.17$ & $0.67\pm0.07$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$*$ Including Sm, irregulars and peculiars.
\end{table}
\section{An alternative model for bias corrections}\label{sec_hatano}
As mentioned before, corrections for search biases are the most
controversial step in the calculation of SN rates. In our approach
(cf. C97), the correction factors are tuned to cancel the sign of the
biases from the calculated SN rates regardless of their physical
causes. The ideal would be to build a model for the dust and SN
distribution which is consistent with the present data on galaxies and
SN progenitor populations and derive from it estimates of the
biases.
In a recent paper, Hatano et al. (\cite{hatano}) described a simple
model based on an assumed distribution of the dust and SN populations
which predicts that, because of extinction, SNe in inclined spirals
appear on average dimmer and shoe a much wider magnitude scatter than
those in face-on spirals. Moreover, because the dust distribution
peaks in the central regions of galaxies, this effect is more
pronounced for SNe occurring in those regions.
This provides an alternative to the classical explanation of the
selection effect in the central region of galaxies which would thus
derive from the enhanced extinction of SNe instead of the reduced
luminosity contrast. According to this scenario, the bias would be
most severe in dust, inclined spirals and, because of the small scale
height, for core collapse SNe. Indeed, all these features were
found in the observed SN sample (Table~1 of Cappellaro \& Turatto
\cite{ct:97}).
A special characteristic of the Hatano et al. model is that core
collapse SNe do not occur within 3 Kpc of the center of the galaxy.
Therefore SN~II or Ib/c do not appear in the central regions of
face-on galaxies although an increasing number of core collapse SNe
appears to be projected on the centers of the more inclined spirals
due to projection effects. In any case, type Ia SNe are more highly
concentrated than type II or Ib/c. Though Hatano et al. claim that
the observations confirm their model, we should mention that van den
Bergh (\cite{vdb97}) and Wang et al. (\cite{wang}) reached the
opposite conclusion on the basis of similar data.
Even if the Hatano et al. model should be considered as exploratory
given the above controversy, it is of interest to test how adopting it
can change the SN rate estimates. We thus have replaced the empirical
bias corrections mentioned in Section~\ref{evans} with the observed SN
luminosity distribution for each SN type in spirals of different
inclination derived from the Hatano et al. (1998) model. Then we
computed the control times for each bin of the luminosity function for
each galaxy and SN type. The total control time was obtained as the
weighted average according to the observed luminosity distribution .
The results of this calculation are shown in Table~\ref{hattab}. Taken
at face value and compared with the empirical bias corrections
(Tab.~\ref{final}), we found that by using the Hatano et al. model,
the SN~Ia rate in the entire sample of spirals results 10-20\% higher
and the SN~II+Ib/c rate 15\% smaller. These differences all fall
within the errors and should not be considered significant.
\begin{table}
\caption{The SN rate corrected using the Hatano et al. (1998) model}\label{hattab}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
galaxy &\multicolumn{3}{c}{rate [SNu]} \\
type & Ia & II+Ib/c & All\\
\hline
S0a-Sb & $0.27\pm0.08$ & $0.63\pm0.24$ & $0.91\pm0.26$\\
Sbc-Sd & $0.24\pm0.10$ & $0.86\pm0.31$ & $1.10\pm0.32$\\
\\
Spirals$^*$ & $0.25\pm0.09$ & $0.76\pm0.27$ & $1.01\pm0.29$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$*$ Includes types from Sm, irregulars and peculiars.
\end{table}
We notice, however, that by adopting the Hatano et al. model the SN rate
in edge-on spirals remains 1.5 times smaller than in face-on spirals, and
that the rate in intermediate inclination spirals is even
smaller. Slightly increasing the optical depth of the dust layer
helps but does not solve the problem.
A more perplexing feature of the bias corrections based on the Hatano
et al. model is that it produces SN rates which increase with galaxy
distances: the rate in galaxies with $v>3000$ km s$^{-1}$ results
almost twice that in galaxies with $v<3000$ km s$^{-1}$. This could be
resolved by reducing the average reddening but which is the opposite
of the previous recommendation. This apparent contradiction may
simply indicate that, as already suggested, the SN progenitors and
dust distributions in real galaxies are more complex than in this
simple exploratory model. In conclusion, though the approach seems
promising, the Hatano model needs further refinement and in the
meanwhile we decided to maintain the {\em empirical} bias corrections of C97.
\section{SN rates and indicators of the galactic SFR }\label{update}
Once we had verified that the SN rates derived from Evans' visual
search are similar to those obtained from photographic searches and
decided the correction for search biases, we merged all search logs in
a single database. In this way we obtained an improvement in the
statistics compared to C97 (from 110 to 137 SNe) and equally important
we balanced the weights of different types of searches (over one third
of the SNe in the new sample were discovered in Evans' visual
search).
The SN rates computed using these updated statistics are reported in
Table~\ref{final} \footnote{Through this paper we assumed H$_0$=75 km
s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. SN rates reported in this paper can be
transformed to other values of the Hubble constant multiplying by
(H$_0/75)^2$} where errors include not only event statistics but also
uncertainties in the input parameters and in the bias corrections. The
differences with C97 are small ($<15$\%) and well within the errors.
We notice that in C97 the SN~Ia rate appeared to increase when
progressing from early to late type galaxies whereas this effect had
now nearly vanished. The relatively low rates of SN~Ib/c compared with
SNII were, instead, confirmed.
\begin{table*}
\caption{SN rate( in SNu) from the combined search sample.}\label{final}
\begin{tabular}{lrrrccccc}
\hline
galaxy & \multicolumn{3}{c}{N. SNe$^*$} &&\multicolumn{3}{c}{rate [SNu]} \\
\cline{2-4}\cline{6-9}
type & Ia & Ib/c & II && Ia & Ib/c & II & All\\
\hline
E-S0 & 22.0 & & && $0.18\pm0.06$ & $<0.01$ & $<0.02$ & $0.18\pm0.06$\\
S0a-Sb & 18.5 & 5.5 & 16.0 && $0.18\pm0.07$ & $0.11\pm0.06$ & $0.42\pm0.19$ & $0.72\pm0.21$\\
Sbc-Sd & 22.4 & 7.1 & 31.5 && $0.21\pm0.08$ & $0.14\pm0.07$ & $0.86\pm0.35$ & $1.21\pm0.37$\\
Others$^\#$ & 6.8 & 2.2 & 5.0 && $0.40\pm0.16$ & $0.22\pm0.16$ & $0.65\pm0.39$ & $1.26\pm0.45$\\
\\
All & 69.6 & 14.9& 52.5&& $0.20\pm0.06$ & $0.08\pm0.04$ & $0.40\pm0.19$ & $0.68\pm0.20$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$*$ Similar to C97, 10 unclassified SNe have been redistributed among
the three basic SN types according to the observed distribution that is
100\% Ia in E-S0, in spirals: type Ia 35\%, type Ib 15\%, type II 50\%.
$\#$ Others includes types Sm, Irregulars and Peculiars
\end{table*}
The normalization of the SN rate to the galaxy blue luminosity has
been introduced after the demonstration that the former scales with the
latter. This is convenient because $i)$ integrated $B$ magnitudes are
available for a large number of galaxies and $ii)$ the B luminosity
for a given galaxy type scales with the total mass at a first
approximation. Physically, the blue luminosity is a good tracer of
the young stellar population in starburst galaxies, but not in normal
galaxies where a considerable fraction of the continuum luminosities
is produced by old stars also in the blue (Sage \& Solomon
\cite{sage}; Kennicutt \cite{kenni}).
In principle, by using different photometric bands should be possible
to sample selected stellar populations and hence to obtain useful
information for progenitor scenarios. For instance, van den Bergh
(\cite{vdb:90}) and Della Valle \& Livio (\cite{mdv:94}) normalized
the rate of SN~Ia to H and K luminosity: in these bands the role of
old stars in all galaxy types is dominant. If all SN~Ia result
from low mass stars we would expect the SN~Ia rate per unit of H and K
luminosities not to be correlated to galaxy type. The fact that the
rate in these units increases considerably when moving from
ellipticals to late spirals was taken to indicate that a significant
fraction of SN~Ia result from intermediate age stars. Even if their
conclusion is probably correct, it must be stressed that these
estimates were not direct measurements but a simple scaling of the
SN rates in unit blue luminosity based on the assumption of an average
B-H and B-K color per galaxy type. Because H and K photometry is
available only for a small fraction of the galaxies in our sample,
unfortunately, the SN rate in these units cannot be directly measured.
It would also be of interest to estimate the
rates of SNe, in particular of core collapse SNe, in galaxies with
different star formation rates (SFR).
The different diagnostic methods which are used to probe SFR in
galaxies have been reviewed in a recent paper by Kennicutt
(\cite{kenni}). Because we are limited by the SN statistics we need
tracers that are available for large samples of galaxies. In this
respect, integrated colors and far infrared (FIR) luminosities are
particularly appealing.
\subsection{SN rates and galaxy integrated colors}\label{sec_color}
Integrated broad band colors are very useful for statistical purposes,
as they are reliable indicators of the galaxy stellar population with
bluer galaxies expected to host stars that are younger and more
massive than redder ones. Colors are most interesting
because, by using evolutionary synthesis models, it is possible to
estimate the SFR per unit mass or luminosity required to produce a
given integrated color for a given stellar population. It is well
known that along the Hubble sequence the galaxy color becomes bluer
moving from early to late types and that this corresponds to a
sequence in SFR which is virtually zero in ellipticals and maximum in
late spirals. However, especially in spirals, there is a significant
dispersion in the average color from galaxy to galaxy, indicating
that SFR can vary significantly even for a given Hubble type.
Conveniently, $(B-V)_T^0$ and $(U-B)_T^0$ colors, corrected for
galactic and internal extinction are listed in the RC3 catalog for a
fair percentage of the galaxies of our sample (24\% and 19\%
respectively). From these we derived also $(U-V)_T^0$ colors which,
allowing for the extended wavelength baseline, are more sensitive SFR
indicators. For each bin of galaxy morphological types we divided the
galaxies into subsamples, containing galaxies bluer and redder than
the global average. We then computed separately the SN rates for each
of these subsamples. The results are reported in Table~\ref{color},
where the galaxy types are in col~1, the average colors for the
galaxies of the specific subset are in cols~2 and 5, the SN rates in
SNu for SN~Ia and for core-collapse SNII+Ib/c in cols~3-4 and 6-7.
\begin{table*}
\caption{SN rates in SNu for galaxies with integrated colors
bluer and redder than the average.
}\label{color}
\begin{tabular}{lccc|ccc}
\hline
galaxy & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{blue galaxies} &\multicolumn{3}{c}{red galaxies} \\
type & $<(B-V)_T^0>$ & Ia & II+Ib & $<(B-V)_T^0>$ & Ia & II+Ib \\
\hline
E-S0 & 0.86 & $0.3\pm0.1$ & & 0.95 & $0.2\pm0.1$ \\
S0a-Sb & 0.60 & $0.2\pm0.1$ & $0.6\pm0.2$ & 0.80 & $0.2\pm0.1$ & $0.5\pm0.2$\\
Sbc-Sd & 0.45 & $0.1\pm0.1$ & $1.5\pm0.3$ & 0.62 & $0.3\pm0.1$ & $0.9\pm0.2$\\
& & & & & &\\
All$^*$ & 0.56 & $0.2\pm0.1$ & $1.0\pm0.2$ & 0.88 & $0.2\pm0.1$ & $0.1\pm0.1$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{lccc|ccc}
\hline
galaxy & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{blue galaxies} &\multicolumn{3}{c}{red galaxies} \\
type & $<(U-V)_T^0>$ & Ia & II+Ib & $<(U-V)_T^0>$ & Ia & II+Ib \\
\hline
E-S0 & 1.26 & $0.3\pm0.1$ & & 1.48 & $0.2\pm0.1$ \\
S0a-Sb & 0.67 & $0.2\pm0.1$ & $0.9\pm0.3$ & 1.12 & $0.2\pm0.1$ & $0.4\pm0.2$\\
Sbc-Sd & 0.28 & $0.2\pm0.1$ & $1.7\pm0.5$ & 0.62 & $0.3\pm0.1$ & $0.8\pm0.3$\\
& & & & & &\\
All$^*$ & 0.54 & $0.2\pm0.1$ & $1.1\pm0.2$ & 1.32 & $0.2\pm0.1$ & $0.1\pm0.1$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$*$ Including Sm, irregulars and peculiars.
\end{table*}
As expected, the rate of core collapse SNe (II+Ib/c)
is higher in the bluer spirals. By using B-V color this effect is seen
only for late spirals (the rate is higher by a factor of 1.7 for Sbc-Sd),
but becomes clear for all spirals when using U-V color (over a factor
of 2). Instead the rate of SN~Ia is, within the uncertainties,
independent on galaxy colors.
With regards to the rows labeled ``All'' (which includes galaxies of
all types) we should note that dividing galaxies into bluer and redder
colors to a large extent corresponds to separating them into early
and late type galaxies. Therefore the great difference in the core
collapse SN rates in bluer and redder galaxies simply reflects the
fact that core collapse SNe are not found in early type galaxies.
We can compare the observed SN rates with the predicted SFR in
galaxies of different colors. This is done in Fig.\ref{sfr} where the
dots represent the SN rates in SNu (left-hand scale) in galaxies of
different $U-V$ integrated colors and the line is the SFR per unit
of blue luminosity (right-hand scale) taken
from the evolutionary synthesis models of Kennicutt (\cite{kenni}).
In general, for a galaxy of luminosity L$_B$, because of the short
life of progenitor evolution, the number of core collapse SNe per
century corresponds to the number of new born stars within the
appropriate mass range, namely:
$$ SN\,rate [SNu] \times L_B \simeq {SFR \times f_{M_L}^{M_U} \over <M_{SN}>} \times 100 $$
where $f_{M_L}^{M_U}$ is the mass fraction of stars which are born
with mass in the range $M_L$ to $M_U$, the lower and upper limit for
core-collapse SN progenitors, and $<M_{SN}>$ is the
average mass of SN progenitors. According to the standard scenarios,
$M_L \simeq 8 M_\odot$ and $M_U \simeq 40 M_\odot$.
Adopting a Salpeter mass function, $f_{M_L}^{M_U} \simeq 10^{-1}$ and
$<M_{SN}> \simeq 10 M_\odot$ which compensate the factor 100 which accounts
for the difference in the time scale.
In conclusion, even if the exact coincidence of the two scales in our
figure is to some degree fortuitous, the nice agreement of the SFR
measured through core collapse SN rates and that deduced by synthesis
modeling for ``average'' spiral galaxies, lends support to the general
scenario for stellar population evolution.
Conversely, the fact that the rate of SN~Ia shows no dependence on the
galaxy U-V color requires a significant delay between the SFR episodes
and the onset of SN~Ia events.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics*{sfr.eps}}
\caption{SN rates in SNu (left-hand scale) in spirals with different
U-V color (for this plot early and late spirals have been considered
together). Filled symbols are core-collapse SN~II+Ib/c and open
circle are SN~Ia. Error-bars only accounts for the SN statistics. The
line gives the SFR rate per unit B luminosity (right-hand scale) for
galaxies with different colors as predicted by the evolutionary
synthesis models of Kennicutt (1998). The surprising coincidence of
the two scales can be partially understood by simple units conversion
(see text).}\label{sfr}
\end{figure}
The relation between core collapse SN rates and colors provides a
useful tool for the comparison of local and high-$z$ SN rates. Indeed,
for galaxies at high-$z$ integrated colors can be measured relatively
easily, whereas morphological types, requiring superb imaging, are not
generally available. Conversely, it is clear that reporting the
average SN rates for uncharacterized galaxy samples may
turn out to be pointless for constraining galaxy evolution models.
\subsection{SN rates and galaxy FIR luminosities}\label{sec_fir}
The interest in deriving the SN rate in units of the FIR
luminosities was stressed by J{\o}rgensen (\cite{jorg90}) who made a
first attempt based on the general SN catalog. Here we report our
calculations based on the control time technique.
The near infrared emission of spiral galaxies shows at least two
components: a warm component associated with dust around young stars
and a cool component associated with more extended dusty heated by the
general stellar radiation field, including radiation from old stars.
The warm emission gives a direct measurement of the SFR, but in normal
galaxies it is heavily contaminated by the cool component.
In addition to the extended star formation in the disk, many spiral
galaxies show an enhanced SFR in the nuclear region. The observations
show that the nuclear and extended components are mostly decoupled. In
these ``starburst'' galaxies the nuclear SFR could reach 1-1000
M$_\odot yr^{-1}$ and the integrated infrared emission is largely
dominated by the nuclear component (Kennicutt \cite{kenni}). At the
same time we expect a very high rate of core collapse SNe, which are
however difficult to detect in the optical. This is because in the
nuclear starburst regions one expects several magnitudes of extinction
and a severe bias for optical SN searches. These considerations must
be kept in mind when interpreting the results.
FIR fluxes have been measured by the IRAS survey for over 30000
galaxies in the range $10-100 \mu{\rm m}$ and FIR magnitudes are
reported in the RC3 catalog for $\sim 30$\% of the galaxies of our
sample. They have been converted to units of solar FIR luminosites
using the relation:
$$ {L_{\rm FIR} \over L_{\rm FIR,\odot}} = 10^{-0.4 m_{\rm FIR}}\, 3.1
\times 10^{11}\, d^2 $$
where $d$ is the galaxy distance in Mpc.
First we computed the SN rates for unit infrared luminosity
$L_{\odot,{\rm FIR}}$.
\begin{table}
\caption{SN rates per unit FIR luminosity. $ 1\,{\rm SNuIR} = 1\, {\rm SN}
(100 yr)^{-1} (10^{10} L_{{\rm FIR},\odot})^{-1}. $ }
\label{lfir}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline
galaxy &\multicolumn{3}{c}{SN rate [SNuIR]} \\
type & Ia & II+Ib/c & All\\
\hline
E-S0 & $1.8\pm0.8$ & & $1.8\pm0.8$\\
S0a-Sb & $0.6\pm0.2$ & $2.0\pm0.5$ & $2.7\pm0.5$\\
Sbc-Sd & $0.6\pm0.1$ & $3.5\pm0.6$ & $4.1\pm0.6$\\
\\
All$^*$ & $0.7\pm0.1$ & $2.5\pm0.3$ & $3.2\pm0.3$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$*$ Includes types Sm, Irregulars and Peculiars.
\end{table}
If the FIR luminosity is a direct measure of the SFR in spirals, as
is often assumed, we would expect the rate of core collapse SNe
per unit FIR luminosity to be constant through all galaxy types.
Instead, the results reported in Table~\ref{lfir} show that the rate of
core collapse SNe in FIR units increases almost 2 fold moving
from early to late spirals, whereas the rate of SN~Ia remains constant
(in Table~\ref{lfir} we report the SN rate in SNuIR
also for E-S0 galaxies, though we do not expect there to be any relation
between L$_{\rm FIR}$ and SFR) . We have already stressed that there are
different contributing factors to FIR luminosities, and in particular
early spiral galaxies often exhibit low temperature, relatively high
FIR luminosities attributable to dust heating from the general
stellar radiation field, and not directly related to SFR (Kennicutt
\cite{kenni}).
It has been claimed that a more reliable discriminant of the SFR is
the infrared excess L$_{\rm FIR}$/L$_{\rm B}$ (eg. Tomita et
al. \cite{tomita}). This is because by normalizing to the blue
luminosity we partially remove the effect of the general radiation
field. In Table~\ref{lfirlb} we report the SN rates in SNu for
galaxies with different infrared excess, along with that of galaxies
not detected by IRAS. Though in general we cannot translate ``not
detected'' into a precise upper limit, it is reasonable to assume
that, for our RC3 galaxy sample, the average FIR luminosity of the
undetected sample is smaller than that of the detected sample. Support
for this belief comes from the fact that the distance distributions of
the detected and not detected RC3 galaxy samples are similar.
\begin{table*}
\caption{SN rates in SNu for galaxies with different infrared excess
}\label{lfirlb}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\hline
galaxy & \multicolumn{2}{c}{not detected by IRAS} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{$L_{FIR}/L_{B}\le 0.35$} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{$L_{FIR}/L_{B}>0.35$} \\ type & Ia & II+Ib/c & Ia &
II+Ib/c & Ia & II+Ib/c \\
\hline
E-S0 &$0.2\pm0.1$& & $0.4\pm0.2$ & &$<0.5$ &\\
S0a-Sb &$0.2\pm0.1$& $0.3\pm0.2$& $0.2\pm0.1$ & $0.5\pm0.2$ &$0.3\pm0.1$ &$1.1\pm0.4$\\
Scd-Sd &$0.3\pm0.1$& $0.7\pm0.3$& $0.2\pm0.1$ & $1.0\pm0.2$ &$0.2\pm0.1$ &$1.2\pm0.3$\\
\\
All$^*$ &$0.2\pm0.1$& $0.2\pm0.1$& $0.2\pm0.1$ & $0.9\pm0.1$ &$0.3\pm0.1$ &$1.1\pm0.2$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$*$ Including Sm, irregulars and peculiars.
\end{table*}
The rate of core collapse SNe is higher in the IR detected galaxies
compared with the not detected sample, whereas this is not the case
for SN~Ia (Table~\ref{lfirlb}) whilst there are no significant
differences between galaxies with small and large infrared excess.
This again supports the idea that, whereas a fraction of the FIR
luminosity originates from SF regions, the other contributing
factors to the IR emission of galaxies eliminate, at least in normal
galaxies, the relation between L$_{\rm FIR}$ and SFR.
\subsection{SN rates in active galaxies}\label{AGN}
It is generally believed that nuclear activity stimulates the SF
(Rodriguez-Espinoza et al. \cite{rodri}) and therefore that the rate
of core-collapse SNe in AGN must be higher than in normal galaxies.
An open issue is whether the SF is stimulated throughout the whole AGN host
galaxy or only in the circumnuclear region. From the observational
point of view, in the first case we would expect an enhanced detection rate,
whereas due to the high extinction in the nuclear starburst regions
this may not occur in the latter case.
To address this question we crossed our RC3 galaxy list with the
Catalog of Quasars and Active Galactic Nuclei of V\'eron-Cetty \&
V\'eron (\cite{veron}) (distributed by the CDS).
This catalog contains a list of almost 15000 quasars and AGN most of
which are too distant for normal SN searches (only $\sim
1100$ have recession velocities smaller than 15000 km s$^{-1}$).
We found that 283 galaxies out of our combined RC3 sample, ($\sim$
3\%) are also listed in the V\`eron-Cetty \& V\`eron catalog (this simply
reflects the relative occurrence of AGN in the local Universe). Most
of them ($\sim$ 88\%) are Seyfert and the rest HII galaxies. In these
galaxies our searches have discovered 17 SNe, that is 12\% of the total
SN sample. This could be taken as evidence that the SN rate in AGN
is enhanced compared with the general sample.
However, when the control time method is applied, the average SN rate in the
AGN sample is $0.6\pm0.1$ SNu ($0.4\pm0.1$ SNu for core-collapse SNe),
identical to that of the general sample ($0.7\pm0.1$
SNu for all SNe and $0.5\pm0.1$ SNu for core-collapses). We note that
the AGN sample shows roughly the same distribution of morphological
types as the general sample.
There are two reasons why the high detection rate in our AGN galaxy
sample does not reflect in higher SN rates in SNu. First of all, the
average control time for a galaxy of the AGN galaxy sample (5.08 yr)
is almost twice that of the general galaxy sample (2.67 yr).
Secondly, the galaxies of the AGN sample are over 2 times more
luminous ($<L_B> = 3.1^{10} L_\odot$) than the average ``normal''
galaxies ($<L_B> = 1.4^{10} L_\odot$). This stresses the risks of
interpreting statistics derived from general SN samples and not
from actual search logs.
A similar conclusion was reached by Richmond et al. (\cite{richm}) as
the result of a dedicated SN search in 142 nearby starburst
galaxies. They obtained 1.1 SNu (scaled to $H_0=75$) for the
total rate and 0.7 for core-collapse only, somewhat larger than our
corresponding estimates. However, their statistical error
is also quite large (they had a sample of only 5 SNe) and allowing
also for the different computational protocols, the difference should not
be regarded as significant.
The conclusion is that the SN rate in active galaxies is the same as
in normal ones (cf Petrosian \& Turatto \cite{petro}). More
precisely, this finding only applies to the AGN host galaxies and not
to the AGNs themselves, which because of the high extinction rate
cannot be probed by optical SN searches. Therefore our claim is that
the nuclear engine does not significantly stimulate the SFR outside
the nuclear region of the host galaxy.
\section{Conclusions}
We have presented new estimates of the SN rates in galaxies, obtained
by including the updated log of the Evans' visual SN search in our
database. In this way we have obtained a sample of 137 SNe in a
reference sample of about $10^4$ galaxies. Based on the comparison
between visual and photographic surveys we tested the effectiveness of
the bias corrections and verified that they are consistent with our
understanding of galaxies and SN progenitors. In particular, we show
that the Hatano et al. (\cite{hatano}) simple model for the SN and
dust distributions in galaxies explains, at least to the first order, both
the bias in the nuclear region and in inclined spirals, though
actually some refinement is needed before it can be used to correct SN
rates.
The new rates have been compared with other tracers of the average SFR
in galaxies. We found that the rates of core-collapse SNe are higher
in bluer spirals, while the same is not true for SNIa. This was
expected, since bluer galaxies host stars that are younger and more
massive than redder ones. In particular, we find that the correlation
between galaxy colors and core-collapse SN rates is similar to that
predicted by the evolutionary models of Kennicutt (\cite{kenni}).
We have found that there is not a direct relation between core-collapse SN
rates and FIR luminosities confirming that FIR luminosity is not a
universal measurement of SFR. This can be explained by considering
that FIR emission in galaxies at least in the normal ones, is made up of
different components and not exclusively related to young stars.
Finally, our data confirms previous findings that the SN rates in AGN
host galaxies are not enhanced. This conclusion does not apply to the
nuclear starburst regions which cannot be probed by current SN
searches.
\begin{acknowledgements}
R.E. wishes to thank Mr. R. McDonell of Ark Angles Business and
Personal Computer Systems, Hazelbrook (Australia) for designing the
computer program used to record his observations. We wish also to
thank Janet Clench for revising the manuscript.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{astron}
|
\section{Nonlinear Modifications of Quantum Mechanics}
Many authors\footnote{Let us mention just some of them:
T.W.B.~Kibble\,\cite{Kibble}, A.~Ashtekar and
T.A.~Schilling\,\cite{Ashtekar}, P.~Bona\,\cite{Bona}, R.~Haag and
U.~Bannier\,\cite{Haag-Bannier}, Mielnik\,\cite{Mielnik},
S.~Weinberg\,\cite{Weinberg}, G.~Auberson and
P.C.~Sabatier\,\cite{Sabatier}, M.D.~Kostin\,\cite{Kostin}, H.D.~Doebner
and Goldin\,\cite{dg1,dg2}, I.~Bialynicki-Birula and
J.~Mycielski\,\cite{bbm}.} considered nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations of
the form
\begin{equation} \label{NLSE}
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi_t({\vec x}) =
\left(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Delta+V({\vec x},t)\right) \Psi_t({\vec x}) +
R[\Psi_t]({\vec x}) \Psi_t({\vec x})\,,
\end{equation}
where $F[\Psi] = R[\Psi] \Psi$ is a local\footnote{Here locality means
$\Psi({\vec x})=0\Longrightarrow \left(F[\Psi]\right)({\vec x}) =0$ in the
distribution theoretical sense.} nonlinear Functional of $\Psi\,$.
The essential point is that (\ref{NLSE}) is not interpreted as an
equation for some field operator but as a classical evolution equation
for the quantum mechanical wave function:
\begin{equation} \label{StInt}
\int_{{\cal B}} \modulus{\Psi_t({\vec x})}^2\,{\rm d}{\vec x} =
\parbox{6cm}{probability for location within ${\cal \region B}$}
\end{equation}
(at time $t$ for normalized $\Psi_t$).
Special cases were even tested experimentally.\,\cite{tests}
\vskip 5mm
\noindent
All these efforts seemed useless according to N.~Gisin's
claim\,\cite{gis1,gis2}:
\begin{equation} \label{gis-cl}
\mbox{``All deterministic nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations are irrelevant.''}
\end{equation}
By this Gisin meant the following:
\begin{quote}
Consider a Bell-like situation as sketched in Figure \ref{fig:gisin}.
\begin{figure}[ht
$$
\font\thinlinefont=cmr5
\mbox{\beginpicture
\setcoordinatesystem units <0.9cm,0.9cm>
\unitlength=1.04987cm
\linethickness=1pt
\setplotsymbol ({\makebox(0,0)[l]{\tencirc\symbol{'160}}})
\setshadesymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\setlinear
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\circulararc 134.333 degrees from 4.572 24.575 center at 4.006 25.121
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\circulararc 65.361 degrees from 4.572 24.575 center at 3.247 24.796
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\put{\makebox(0,0)[l]{\circle*{ 0.047}}} at 0.948 24.213
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\put{\makebox(0,0)[l]{\circle*{ 0.047}}} at 0.961 23.995
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\putrule from 7.144 24.289 to 3.715 24.289
\plot 3.969 24.352 3.715 24.289 3.969 24.225 /
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\putrectangle corners at 2.857 24.575 and 3.715 24.098
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\plot 2.762 24.384 1.194 25.290 /
\plot 1.446 25.218 1.194 25.290 1.382 25.108 /
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\plot 1.321 25.453 1.238 25.502 /
\plot 1.238 25.502 1.048 25.171 /
\plot 1.048 25.171 1.130 25.125 /
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\plot 2.762 24.289 0.978 24.604 /
\plot 1.239 24.622 0.978 24.604 1.217 24.497 /
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\plot 0.991 24.807 0.897 24.824 /
\plot 0.897 24.824 0.830 24.448 /
\plot 0.830 24.448 0.923 24.431 /
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\plot 2.766 24.196 1.065 23.575 /
\plot 1.282 23.722 1.065 23.575 1.325 23.603 /
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\plot 1.016 23.779 0.929 23.747 /
\plot 0.929 23.747 1.056 23.387 /
\plot 1.056 23.387 1.145 23.421 /
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\putrule from 7.239 24.289 to 7.429 24.289
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\putrule from 7.334 24.384 to 7.334 24.194
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\plot 7.262 24.361 7.398 24.225 /
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\plot 7.404 24.369 7.269 24.234 /
\linethickness= 0.500pt
\setplotsymbol ({\thinlinefont .})
\putrule from 7.525 24.289 to 9.906 24.289
\plot 9.652 24.225 9.906 24.289 9.652 24.352 /
\put{$A$} [lB] at 3.143 24.194
\put{$\alpha_n$} [lB] at 0.45 23.461
\put{$\alpha_1$} [lB] at 0.622 25.364
\put{$\alpha_2$} [lB] at 0.32 24.558
\put{$\rho_{\rm right}$} [lB] at 10.097 24.194
\put{Source} [lB] at 6.858 23.812
\put{\scriptsize Moon} [lB] at 4.6 25.75
\linethickness=0pt
\putrectangle corners at 0.434 25.929 and 10.097 23.362
\endpicture}
$$
\caption{Gisin's Gedanken experiment. \label{fig:gisin}}
\end{figure}
Then, if the source produces entangled 2-particle states, there is
always a physical observable for the particle sent to the
right,\footnote{Note that, contrary to Bell nonlocality,\cite{cl-sh}
the observable effect does not refer to the resulting correlations
between both particles.} the probability distribution of which is
instantaneously (substantially) changed by suitable measurements
(involving only low energy transfer) on the other particle `behind the
moon'.
\end{quote}
\vskip 5mm
\noindent
Actually, Gisin\,\cite{gis1} assumed the following:\footnote{His
justification: ``So far we have only used linear quantum mechanics''.}
\begin{quote}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(G1):]
If the observable $A$ resp.~$B$ of the particle `behind the moon' is
measured at time $t=0$ the partial state of the other particle at times
$t\geq0$ is given by a density matrix $\rho_{\rm right}(t)$ of the
form\footnote{This especially implies $\sum_{\alpha} x_\alpha\,
P_\Psi(\alpha,t) = \sum_{\beta} x_\beta\, P_\Psi(\beta,t)$ for $t=0$ but
--- as realized by Gisin --- not generally for $t>0\,$.}
$$
\sum_{\alpha} x_\alpha\, P_\Psi(\alpha,t)\quad
\mbox{resp.}\quad \sum_{\beta} x_\beta\,
P_\Psi(\beta,t)\,,
$$
where the $P_\Psi(\alpha,t)$ resp.~$P_\Psi(\beta,t)$ are pure states
evolving according to the corresponding 1-particle equation.
\item[(G2):]
{\bf All} self-adjoint \aside{bounded} operators correspond to observables.
\end{itemize}
\end{quote}
\vskip 5mm
That Gisin's claim (\ref{gis-cl}) is wrong since Gisin's assumption
(G1), the projection postulate, is unjustified in nonlinear quantum
mechanics has already been pointed out by Polchinski\,\cite{pol}, who
determined conditions which are sufficient for the absence of essential
nonlocality.\footnote{See also \cite{czach1} for examples.}
\vskip 5mm
Accepting Gisin's assumption (G2), Polchinski concluded that his
conditions -- violated for prominent examples of nonlinear Schr\"odinger
equations -- are also necessary to avoid essential nonlocality. However,
as explained already in \cite{lu1}, also assumption (G2) is unjustified
in nonlinear quantum mechanics and definitely wrong for the situation
reconsidered in the next section. This is why valid proofs of essential
nonlocality have to be more involved.
\medskip
\section{What we can Learn from Nonlinear Gauge Transformations}
\label{section:CE}
Consider the well-defined special case
$$
\left(\Op N_{\! D}(\Psi)\right)({\vec x}) \stackrel{\rm def}{=}
e^{i\frac{2mD}{\hbar}\ln\modulus{\Psi({\vec x})}}\Psi({\vec x})\;,\quad D\in{\rm I\!R}\,.
$$
of the `nonlinear gauge transformations' exploited by H.-D.~Doebner et
al.\,\cite{nlgt} If $\Psi_t'({\vec x})$ is a solution of (\ref{NLSE}) for $R=0$ then
straightforward calculation shows that
$$
\Psi_t({\vec x}) = \left(\Op N_{\! D}(\Psi'_t)\right)({\vec x})
$$
is a solution of (\ref{NLSE}) for
\begin{equation} \label{GDGE}
R[\Psi_t] = \hbar D \Bigl(\frac{i}{2}
\frac{\Delta\rho_t}{\rho_t}\Psi_t + c_1 \frac{{\vec \nabla}\cdot \vec
{J}_t}{\rho_t} + c_2 \frac{\Delta\rho_t}{\rho_t} + c_3
\frac{\vec{J}_t}{\rho_t}+ +c_4 \frac{\vec{J}_t\cdot
{\vec \nabla}\rho_t}{(\rho_t)^2} + c_5 \frac{({\vec \nabla}\rho_t)^2}{(\rho_t)^2}\Bigr)
\end{equation}
with\footnote{The {\em general Doebner-Goldin equation\/} is given by
(\ref{NLSE}) and (\ref{GDGE}) without the restriction (\ref{el}) on the
parameters $c_\nu\in{\rm I\!R}\,$.}
\begin{equation} \label{el}
c_1=1\;, \quad c_2=-2c_5=-mD/\hbar\;,\quad c_3=0\;,\quad c_4=-1\,,
\end{equation}
where
$$
\rho_t\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\modulus{\Psi_t}^2\,,\; \vec{J}_t
\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \frac{1}{2i} \left( \overline{\Psi_t} {\vec \nabla} \Psi_t
- \Psi_t {\vec \nabla} \overline{\Psi_t} \right)\,.
$$
This way we get a deterministic nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation which,
interpreted by (\ref{StInt}), describes the same physics as the
corresponding ($R=0$) linear Schr\"odinger equation, since
$$
\modulus{\Psi_t({\vec x})} = \modulus{\Psi'_t({\vec x})}\,.
$$
That, contrary to Gisin's as well as Polchinski's claim, there is no
real problem with locality is no surprise since now nonlinear
projection operators
$$
\Op E = \Op N_D \circ \Op E' \circ \Op N_D^{-1}\,,
$$
instead of linear projectors $\Op E'\,$, have to be used\,\cite{lu1} to
get the correct probabilities
$$
\norm{\Op E(\Psi_t)}^2 = \norm{\Op E'(\Psi'_t)}^2 = \left\langle
\Psi'_t \mid \Op E'\,\Psi'_t \right\rangle\,.
$$
Hence assumption (G2) is obviously wrong in nonlinear quantum mechanics.
Moreover, w.r.t.~the nonlinear $\Op E\,$, density matrices are
inadequate for the description of classical mixtures:
$$
\sum_{\alpha} x_\alpha \norm{\Op E(\Psi_\alpha)}^2 = {\rm
trace}\left(\Op E'\, \sum_\alpha x_\alpha \Op P_{\Psi'_\alpha}\right)
\stackrel{\rm i.g.}{\ne} {\rm trace}\left(\Op E\, \sum_\alpha x_\alpha
\Op P_{\Psi_\alpha}\right)\,.
$$
Therefore also assumption (G1) turns out to be quite inadequate for
nonlinear modifications of quantum mechanics.
The simple example (\ref{NLSE})/(\ref{GDGE})/(\ref{el}) tells us that
essential nonlocality should to be checked by using nothing else than
the evolution equation together with its basic interpretation
(\ref{StInt}).
\medskip
\section{The Doebner-Goldin Equation Interpreted as 2-Particle Equation}
\label{section:dg}
Let us interpret (\ref{NLSE}) as a two-particle equation:
$$
{\vec x}=({\vec x}_1,{\vec x}_2)\;,\quad {\vec x}_j = \mbox{position of particle } j\,.
$$
Moreover assume that the potential is of the form
$$
V({\vec x}) = V_2({\vec x}_2-{\vec x}_0)\;,\quad {\vec x}_0 \mbox{ fixed}\,,
$$
and that $\Psi_t({\vec x})$ is the solution of (\ref{NLSE}) fulfilling the
initial condition
$$
\Psi_0({\vec x}_1,{\vec x}_2) = f({\vec x}_1,{\vec x}_2-{\vec x}_0)\,.
$$
Then, obviously, we have an unacceptable nonlocality, if the position
probability density\footnote{Note that (\ref{pp1}) does not depend on
${\vec x}_0\,$. Therefore the effect on particle 1, if any, can be produced by
acting on particle 2 as far away as one likes.}
\begin{equation} \label{pp1}
\rho_1({\vec x}_1,t) \stackrel{\rm def}{=}
\int \modulus{\Psi_t({\vec x}_1,{\vec x}_2)}^2{\rm d}{\vec x}_2
\end{equation}
for particle 1 depends on $V_2\,$.
That the latter happens for certain cases of the general Doebner-Goldin
equation, if interpreted as 2-particle equation, was first proved by
Werner.\,\cite{werner1} Inspired by E.~Nelson\,\cite{nelson} he
considered pairs of 1-dimensional particles,
i.e.~${\vec x}=(x_1,x_2)\in{\rm I\!R}^2\,$, with
\begin{equation} \label{osz}
V_2(x_2) = \lambda\,(x_2)^2\;,\quad \lambda\in{\rm I\!R}\,,
\end{equation}
and entangled initial conditions of Gaussian type. The corresponding
solutions are of the form
$$
\Psi_t(x_1,x_2)= e^{\gamma(t)
-\sum_{j,k=1}^2 C_{jk}(t)x_jx_k/2}\;,\quad C_{jk}=C_{kj}\,,
$$
where the $C_{jk}(t)$ fulfill a simple system of first order ordinary
differential equations that can be used to determine their time
derivatives at $t=0$ and thus
\begin{equation} \label{test1}
\left({\partial_t}^n\int (x_1)^2 \rho_1(x_1,t)\,{\rm
d}x_1\right)_{|_{t=0}}
\end{equation}
for arbitrary $n\in{\mathchoice {\hbox{$\sans\textstyle Z\kern-0.4em Z$}_+\,$. Werner found that (\ref{test1}) depends on
$\lambda$ for $n=3$ and suitable $C_{jk}(0)$ unless
\begin{equation} \label{gi}
c_3=c_1+c_4=0\,.
\end{equation}
In principle, using (\ref{NLSE}) directly,\,\cite{luna} one may calculate
\begin{equation} \label{test2}
\partial_\lambda \left(\partial_t^n \int\modulus{\Psi_t(x,y)}^2\,{\rm
d}y\right)_{|_{t=0}}
\end{equation}
as a functional of $\Psi_0$ and $V$ for given $R\,$. This shows that
(\ref{test1}) varies also with strictly localized changes of $V_2\,$.
However, for $n>3$ the calculation becomes too involved and could not
even managed by use of computer algebra. On the other hand, Werner's
Ansatz turned out to be too special to uncover essential nonlocality of
the Galilei covariant cases of the Doebner-Goldin 2-particle
equation.\footnote{Note that (\ref{gi}) is equivalent to Galilei
covariance of the Doebner Goldin equation.\,\cite{dg2}} This is why
\begin{equation} \label{test3}
\left({\partial_t}^n\int x_1 \rho_1(x_1,t)\,{\rm
d}x_1\right)_{|_{t=0}}
\end{equation}
was checked for $n=4$ in \cite{lu2} showing that the Doebner-Goldin
equation is essentially nonlocal, when interpreted as a 2-particle
equation, unless the parameters $c_\nu$ are chosen such that
(\ref{NLSE}) is (formally) linearizable by some nonlinear gauge
transformation.
\medskip
\section{Inconsistency of Bialynicki-Birula's and Mycielski's Theory}
\label{section:bbm}
For the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation of Bialynicki-Birula and
Mycielski, given by\footnote{Equation (\ref{bbm}) was already
considered by H.~Ko\v s\v t\'al\,\cite{kostal} with $b<0\,$.}
\begin{equation} \label{bbm}
\left(R[\Psi]\right)({\vec x}) = -2b\,\ln\modulus{\Psi({\vec x})}\;,\quad b\in{\rm I\!R}\,,
\end{equation}
testing (\ref{test3}) is of no use, since the Ehrenfest relations
hold.\,\cite{bbm} In such cases one should check
\begin{equation} \label{test4}
S_{k,n}[\Psi_0,V_2] \stackrel{\rm def}{=} \partial_\lambda
\left(\partial_t^n \int e^{ikx}\,\modulus{\Psi_t(x,y)}^2 {\rm d}x\,{\rm
d}y\right)_{|_{t=0}}
\end{equation}
for $k\in{\rm I\!R}$ and $n\in{\mathchoice {\hbox{$\sans\textstyle Z\kern-0.4em Z$}_+\,$. In principle this is equivalent to
testing (\ref{test2}) but has the advantage of testing (\ref{test3}):
The integral over $x$ allows for partial integrations which simplify the
resulting expressions considerably.
\vskip 5mm
\noindent
For simplicity, let $\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}=1$ and assume $R$ to be real
valued,\footnote{For the Doebner-Goldin case (\ref{GDGE}) the latter can
always be achieved\,\cite{NaDip} by some nonlinear gauge transformation
of the type considered in Section \ref{section:CE}.} as in (\ref{bbm}):
\begin{equation} \label{rR}
\left(R[\Psi]\right)({\vec x}) = \overline{\left(R[\Psi]\right)({\vec x})}\,.
\end{equation}
Then, defining
$$
\begin{array}[c]{rcl}
T_{k,\nu}(t) &\stackrel{\rm def}{=}&\displaystyle \int
e^{ikx}\,\overline{\Psi_t}\,\partial_x^\nu \Psi_t\,{\rm d}x\,{\rm d}y\,,\\
\displaystyle D_{k,\mu,\nu}(t) &\stackrel{\rm def}{=}&\displaystyle
\int e^{ikx}\,\left(\partial_x^\mu R[\Psi_t]\right)\overline{\Psi_t}\,
\partial_x^\nu \Psi_t\,{\rm d}x\,{\rm d}y\,,
\end{array}
$$
we get from (\ref{NLSE}) by partial integration
$$
i\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d} t} T_{k,\nu}= -k^2\, T_{k,\nu} + 2ik\, T_{k,\nu+1}
+ \sum_{\mu=1}^{\nu}{\nu\choose \mu} D_{k,\mu,\nu-\mu}
$$
for ${\vec x}=(x_1,x_2)\in{\rm I\!R}^2$ and $V({\vec x})=V_2(x_2)\,$.
Iteration of this gives
$$
\begin{array}[c]{rcl}
\displaystyle \left(i \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d} t}\right)^3 T_{k,0}
&=& -k^6\, T_{k,0} + 6ik^5\, T_{k,1} + 12k^4 T_{k,2} - 8 ik^3 T_{k,3}\\
&& -\left(4ik^3\,D_{k,1,0} +8k^2 D_{k,1,1} + 4k^2 D_{k,2,0} +
2k\partial_t D_{k,1,0}\right)\,.
\end{array}
$$
Hence, e.g.,
$$
\begin{array}[c]{rcl}
\displaystyle \left(\partial_t^{n+3}\!\int
x^2\modulus{\Psi_t(x,y)}^2{\rm d}x\,{\rm d}y \right)_{|_{t=0}}
&=&\displaystyle -\left(\partial_t^{n+3}\,(\partial_k)^2
T_{k,0}(t)\right)_{|_{t=k=0}}\\[4mm]
&=& 8i\,\partial_t^n\left(2\,D_{0,1,1} + D_{0,2,0}\right).
\end{array}
$$
For the special case
$$
m=1\;,\quad V_2(y) = \lambda\,y^2\;,\quad \Psi_0(x,y) = \frac{e^{-x^2 -y^2
-xy}}{\int e^{-2x^2 -2y^2 -2xy}\, {\rm d}x\,{\rm d}y}\,,
$$
running a simple computer algebra program (see appendix) shows that
(\ref{NLSE}) and (\ref{bbm}) imply\footnote{This result was confirmed by
R.~Werner\,\cite{werner2} using his method described in Section
\ref{section:dg}.}
$$
\partial_\lambda\left((i\partial_t)^3\left(2\,D_{0,1,1}(t) +
D_{0,2,0}(t)\right)\right)_{|_{t=0}} = 32b\,.
$$
This means that (\ref{NLSE})/(\ref{bbm}) is essential nonlocal ---
against the basic philosophy of Bialynicki-Birula's and J.~Mycielski's
theory.\cite{bbm}
\medskip
\section{Identical Particles}
Up to now we tacitly assumed that the two particles (with equal masses)
considered in Figure \ref{fig:gisin} can be distinguished. Therefore one
might still hope that Bialynicki-Birula's and J.~Mycielski's theory is
consistent for identical particles. However, even for 2-particles states
which are symmetric or antisymmetric w.r.t.~exchange of the particles
essential nonlocality is unavoidable. To show this denote by
$\Psi_t^{g,U}$ the solution of
$$
i\partial_t \Psi_t^{g,U} = \left(-\Delta +\lambda U - 2b
\ln\modulus{\Psi_t^{g,U}}\right)\Psi_t^{g,U}
$$
fulfilling the initial condition
$$
\Psi_0^{g,U}(x,y) = g(x,y)\,.
$$
For fixed $f(x,y)$ and $\sigma\in\left\{+1,-1\right\}$ define
$$
\begin{array}[c]{c}
\begin{array}[c]{rcl}
U^{(d)}(x,y) &\stackrel{\rm def}{=}& V(y-d) + V(x-d)\,,\\
\Psi_0^{(d)}(x,y) &\stackrel{\rm def}{=}& f(x,y-d) +\sigma f(y,x-d)\,,
\end{array}\\
\chi_0^{(d)}(x,y) \stackrel{\rm def}{=} f(x,y-d)\;,\quad
\phi_0^{(d)}(x,y) \stackrel{\rm def}{=} f(y,x-d)\,.
\end{array}
$$
and
$$
\chi_t^{(d)} \stackrel{\rm def}{=} \Psi_t^{\chi_0^{(d)},U^{(d)}}\;,\quad
\phi_t^{(d)} \stackrel{\rm def}{=} \Psi_t^{\phi_0^{(d)},U^{(d)}}\;,\quad
\Psi_t^{(d)} \stackrel{\rm def}{=} \Psi_t^{\Psi_0^{(d)},U^{(d)}}\,.
$$
Obviously, if $V\in\testspace D({\rm I\!R})$ and $f\in\testspace S({\rm I\!R}^2)\,$,
$$
\partial_\lambda\left(\partial_t^6 \int_{\cal G}\left(
\modulus{\Psi^{(d)}_t(x,y)}^2 - \modulus{\chi^{(d)}_t(x,y)}^2 -
\modulus{\phi^{(d)}_t(x,y)}^2\right){\rm d}x{\rm d}y\right)_{|_{t=0}}
\stackscript{\longrightarrow}_{d \to \infty} 0
$$
holds for every region ${\cal G}\subset{\rm I\!R}^3\times{\rm I\!R}^3\,$.
\noindent
Moreover,
$$
\begin{array}[c]{l}
\displaystyle \lim_{d\to\infty} \partial_\lambda\left( \partial_t^6
\int_{\cal G} \modulus{\phi^{(d)}_t(x,y)}^2\,{\rm d}x{\rm
d}y\right)_{|t=0}\\[8mm]
=\displaystyle \lim_{d\to\infty} \partial_\lambda\left( \partial_t^6
\int_{\cal G} \modulus{\chi^{(d)}_t(x,y)}^2\,{\rm d}x{\rm
d}y\right)_{|t=0}\\[8mm]
= c^{f,U}_{\lambda} \stackrel{\rm def}{=}\displaystyle \partial_\lambda\left(
\partial_t^6 \int_{x\in\cal O} \modulus{\Psi_t^{f,U}(x,y)}^2 {\rm
d}x\,{\rm d}y\right)_{|t=0}
\end{array}
$$
holds for
$$
\region G=\left\{(x,y)\in{\rm I\!R}^2: x\in\region O\,\lor\,y\in\region
O\right\}\;,\quad \region O \mbox{ bounded}\;,\quad U(x,y)=V(y)\,.
$$
Therefore, under these conditions,
$$
\partial_\lambda\left(\partial_t^6 \int_{\cal G}\left(
\modulus{\Psi^{(d)}_t(x,y)}^2\,{\rm d}x\,{\rm d}y\right)
\right)_{|_{t=0}} \stackscript{\longrightarrow}_{d \to \infty} =
c^{f,U}_\lambda\,.
$$
Since, as shown in Section \ref{section:bbm}, $c^{f,U}_{\lambda}$
can be arranged to be nonzero we conclude:
\begin{quote}
The postulate of symmetry or antisymmetry of the wave function w.r.t.~to
exchange of particles does not prevent essential nonlocality.
\end{quote}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
I am grateful to M.~Czachor, H.-D.~Doebner, G.A.~Goldin, and R.~Werner
for stimulating discussions.
\section*{Appendix: Maple V (Release 4) Session}
\scriptsize
\begin{verbatim}
PROCEDURES:
> del := proc(f)
> global x,y,t;
> option operator;
> unapply( diff(f(x,y,t), x$2) + diff(f(x,y,t), y$2), (x,y,t));
> end:
> pot := proc(f)
> global x,y,t;
> option operator;
> unapply(V(y) * f(x,y,t),(x,y,t));
> end:
> Idot := proc(f)
> global x,y,t;
> option operator;
> unapply(simplify(subs(diff(P(x,y,t),t)=(-del(P)(x,y,t)+ pot(P)(x,y,t)),
diff(PB(x,y,t),t)=(del(PB)(x,y,t)-pot(PB)(x,y,t)), diff(f(x,y,t), t))), (x,y,t));
> end:
EVALUATION:
> term0 := (x,y,t) -> 2 * diff(ln( PB(x,y,t) * P(x,y,t)), x) * PB(x,y,t) *
diff(P(x,y,t), x) + diff(ln( PB(x,y,t) * P(x,y,t)), x$2) * PB(x,y,t) * P(x,y,t):
> term1 := (x,y,t) -> simplify(Idot(term0)(x,y,t)):
> term2 := (x,y,t) -> simplify(Idot(term1)(x,y,t)):
> term3 := (x,y,t) -> simplify(Idot(term2)(x,y,t)):
SPECIAL CASE:
> spec := proc(f)
> global x,y,t;
> option operator;
> unapply( subs(V(y)=lambda * y^2, P(x,y,t)=exp(-x^2 -y^2 -x*y),
PB(x,y,t)=exp(-x^2 -y^2 -x*y), f(x,y,t)), (x,y,t));
> end:
RESULT:
> int(int(simplify(diff(spec(term3)(x,y,t),lambda)), x=-infinity..infinity),
y=-infinity..infinity);
1/2
- 32/3 Pi 3
> int(int(exp(-2*x^2 -2*y^2 -2*x*y), x=-infinity..infinity),
y=-infinity..infinity);
1/2
1/3 Pi 3
\end{verbatim}
\normalsize
|
\section{Introduction}
If string theory is to be a model of supersymmetric particle physics,
one should be able to find four-dimensional vacua preserving $\mathcal{N}=1$
supersymmetry. The first examples of such backgrounds arose as
geometrical vacua, from the compactification of the heterotic string
on a Calabi--Yau threefold. Recent advances in string duality have
provided new ways of obtaining geometrical $\mathcal{N}=1$ vacua, by
compactifying other limits of string theory and, in particular, by
including branes in the background.
Of particular interest is the strongly coupled limit of the $E_8\times
E_8$ heterotic string. The low-energy effective theory is
eleven-dimensional supergravity compactified on an $S^1/Z_2$ orbifold
interval, with a set of $E_8$ gauge fields on each of the
ten-dimensional orbifold fixed planes~\cite{hw1,hw2}. To construct a
theory with $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry one further compactifies on a
Calabi--Yau threefold $X$~\cite{w:cy}. One is then free to choose
general $E_8$ bundles which satisfy the hermitian Yang--Mills
equations. Furthermore, one can include some number of five-branes. The
requirements of four-dimensional Lorentz invariance and supersymmetry
mean that these branes must span the four-dimensional Minkowski
space, while the remaining two dimensions wrap a holomorphic curve
within the Calabi--Yau threefold~\cite{w:cy,bbs,bvs}.
In the low-energy four-dimensional effective theory, there is an array
of moduli. There are geometrical moduli describing the dimensions of
the Calabi--Yau manifold and orbifold interval. There are bundle
moduli describing the two $E_8$ gauge bundles. And finally, there are
moduli describing the positions of the fivebranes. It is this last set
of moduli, together with the generic low-energy gauge fields on the
fivebranes, upon which we shall focus in this paper. We note that,
although we consider this problem in the specific case of
M~fivebranes, the moduli spaces are quite general and should have
applications to other supersymmetric brane configurations.
We shall look at this question in the particular case of an
elliptically fibered Calabi--Yau threefold with section. This expands
on the discussion of we gave in a recent letter~\cite{dlow1}. There we
used this special class of manifolds to construct explicitly an array
of new particle physics vacua. The general structure of the
constructions was given in detail in a second paper~\cite{dlow2}. This
is the companion paper which explains the structure of the five-brane
moduli space as well as the nature of gauge enhancement on the
five-branes.
The constructions in~\cite{dlow1} and~\cite{dlow2} used the analysis
of gauge bundles on elliptic Calabi--Yau threefolds given by Friedman,
Morgan and Witten~\cite{fmw}, Donagi~\cite{ron} and Bershadsky
\textit{et al.}~\cite{bjps}. The vacua preserved, for example,
$SU(5)$ or $SO(10)$ gauge symmetry with three families. The presence
of the five-branes allowed a much larger class of possible
backgrounds. The number of families is given by an index first
calculated in this context by Andreas~\cite{andreas} and
Curio~\cite{curio}. Curio also gave explicit examples of
bundles where this index was three. Subsequently, the case of
non-simply connected elliptic Calabi--Yau threefolds with bisections
has been considered in~\cite{ack}. We note that, in the M~theory
context, another class of explicit models with non-standard gauge
bundles but with orbifold Calabi--Yau spaces, were first contructed
in~\cite{stie}, while the generic form of the effective four- and
five-dimensional theories, including fivebranes, is given
in~\cite{nse}.
In constructing these vacua the fivebranes cannot be chosen
arbitrarily~\cite{w:cy}. The boundaries of $S^1/Z_2$ and the fivebranes
are all magnetic sources for the four-form field strength $G$ of
eleven-dimensional supergravity. The fact that there can be no net
magnetic charge for $G$ in the Calabi--Yau threefold fixes the homology
class of the fivebranes in terms of the gauge bundles and $X$ itself.
As discussed in~\cite{dlow1,dlow2}, to describe real fivebranes this
homology class must be ``effective'' in $X$. Mathematically, then, the
problem we wish to solve is to find the moduli space of holomorphic
curves in $X$ in a given effective homology class.
Specific to the M~theory case, we will also include the moduli
corresponding to moving the fivebranes in $S^1/Z_2$ and, in addition,
their axionic moduli partners~\cite{nse,w:hw,ketal}. These latter
fields are compact scalars which arise as zero modes of the self-dual
three-form $h$ on the fivebranes. The other zero modes of $h$ lead to
low-energy gauge fields. Generically the gauge group is $U(1)^g$,
where $g$ is the genus of the holomorphic
curve~\cite{nse,w:hw,ketal}. Since we will be able to calculate $g$ at
each point in the moduli space, we will also be able to identify the
low-energy gauge multiplets.
One consequence of considering elliptically fibered Calabi--Yau
threefolds with section is that there is a dual F~theory
description~\cite{vafa,vm1,vm2}. For the fivebranes, those wrapping
purely on the fiber of $X$ correspond to threebranes on the F~theory
side~\cite{fmw}. Rajesh~\cite{rajesh} and Diaconescu and
Rajesh~\cite{dr} have recently argued that fivebranes lying
wholly in the base of $X$ correspond to blow-ups of the corresponding
curve in the F~theory vacuum. We will not comment in detail
on this interesting correspondence. However, we will show that, locally,
the moduli spaces match those expected from duality to F~theory. We
will also comment on how the global structure is encoded on the M~theory
side through a twisting of the axion modulus. This will be discussed
further in~\cite{atwist}. An additional point we will only touch on
is the structure of additional low-energy fields which can appear when
fivebranes intersect. We will, however, clearly identify
these points in moduli space in our analysis. Finally, we will also
ignore any non-perturbative corrections. In general, since the
low-energy theory is only $\mathcal{N}=1$, one expects that some of the
directions in moduli space are lifted by non-perturbative
effects, in particular by instantonic membranes stretching between
fivebranes.
Specifically, we do the following. In section~2, we briefly review the
anomaly cancellation condition in heterotic M-theory, discuss how that
constraint leads to non-perturbative vacua with fivebranes and review
some aspects of homology and cohomology theory required in our
analysis. Properties of elliptically fibered Calabi--Yau threefolds
and a discussion of their algebraic and effective classes are
presented in section~3. Section~4 is devoted to studying the simple
case of the the moduli spaces of fivebranes wrapped purely on the
elliptic fiber. We also comment on global structure of the moduli
space and the relation to F~theory. In section~5, we present two
examples of fivebranes wrapping curves with a component in the
base. We analyze, in detail, the moduli space of these two examples,
including the generic low-energy gauge groups on and possible
intersections of the fivebrane. Techniques developed in sections~4
and~5 are generalized in section~6, where we give a procedure for the
analysis of the moduli spaces of fivebranes wrapped on any holomorphic
curve, generically with both a fiber and a base component. We note a
particular exceptional case which occurs when the fivebrane wraps an
exceptional divisor in the base. Finally, in sections~7,~8 and~9 we
make these methods concrete by presenting three specific examples, two
with a del Pezzo base and one with a Hirzebruch base. Two of these
examples correspond realistic three-family, non-perturbative vacua in
Ho\v rava-Witten theory.
\section{Heterotic M~theory vacua with fivebranes}
\subsection{Conditions for a supersymmetric background}
As we have discussed in the introduction, the standard way to obtain
heterotic vacua in four dimensions with $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry, is to
compactify eleven-dimensional M~theory on the manifold $X\tsS^1/Z_2\times
M_4$~\cite{hw1,hw2}. Here $X$ is a Calabi--Yau threefold, $S^1/Z_2$ is
an orbifold interval, while $M_4$ is four-dimensional Minkowski
space. This background is not an exact solution, but is good to first
order in an expansion in the eleven-dimensional Planck length. To
match to the low-energy particle physics parameters, the Calabi--Yau
threefold is chosen to be the size of the Grand Unified scale, while
the orbifold is somewhat larger~\cite{w:cy,bd}. In general, there is a
moduli space of different compactifications. There are the familiar
moduli corresponding to varying the complex structure and the K\"ahler
metric on the Calabi--Yau threefold. Similarly, one can vary the size
of the orbifold. These parameters all appear as massless fields in the
low-energy four-dimensional effective action. In general, there are
additional low-energy scalar fields coming from zero-modes of the
eleven-dimensional three-form field $C$.
The second ingredient required to specify a supersymmetric background
is to choose the gauge bundle on the two orbifold planes. In general,
one can turn on background gauge fields in the compact Calabi--Yau
space. Supersymmetry implies that these fields cannot be
arbitrary. Instead, they are required to satisfy the hermitian
Yang--Mills equations
\begin{equation}
F_{ab} = F_{{\bar a}{\bar b}} = 0 \qquad
g^{a{\bar b}} F_{a{\bar b}} = 0
\label{hYM}
\end{equation}
Here $a$ and $b$ are holomorphic indices in $X$, ${\bar a}$ and ${\bar b}$ are
antiholomorphic indices, while $g_{a{\bar b}}$ is the K\"ahler metric
on $X$. Having fixed the topology of the gauge bundle, that is, how the
bundle is patched over the Calabi--Yau manifold, there is then a set
of different solutions to these equations. There are additional
low-energy moduli which interpolate between these different
solutions. In general, the full moduli space of bundles is hard to
analyze. However, when the Calabi--Yau threefold is elliptically
fibered, the generic structure of this moduli space can be calculated
and has been discussed in~\cite{fmw,ron} and also in~\cite{gmod}.
The final ingredient to the background is that one can include
fivebranes~\cite{w:cy,nse}. In order to preserve supersymmetry and
four-dimensional Lorentz invariance, the fivebranes must span the
four-dimensional Minkowski space while the remaining two dimensions
wrap a holomorphic curve within the Calabi--Yau
threefold~\cite{w:cy,bbs,bvs}. In addition, each brane must be parallel
to the orbifold fixed planes. Thus it is localized at a single point
in $S^1/Z_2$. Again, there are a set of moduli giving the positions of
the five-branes within the Calabi--Yau manifold as well as in the
orbifold interval. As we will discuss below, there are also extra
moduli coming from the self-dual tensor fields on the
fivebranes~\cite{nse,w:hw,ketal}. These fields generically give some
effective $\mathcal{N}=1$ gauge theory in four-dimensions. Finding the moduli
space of the fivebranes, and some information about the effective
gauge theory which arises on the fivebrane worldvolumes will be the
goal of this paper.
In summary, the M~theory background is determined by choosing
\begin{itemize}
\item
a spacetime manifold of the form $X\tsS^1/Z_2 \times M_4$, where $X$ is a
Calabi--Yau threefold
\item
two $E_8$ gauge bundles, $V_1$ and
$V_2$,
satisfying the hermitian
Yang--Mills equations~\eqref{hYM} on $X$
\item
a set of fivebranes parallel to the orbifold fixed planes and
wrapped on holomorphic curves within $X$.
\end{itemize}
This ensures that we preserve $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry in the low-energy
four-dimensional effective theory.
\subsection{Cohomology condition}
The above conditions are not sufficient to ensure that one has a consistent
background. Anomaly cancellation on both the ten-dimensional orbifold
fixed planes and the six-dimensional fivebranes is possible only
because each is a magnetic source for the supergravity four-form field
strength $G=dC$~\cite{w:cy}. This provides an inflow mechanism to cancel the
anomaly on the lower dimensional space. In general, the magnetic
sources for $G$ are five-forms. Explicitly, if $0\leq x^{11}\leq\pi\rho$
parameterizes the orbifold interval, one has~\cite{nse}
\begin{equation}
dG = J_1 \wedge \delta(x^{11}) + J_2 \wedge \delta(x^{11}-\pi\rho)
+ \sum_i J_5^{(i)} \wedge \delta(x^{11}-x^{(i)})
\label{Bid}
\end{equation}
where $J_1$ and $J_2$ are four-form sources on the two fixed planes
and $J_5^{(i)}$ is a delta-function four-form source localized at the
position of the $i$-th five-brane in $X$. The explicit one-form delta
functions give the positions of the orbifold fixed planes at
$x^{11}=0$ and $x^{11}=\pi\rho$ and the five-branes at $x^{11}=x^{(i)}$
in $S^1/Z_2$.
Compactifying on $X\tsS^1/Z_2$, we have the requirement that the net
charge in the internal space must vanish, since there is nowhere for
flux to escape. Equivalently, the integral of $dG$ over any five-cycle
in $X\tsS^1/Z_2$ must be zero since $dG$ is exact. Integrating over the
orbifold interval then implies that the integral of $J_1+J_2+\sum_i
J_5^{(i)}$ over any four cycle in $X$ must vanish. Alternatively, this
means that the sum of these four-forms must be zero up to an exact
form, that is, they must vanish cohomologically.
Explicitly, the source on each orbifold plane is proportional to
\begin{equation}
J_{n} \sim \mathrm{tr} F_n\wedge F_n - \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{tr} R\wedge R
\end{equation}
where $F_n$ for $n=1,2$ is the $E_8$ field strength on the $n$-th
fixed plane, while $R$ is the spacetime curvature. The full cohomology
condition can then be written as
\begin{equation}
\lambda(TX) = w(V_1) + w(V_2) + [W]
\label{cohocond}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
w(V) &= - \frac{1}{60\cdot 8\pi^2} \mathrm{tr}_{\bf 248} F \wedge F \\
\lambda(TX) &= \frac{1}{2}p_1(TX)
= - \frac{1}{2\cdot 8\pi^2} \mathrm{tr}_{\bf 6} R \wedge R
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the right-hand sides of these expressions really represent
cohomology classes, rather than the forms themselves. The traces are
in the adjoint ${\bf 248}$ of $E_8$ and the vector representation of
$SO(6)$. $[W]$ represents the total cohomology class of the
five-branes, which we will discuss in a moment. Note that $\lambda$ is half
the first Pontrjagin class. It is, in fact, an integer class because we
are on a spin manifold. On a Calabi--Yau threefold it is equal to the
second Chern class $c_2(TX)$, where the tangent bundle $TX$ is viewed
as an $SU(3)$ bundle and the trace is in the fundamental
representation. Thus, the cohomology condition simplifies to
\begin{equation}
[W] = c_2(TX) - w(V_1) - w(V_2)
\label{cocond}
\end{equation}
What do we mean by the cohomology class $[W]$? We recall that we
associated four-form delta function sources to the five-branes in
$X$. The class $[W]$ is then the cohomology class of the sum of all
these sources. Recall that the five-branes wrap on holomorphic curves
within the Calabi--Yau threefold. The sum of the five-branes thus
represents an integer homology class in $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$. In general, one
can then use Poincar\'e duality to associate an integral cohomology
class in
$H^4(X,\mathbf{Z})$ to the homology class of the fivebranes, or also a de Rham
class in
$H_{\mathrm{DR}}^4(X,\mathbf{R})$.
This is
the class $[W]$ which enters the cohomology condition, though we will
throughout use the same expression $[W]$ for the
integral
homology class in
$H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$,
the integral cohomology class in $H^4(X,\mathbf{Z})$, and the de Rham
cohomology class in
$H_{\mathrm{DR}}^4(X,\mathbf{R})$.
\subsection{Homology classes and effective curves}
Let us now turn to analyzing the cohomology condition~\eqref{cocond}
in more detail. One finds that the requirement that $[W]$ correspond
to the homology class of a set of supersymmetric fivebranes puts a
constraint on the allowed bundle classes~\cite{dlow1,dlow2}.
Since the sources are all four-forms, equation~\eqref{cocond} is
clearly a relation between de~Rahm cohomology classes
$H_{\mathrm{DR}}^4(X,\mathbf{R})$. However, in fact, the sources are more restricted than
this. In general, they are all in integral cohomology classes. By this
we mean that their integral over any four-cycle in the Calabi--Yau
threefold gives an integer. (As noted above, this is even true when we
no longer have a Calabi--Yau threefold but only a spin manifold, and
$c_2(TX)$ is replaced by $\frac{1}{2} p_1(X)$.) The class $[W]$ is integral
because it is Poincar\'e dual to an integer sum of fivebranes, an
element of $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$. Note that there is a general notion of the
integer cohomology group $H^p(X,\mathbf{Z})$ which, in general, includes
discrete torsion groups such as $\mathbf{Z}_2$. This
maps naturally to
de~Rahm cohomology $H_{\mathrm{DR}}^p(X,\mathbf{R})$. However, it is important to note
that the
map
is not injective. Torsion elements in $H^p(X,\mathbf{Z})$
are lost. The integral classes to which we refer in this paper are to
be identified with the images of $H^p(X,\mathbf{Z})$ in $H_{\mathrm{DR}}^p(X,\mathbf{R})$.
In general, $[W]$ cannot be just any integral class. We have seen
that supersymmetry implies that fivebranes are wrapped on holomorphic
curves within $X$. Thus $[W]$ must correspond to the homology class of
holomorphic curves. Furthermore, $[W]$ must refer to some physical
collection of fivebranes. Included in $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$ are negative
classes like $-[C]$ where $C$ is, for example, a holomorphic curve in
$X$. These have cohomology representatives which would correspond to
the ``absence'' of a five-brane, contributing a negative magnetic
charge to the Bianchi identity for $G$ and negative
stress-energy. Such states are physically not allowed. The condition
that $[W]$ describes physical, holomorphic fivebranes further
constrains $c_2(TX)$, $w(V_1)$ and $w(V_2)$ in the cohomology
condition~\eqref{cocond}.
In order to formalize these constraints, we need to introduce some
definitions. We will use the following terminology.
\begin{itemize}
\item
A \textbf{curve} is a holomorphic complex curve in the Calabi--Yau
manifold. A curve is \textbf{reducible} if it can be written as the
union of two curves.
\item
A \textbf{class} is a homology class in $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$ (or the Poincar\'e
dual cohomology class in $H^4(X,\mathbf{Z})$). In general, it may or may not
have a representative which is a holomorphic curve. If it does, then
a class is \textbf{irreducible} if it has an irreducible
representative. Note that there may be other curves in the class which
are reducible, but the class is irreducible if there is at least one
irreducible representative.
\item
A class which can be written as a sum of irreducible classes with
arbitrary integer coefficients is called \textbf{algebraic}.
\item
A class is \textbf{effective} if it can be written as the sum of
irreducible classes with positive integer coefficients.
\end{itemize}
Note that we will occasionally use analogous terminology to
refer to surfaces (or divisors) in $X$. These are holomorphic complex
surfaces in the Calabi--Yau threefold, so
they
have four real dimensions,
and
their classes
lie in
$H_4(X,\mathbf{Z})$.
Physically, the above
definitions
correspond to the following. A curve $W$ describes a collection
of
supersymmetric fivebranes wrapped on holomorphic two-cycles in the
Calabi--Yau space. A reducible curve is the union of two or more separate
five-branes. A general class in $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$ has representatives
which are a general collection of five-branes, perhaps supersymmetric,
perhaps not, and maybe including ``negative'' fivebranes of the form
mentioned above. An algebraic class, on the other hand, has
representatives which are a collection of only five-branes wrapped on
holomorphic curves and so supersymmetric, but again includes the
possibility of negative fivebranes. Finally, an effective class has
representatives which are collections of supersymmetric fivebranes but
exclude the possibility of non-physical negative fivebrane states.
From these conditions, we see that the constraint on $[W]$ is that we
must choose the Calabi--Yau threefold and the gauge bundles $V_1$ and
$V_2$ such that
\begin{equation}
\text{$[W]$ must be effective}
\end{equation}
As it stands, it is not clear that $[W]=c_2(TX)-w(V_1)-w(V_2)$ is
algebraic, let alone effective. However, supersymmetry implies that
both the tangent bundle and the gauge bundles are holomorphic. There
is then a useful theorem that the classes of holomorphic bundles are
algebraic\footnote{This is a familiar result for Chern classes
(see~\cite{griffharr}). For $E_8$, or other groups, it can be seen by
taking any matrix representation of the group and treating it as a
vector bundle, that is, by embedding $E_8$ in $GL(n,\mathbf{C})$. The second
Chern class of the vector bundle is then algebraic and is some integer
multiple $p$ of the class $w(V)$, where the factor is related to the
quadratic Casimir of the representation. We conclude that $w(V)$ is
\textit{rationally algebraic}: it is integral, and a further integral
multiple of it is algebraic.}, and so $[W]$ is in fact
necessarily algebraic. However, there remains the condition that $[W]$
must be effective which does indeed constrain the allowed gauge
bundles on a given Calabi--Yau threefold.
\subsection{The theory on the fivebranes, $\mathcal{N}=1$ gauge theories and
the fivebrane moduli space}
While two of the fivebrane dimensions are wrapped on a curve within
the Calabi--Yau manifold, the remaining four dimensions span
uncompactified Minkowski space. The low-energy massless degrees of
freedom on a given fivebrane consequently fall into four-dimensional
$\mathcal{N}=1$ multiplets. At a general point in moduli space there are a set
of complex moduli $(m_i,\bar{m}_i)$ describing how the fivebrane curve
can be deformed within the Calabi--Yau three-fold. These form a set of
chiral multiplets. In addition, there is a single real modulus
$x^{11}$ describing the position of the fivebrane in the orbifold
interval. This is paired under supersymmetry with an axion $a$ which
comes from the reduction of the self-dual three-form degree of
freedom, $h$, on the fivebrane to form a further chiral
multiplet. When the fivebrane is non-singular, that is, does not
intersect itself, touch another fivebrane, or pinch, at any point, the
remaining degrees of freedom are a set of $U(1)$ gauge multiplets,
where the gauge fields also arise from the reduction of the self-dual
three-form. The number of $U(1)$ fields is given by the genus $g$ of
the curve. In summary, generically, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\text{chiral multiplets:}& \quad (x^{11},a),\, (m_i,\bar{m}_i) \\
\text{vector multiplets:}& \quad
\text{$g$ multiplets with $U(1)^g$ gauge group}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for each distinct fivebrane.
When the fivebrane becomes singular, new degrees of freedom can
appear. These correspond to membranes stretched between parts of the
same fivebrane, or the fivebrane and other fivebranes, which shrink and
become massless when the fivebrane becomes singular. They may be new
chiral or vector multiplets. In the following, we will not generally
identify all the massless degrees of freedom at singular
configurations but, rather, concentrate on describing the degrees of
freedom on the smooth parts of the moduli space.
In conclusion, we have seen that fixing the Calabi--Yau manifold and
gauge bundles, in general, fixes an element $[W]$ of $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$
describing the homology class of the holomorphic curve in $X$ on which
the fivebranes are wrapped. In order to describe an actual set of
fivebranes, $[W]$ must be effective, which puts a constraint on the
choice of gauge bundles. In general, there are a great many different
arrangements of fivebranes in the same homology class. The fivebranes
could move about within the Calabi--Yau threefold and also in the
orbifold interval. In addition, there can be transitions where branes
split and join. The net effect is that there is, in general, a
complicated moduli space of five-branes parameterizing all the
different possible combinations. In the low-energy effective theory on
the fivebranes, the moduli space is described by a set of chiral
multiplets. In order to describe the structure of this moduli space,
it is clear that we need to analyze the moduli space of all the
holomorphic curves in the class $[W]$, including the possibility that
each fivebrane can move in $S^1/Z_2$ and can have a different value of
the axionic scalar $a$.
\section{Elliptically fibered Calabi--Yau manifolds}
The moduli spaces we will investigate in detail in this paper are
those for five-branes wrapped on smooth elliptically fibered
Calabi--Yau threefolds $X$. Consequently, in this section we will
briefly summarize the structure of $X$, then identify the generic
algebraic classes and finally understand the conditions for these
classes to be effective.
\subsection{Properties of elliptically fibered Calabi--Yau threefolds}
An elliptically fibered Calabi--Yau threefold $X$ consists of a base
$B$, which is a complex surface, and an analytic map
\begin{equation}
\pi : X \to B
\label{XtoB}
\end{equation}
with the property that for a generic point $b \in B$, the fiber
$E_{b}=\pi^{-1}(b)$ is an elliptic curve. That is, $E_{b}$ is a
Riemann surface of genus one with a particular point, the origin $p$,
identified. In particular, we will require that there exist a global
section, denoted $\sigma$, defined to be an analytic map
\begin{equation}
\sigma : B \to X
\label{section}
\end{equation}
that assigns to every point $b\in B$ the origin $\sigma(b)=p\in
E_{b}$. We will sometimes refer to this as the zero section. The
requirement that the elliptic fibration have a section is crucial for
duality to F~theory. However, one notes that from the M~theory point
of view it is not necessary.
In order to be a Calabi--Yau threefold, the canonical bundle of $X$
must be trivial. From the adjunction formula, this implies that the
normal bundle to the section, $N_{B/X}$, which is a line bundle over
$B$ and tells us how the elliptic fiber twists as one moves around the
base, must be related to the canonical bundle of the base, $K_B$. In
fact,
\begin{equation}
N_{B/X} = K_B.
\label{cL}
\end{equation}
Further conditions appear if one requires that the Calabi--Yau
threefold be smooth. The canonical bundle $K_B$ is then constrained so
that the only possibilities for the base manifold are as
follows~\cite{vm2,grassi}:
\begin{itemize}
\item
for a smooth Calabi--Yau manifold the base $B$ can be a del Pezzo
($dP_r$), Hirzebruch ($F_r$) or Enriques surface, or a blow-up of a
Hirzebruch surface.
\end{itemize}
These are the only possibilities we will consider. The structure of
these surfaces is discussed in detail in an appendix
to~\cite{dlow2}. In the following, we will adopt the notation used
there.
It will be useful to recall that, in general, there is a set of
points in the base at which the fibration becomes singular. These form
a curve, the discriminant curve $\Delta$, which is in the homology class
$-12K_B$, as can be shown explicitly by considering the
Weierstrass form of the fibration.
\subsection{Algebraic classes on $X$}
\label{algclasses}
Since $[W]$ is algebraic, we need to identify the set of algebraic
classes on our elliptically fibered Calabi--Yau manifold. This was
discussed in~\cite{dlow1,dlow2}, but here we will be more explicit. It
will be useful to identify these classes both in $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$
and $H_4(X,\mathbf{Z})$. In general, the full set of classes will depend on
the particular fibration in question. However, there is a generic set
of classes which are always present, independent of the fibration, and
this is what we will concentrate on.
Simply because we have an elliptic fibration, the fiber at any given
point is a holomorphic curve in $X$. Consequently, one algebraic class
in $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$ which is always present is the class of the fiber,
which we will call $F$. The existence of a section means there is also a
holomorphic surface in $X$. Thus the class of the section, which we
will call $D$, defines an algebraic class in $H_4(X,\mathbf{Z})$.
Some additional algebraic classes may be inherited from the base
$B$. In general, $B$ has a set of algebraic classes in
$H_2(B,\mathbf{Z})$. One useful fact is that for all the bases which lead to
smooth Calabi--Yau manifolds, one finds that every class in
$H_2(B,\mathbf{Z})$ is algebraic. This follows from the Lefschetz
theorem~\cite{griffharr} which tells us that we can identify algebraic
classes on a surface $S$ with the image of integer classes in the
Dolbeault cohomology $H^{1,1}(S)$. One then has the following
picture. In general, the image of $H^2(S,\mathbf{Z})$ is a lattice of points
in $H^2(S,\mathbf{R})$. Choosing a complex structure on $S$ corresponds to
fixing an $h^{1,1}$-dimensional subspace within $H^2(S,\mathbf{R})$
describing the space $H^{1,1}(S)$. Generically, no lattice points will
intersect the subspace and so there are no algebraic classes on
$S$. The exception is when $h^{2,0}=0$, which is the case for all the
possible bases $B$. Then the subspace is the whole space $H^2(S,\mathbf{R})$
so all classes in $H^2(S,\mathbf{Z})$ are algebraic.
If $\Omega$ is an algebraic class in $H_2(B,\mathbf{Z})$, there are two ways it
can lead to a class in $X$. First, one can use the section $\sigma$ to
form a class in $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$. If $C$ is some representative of $\Omega$,
then the inclusion map $\sigma$ gives a curve $\sigma(C)$ in $X$. The homology
class of this curve in $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$ is denoted by $\sigma_*\Omega$. Second, we
can use the projection map $\pi$ to pull $\Omega$ back to a class in
$H_4(X,\mathbf{Z})$. For a given representative $C$, one forms the fibered
surface $\pi^{-1}(C)$ over $C$. The homology class of this surface in
$H_4(X,\mathbf{Z})$ is then denoted by $\pi^*\Omega$. This structure is indicated
in Figure~\ref{algclass}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=algclass.eps,height=3in}}
\caption{Generic algebraic classes on $X$, where $[C]=\sigma_*\Omega$ and
the fiber class $[E_p]=F$ are in $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$, and
$[\pi^{-1}(C)]=\pi^*\Omega$ and base class $[B]=D$ are in $H_4(X,\mathbf{Z})$.}
\label{algclass}
\end{figure}
In general, these maps may have kernels. For instance, two curves which
are non-homologous in $B$, might be homologous once one embeds them in
the full Calabi--Yau threefold. In fact, we will see that this is not
the case. One way to show this, which will be useful in the following,
is to calculate the intersection numbers between the classes in $H_2$
and $H_4$. We find
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rrccc}
& & &\multicolumn{2}{c}{H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})} \\
& & \vline & \sigma_*\Omega' & F \\
\cline{2-5}
H_4(X,\mathbf{Z}) &
\begin{array}{c} \pi^*\Omega \\ D \end{array} &
\vline &
\begin{array}{c} \Omega\cdot \Omega' \\ K_B \cdot \Omega' \end{array} &
\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 1 \end{array}
\end{array}
\label{inters}
\end{equation}
where the entries in the first column are the intersections of classes
in $B$. The intersection of $\sigma_*\Omega'$ with $D$ is derived by adjunction,
recalling that the normal bundle to $B$ is $N_{B/X}=K_B^{-1}$. Two
classes are equivalent if they have the same intersection numbers. If
we take a set of classes $\Omega_i$ which from a basis of $H_2(B,\mathbf{Z})$,
we see that the matrix of intersection numbers of the form given
in~\eqref{inters} is non-degenerate. Thus, for each nonzero $\Omega\in
H_2(B,\mathbf{Z})$, we get nonzero classes $\sigma_*\Omega$ and $\pi^*\Omega$ in
$H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$ and $H_4(X,\mathbf{Z})$.
As we mentioned, the algebraic classes we have identified so far are
generic, always present independently of the exact form of the
fibration. There are two obvious sources of additional
classes. Consider $H_4(X,\mathbf{Z})$. First, we could have additional
sections non-homologous to the zero-section $\sigma$. Second, the
pull-backs of irreducible classes on $B$ could split so that
$\pi^*(\Omega)=\Sigma_1+\Sigma_2$. This splitting comes from the fact that there
can be curves on the base over which the elliptic curve degenerates,
for example, into a pair of spheres. New classes appear from wrapping
the four-cycle over either one sphere or the other. Now consider
$H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$. We see that the possibility of degeneration of the
fiber means that the fiber class $F$ can similarly split, with
representatives wrapped, for instance, on one sphere or the
other. Finally, the presence of new sections means there is a new way
to map curves from $B$ into $X$ and, in general, classes in
$H_2(B,\mathbf{Z})$ will map under the new section to new classes in
$H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$.
In all our discussions in this paper, we will ignore these additional
classes. This will mean that our moduli space discussion is not in
general complete. However, this restriction will allow us to analyze
generic properties of the moduli space. In summary, we have identified
the generic algebraic classes $\Omega$ in $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$ as classes in $B$
(since these are all algebraic for the bases in question) mapped via
the section into $X$, together with the fiber class $F$; while in
$H_4(X,\mathbf{Z})$ the generic algebraic classes are the pull-backs
$\pi^*(\Omega)$ of classes in $B$, together with the class $D$ of the
section. Furthermore, distinct algebraic classes in $B$ lead to
distinct algebraic classes in $X$.
\subsection{Effective classes on $X$}
We argued in the previous section that a generic algebraic class
$[W]$ in $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$ on a general $X$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
[W] = \sigma_*\Omega + f F
\label{Wdecomp}
\end{equation}
where $\Omega$ is an algebraic class in $B$ (which is then mapped to $X$
via the section) and $F$ is the fiber class, while $f$ is some
integer. If $[W]$ is to be the class of a set of five-branes it must
be effective. What are the conditions, then, on $\Omega$ and $f$ such that
$[W]$ is effective?
We showed in~\cite{dlow2} that the following is true. First, for a
base which is any del Pezzo or Enriques surface, $[W]$ is effective if
and only if $\Omega$ is an effective class in $B$ and $f\geq 0$. Second,
this is also true for a Hirzebruch surface $F_r$, with the exception
of when $\Omega$ happens to contain the negative section $\mathcal{S}$ and
$r\geq3$. Here, following the notation of~\cite{dlow2}, we write a
basis of algebraic classes on $F_r$ as the negative section $\mathcal{S}$ and
the fiber $\mathcal{E}$. In this case, there is a single additional
irreducible class $\sigma_*\mathcal{S}-(r-2)\sigma_*\mathcal{E}$. In this paper, for
simplicity, we will not consider these exceptional cases for which the
statement is untrue. Thus, under this restriction, we have that
\begin{equation}
W = \sigma_*\Omega + f F \text{ is effective in } X
\Longleftrightarrow \Omega \text{ is effective in } B \text{ and } f\geq 0
\label{thrm}
\end{equation}
This reduces the question of finding the effective curves in $X$ to
knowing the generating set of effective curves in the base $B$. For
the set of base surfaces $B$ we are considering, finding such
generators is always possible (see for instance~\cite{dlow2}).
The derivation of this result goes as follows. Clearly, if $\Omega$ is
effective in $B$ and $f$ is non-negative then since effective curves
in $B$ must map under the section to effective curves in $X$, we can
conclude that $[W]$ is effective. One can also prove that the converse
is true in almost all cases. One sees this as follows. First, unless a
curve is purely in the fiber, in which case $\Omega=0$, the fact that $X$
is elliptically fibered means that all curves $W$ project to curves in
the base. The class $[W]$ similarly projects to the class $\Omega$. The
projection of an effective class must be effective, thus if $[W]$ is
effective in $X$ then so is $\Omega$ in $B$. The only question then is
whether there are effective, irreducible, curves in $X$ with negative
$f$. To address this, we use the fact that any irreducible class in
$H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$ must have non-negative intersection with any effective
class in $H_4(X,\mathbf{Z})$ unless all the representative curves are
contained within the representative surfaces. We start by noting that
if $\Omega$ is an effective class in $B$ then $\pi^*\Omega$ must be an
effective class in $H_4(X,\mathbf{Z})$. This can be seen by considering any
given representative of $B$ and its inverse image in $X$. From the
intersection numbers given in~\eqref{inters} and the generic form of
$[W]$~\eqref{Wdecomp} we see that, if $\Omega'$ is an effective class in
$B$, then
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\pi^*\Omega' \cdot [W] &= \Omega' \cdot \Omega \\
D \cdot [W] &= K_B \cdot \Omega + f
\end{aligned}
\label{effinters}
\end{equation}
From the first intersection one simply deduces again that if $[W]$ is
effective then so is $\Omega$. Now suppose that $f$ is non-zero. Then
$W$ cannot be contained within $B$ and so, from the second expression,
we have $f\geq -K_B\cdot \Omega$. We recall that for del Pezzo and
Enriques surfaces $-K_B$ is nef, so that its intersection with any
effective class $\Omega$ is non-negative. Thus, we must have $f\geq 0$ for
$[W]$ to be effective. The exception is a Hirzebruch surface $F_r$ for
$r\geq 3$. We then have $-K_B\cdot \mathcal{E}=2>0$ but $-K_B\cdot
\mathcal{S}=2-r<0$. This allows the existence of effective classes of the
form $\sigma_*\mathcal{S}+fF$ with $f$ negative. Indeed, the existence of such a
class can be seen as follows. Consider a representative curve $C$ of
$\mathcal{S}$ in $F_r$ with $r\geq 3$ (in fact, the representative is
unique). It is easy to see that $C$ is topologically $\mathbf{P}^1$ (see
equation~\eqref{genuscS} below). The surface $\pi^{-1}(C)$ above $C$
should thus be an elliptic fibration over $\mathbf{P}^1$. However, as shown in
equation~\eqref{pcS} below, in fact, $C$ is contained within the
discriminant curve $\Delta$ of the Calabi--Yau fibration. Thus all the
fibers over $C$ are singular. The generic singular fiber is a $\mathbf{P}^1$,
suggesting that $S_C$ is a $\mathbf{P}^1$ fibration over $\mathbf{P}^1$. In fact
it can be shown that $S_C$ is indeed itself the Hirzebruch surface
$F_{r-2}$ (or a blow-up of such a surface). What class is our original
curve $C$ in the new surface $F_{r-2}$? If we write the classes of
$F_{r-2}$ as $\mathcal{S}'$ and $\mathcal{E}'$, we identify $\mathcal{E}'=F$ since this is
just the fiber class of the $F_{r-2}$. In addition, one can show that
$\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}'+(r-2)\mathcal{E}'$. However, we know that $\mathcal{S}'$ itself is an
irreducible class, so $\mathcal{S}'=\mathcal{S}+(2-r)F$ is irreducible in
$H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$. Thus we see there is one new irreducible class with
negative $f$ which saturates the condition that $f\geq -(r-2)$.
\section{The moduli space for fivebranes wrapping the elliptic fiber
and the role of the axion}
Probably the simplest example of a fivebrane moduli space is the case
where the fivebranes wrap only the elliptic fiber of the Calabi--Yau
threefold. By way of introduction to calculating moduli spaces, in
this section, we will consider this case, first for a single fivebrane
and then for a collection of fivebranes. These configurations are well
understood in the dual F-theory picture as collections of
D3-branes~\cite{fmw}. We end the section with a discussion of the connection
between our results and the F-theory description.
\subsection{$[W]=F$}
If it wraps a fiber only once, the class of the fivebrane curve is
simply given by
\begin{equation}
[W] = F
\end{equation}
A fivebrane wrapping any of the elliptic fibers will be in this
class. One might imagine that there are other fivebranes in this class,
where not all the fivebrane lies at the same point in the Calabi--Yau
threefold. Instead, as one moves along the fivebrane in the fiber
direction, the fivebrane could have a component in the base
directions. However, if the curve is to be holomorphic, every point in
the fivebrane curve must lie over the same point in the
base. Similarly, in order to preserve $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry, the
brane must be parallel to the orbifold fixed planes, so it is also at
a fixed point in the orbifold. Since these position moduli are
independent, the moduli space appears to be $B\tsS^1/Z_2$. The two
complex coordinates on $B$ form a pair of chiral $\mathcal{N}=1$
superfields. The metric on this part of the moduli space should simply
come from the K\"ahler metric on the base $B$.
However, we have, thus far, ignored the axionic scalar, $a$, on the
fivebrane world volume. We have argued that this is in a chiral
multiplet with the orbifold modulus $x^{11}$. Furthermore, it is
compact, describing an $S^1$. However, at the edges of the orbifold
this changes. It has been argued in~\cite{gh,sw} that there is a
transition when a fivebrane reaches the boundary. At the boundary, the
brane can be described by a point-like $E_8$ instanton. New low-energy
fields then appear corresponding to moving in the instanton moduli
space. Similarly, some of the fivebrane moduli disappear. Throughout
this transition the low-energy theory remains $\mathcal{N}=1$. Thus, since the
$x^{11}$ degree of freedom disappears in the transition, so must the
axionic degree of freedom. Consequently the axionic $S^1$ moduli space
must collapse to a point at the boundary. We see that the full
$(x^{11},a)$ moduli space is just the fibration of $S^1$ over the
interval $S^1/Z_2$, where the $S^1$ is singular at the boundaries, that
is, the orbifold and axion part of the moduli space is simply
$S^2=\mathbf{P}^1$.
The fact that the axionic degree of freedom disappears on the
boundary can be seen in another way. In the fivebrane equation of
motion, one can write the self-dual three-form field strength $h$ in terms
of a two-form potential, $b$, in combination with the pull-back onto the
fivebrane worldvolume of the eleven-dimensional three-form potential
$C$ as~\cite{fbraneeom}
\begin{equation}
h = db - C
\label{hdef}
\end{equation}
Under the $Z_2$ orbifold symmetry $C$ is odd unless it has a component
in the direction of the orbifold. Since the fivebrane must be parallel
to the orbifold fixed-planes this is not the case. This implies that $h$
must also be odd. Consequently, $h$ must be zero on the orbifold fixed
planes implying that the axion $a$ also disappears on the boundary.
In summary, the full moduli space is given locally by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(F) = B \times \PP^1_a.
\label{Fmod}
\end{equation}
where the subscript on $\PP^1_a$ denotes that this part of moduli space
describes the axion multiplet. Globally, this $\mathbf{P}^1$ could twist as we
move in $B$; so $\mathcal{M}(F)$ is really a $\mathbf{P}^1$ bundle over $B$. We will
return to this point below. What about the vector degrees of freedom?
Since the fiber is elliptic, the fivebrane curve must be topologically
a torus. Thus we have
\begin{equation}
g=\genus{W}=1
\end{equation}
and there is a single $U(1)$ vector multiplet in the low-energy
theory.
\subsection{$[W]=nF$}
\label{sec:fF}
The generalization to the case where the fivebrane class is a number of
elliptic fibers is straightforward. The class
\begin{equation}
[W] = fF
\end{equation}
where $f\geq 1$, means we have a collection of curves which wrap the
fiber $f$ times. In general, we could have one component which wraps
$f$ times or two or more components each wrapping a fewer number of
times. In the limiting case, there are $f$ distinct components each
wrapping only once. A single component must wrap all at the same
point in the base. In addition, it must be at a fixed point in the
orbifold interval and must have a single value of the axionic
scalar. Two or more distinct components can wrap at different points
in the base and have different values of $x^{11}$ and $a$.
As homology cycles, there is no distinction between the case where
some number $n$ of singly wrapped components overlap, lying at the
same point in the base, and the case where there is a single component
wrapping $n$ times. Both cases represent the same two-cycle in the
Calabi--Yau manifold. Physically, they could be distinguished if the
$n$ singly wrapped components were at different points in $S^1/Z_2$ or
had different values of the axion. However, if the values of $x^{11}$
and $a$ were also the same, by analogy with D~branes, we would expect
that we could not then distinguish, in terms of the scalar fields on
the branes, the $n$ singly wrapped fivebranes from a single brane
wrapped $n$ times. From the discussion in the last section, each
singly wrapped fivebrane has a moduli space given locally by
$B\times\PP^1_a$. Thus for $f$ components, we expect the full scalar
field moduli space locally has the form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(fF) = \left(B\times\PP^1_a\right)^f/\mathbf{Z}_f
\label{fFmod}
\end{equation}
where we have divided out by permutations since the fivebranes are
indistinguishable. The ambiguous points in moduli space, which could
correspond to a number of singly wrapped fivebranes or a single
multiply wrapped fivebrane, are then the places where two or more of
the points in the $f$ $B\times\PP^1_a$ factors coincide. Note, in
addition, that this is again only the local structure of $\mathcal{M}(fF)$. We
do not know how the $\PP^1_a$ factors twist as we move the fivebranes in
the base. Thus, globally, $\mathcal{M}(fF)$ is the quotient of a $(\mathbf{P}^1)^f$
bundle over $B^f$.
In a similar way, the gauge symmetry on the fivebranes also follows by
analogy with D-branes. At a general point in the moduli space, we have
$n$ distinct fivebranes each wrapping a torus and so, as in the
previous section, each with a single $U(1)$ gauge field. When two
branes collide in the Calabi--Yau threefold, and are at the same point
in the orbifold and have the same value of the axion, we expect the
symmetry enhances to $U(2)$. The new massless states come from
membranes stretched between the fivebranes. The maximal enhancement is
when all the fivebranes collide and the group becomes $U(n)$.
\subsection{Duality to F~theory and twisting the axion}
\label{axiontwist}
The results of the last two sections are extremely natural from the
F~theory point of view. It has been argued that fivebranes wrapping an
elliptic fiber of $X$ correspond to threebranes spanning the flat
$M_4$ space on the type IIB side~\cite{fmw}. To understand the
correspondence, we first very briefly review the relation between M
and F~theory~\cite{vafa,vm1,vm2}.
The duality states that the heterotic string on an elliptically
fibered Calabi--Yau threefold $X$ is dual to F~theory on a Calabi-Yau
fourfold $X'$ fibered by K3 over the same base $B$. The M~theory limit
of the heterotic string we consider here is consequently also dual to
the same F~theory configuration. In addition, the duality requires
that the K3 fibers should themselves be elliptically fibered. This
means that the fourfold $X'$ also has a description as an elliptic
fibration over a threefold base $B'$. Since the base of an
elliptically fibered K3 manifold is simply $\mathbf{P}^1$, this implies that
$B'$ must be a $\mathbf{P}^1$ fibration over $B$. As a type IIB background,
the spacetime is $B'\times M_4$, where $M_4$ is flat Minkowski
space. The complex structure of the elliptic fibers of $X'$ then
encode how the IIB scalar doublet, the dilaton and the Ramond-Ramond
scalar, vary as one moves over the ten-dimensional manifold $B'\times
M_4$. As such, they describe some configuration of seven-branes in
type IIB.
M~theory fivebranes which wrap the elliptic fiber in $X$, map
to threebranes spanning $M_4$ in the dual F~theory vacuum. As such,
the three-brane is free to move in the remaining six compact
dimensions. Thus we expect that the threebrane moduli space is simply
$B'$. However, we have noted that $B'$ is a $\mathbf{P}^1$ fibration over
$B$. Thus we see that locally the moduli space as calculated on the
F~theory side exactly coincides with the moduli space of the fivebrane
given in~\eqref{Fmod} above. The $\mathbf{P}^1$ fiber in $B'$ is precisely
the orbifold coordinate $x^{11}$ together with the axion $a$. For a
collection of $f$ threebranes, we expect the moduli space is simply
promoted to the symmetric product ${B'}^f/Z_f$. Again, locally, this
agrees with the moduli space~\eqref{fFmod} of the corresponding M theory
fivebranes. Similarly, it is well known that a threebrane carries a
single $U(1)$ gauge field, as does the M~theory fivebrane. For a
collection of $f$ threebranes this is promoted to $U(f)$, which was
really the motivation for our claim for the vector multiplet
structure calculated in the M~theory picture.
In general, the arguments given in the previous two sections were only
sufficient to give the local structure of the axion multiplet part of
the fivebrane moduli space. We did not determine how the axion fiber
$\PP^1_a$ twisted as one moved the fivebrane in the Calabi--Yau
manifold. From duality with F~theory, we have seen that, in general,
we expect this twisting is non-trivial. In fact, it can also be
calculated from the M~theory side. We will not give the details here
but simply comment on the mechanism. A full description will be given
elsewhere~\cite{atwist}. The key is to recall that the self-dual
three-form on the fivebrane~\eqref{hdef} depends on the pull-back of the
supergravity three-form potential $C$. This leads to holonomy for the
axion degree of freedom as one moves the fivebrane within the
Calabi--Yau threefold. The holonomy can be non-trivial if the field
strength $G$ is non-trivial. However, from the modified Bianchi
identity~\eqref{Bid}, we see that this is precisely the case when
there are non-zero sources from the boundaries of $S^1/Z_2$ and also from
the fivebranes in the bulk. In general, one can calculate how the axion
twists, and hence how $\PP^1_a$ twists, in terms of the different sources.
This phenomenon is interesting but not central to the structure of the
fivebrane moduli spaces, such as the dimension of the space, how its
different branches intersect, or waht is the the genus of the
fivebrane curve. Thus, for simplicity, in the rest of this paper we
will ignore the issue of how $a$ twists as one moves a given
collection of fivebranes within the Calabi--Yau
manifold. Consequently, the moduli spaces we quote will strictly only
be locally correct for the axion degrees of freedom. So that it is
clear where the extra global structure can appear, we will always
label the $\mathbf{P}^1$ degrees of freedom associated with the axions as
$\PP^1_a$.
\section{Two examples with fivebranes wrapping curves in the base}
The discussion of the moduli space becomes somewhat more complicated
once one includes classes where the fivebrane wraps a curve in the
base manifold. Again, we will take two simple examples to illustrate
the type of analysis one uses. In both cases, we will assume, for
specificity, that the base manifold is a $dP_8$ surface, though the
methods of our analysis would apply to any base $B$. Throughout, we
will use the notation and results of~\cite{dlow2}. A $dP_8$ surface is
a $\mathbf{P}^2$ surface blown up at eight points, $p_1,\dots,p_8$. In
general there are nine algebraic classes in the base: the class $l$
inherited from the class of lines in the $\mathbf{P}^2$ and the eight classes
of the blown-up points $E_1,\dots,E_8$. In the following, we will
often describe curves in $dP_8$ in terms of the corresponding plane
curve in $\mathbf{P}^2$.
\subsection{$[W]=\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1$}
\label{exbase1}
We first take an example where the fivebrane class includes no fiber
components
\begin{equation}
[W] = \sigma_*l - \sigma_*E_1
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_*l$ and $\sigma_*E_1$ are the images in the Calabi--Yau manifold
of the corresponding classes in the base. Since $\Omega=l-E_1$ is an
effective class in the base, (see~\cite{dlow2}), from~\eqref{thrm} we
see that $[W]$ is effective in $X$, as required.
If we knew that the curve lay only in the base, the moduli space would
then simply be the space of curves in a $dP_8$ surface in the class
$l-E_1$, which is relatively easy to calculate. In general, however,
$W$ lies somewhere in the full Calabi--Yau threefold. The fact that
its homology class is the image of a homology class in the base does
not imply that $W$ is stuck in $B$. Nonetheless, we do know that, under
the projection map $\pi$ from $X$ to $B$, the curve $W$ must project
onto a curve $C$ in the base as shown in Figure~\ref{piC}. Furthermore
the class of $C$ must be $\Omega=l-E_1$ in $B$. What we can do is find the
moduli space of such curves $C$ in the base and then ask, for each
such $C$, what set of curves $W$ in the full Calabi--Yau manifold would
project onto $C$. That is to say, the full moduli space should have a
fibered structure. The base of this space will be the moduli space of
curves $C$ in $B$, while the fiber above a given curve is the class of
$W$ in $X$ which projects onto the given $C$.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=piC.eps,height=3in}}
\caption{The curve $W$ and its image in the base $C$}
\label{piC}
\end{figure}
In our example, the moduli space of curves $C$ in the class $\Omega=l-E_1$
is relatively easy to analyze. In $\mathbf{P}^2$, $\Omega$ describes the class of
lines through one point, $p_1$. A generic line in $\mathbf{P}^2$ is a
homogeneous polynomial of degree one,
\begin{equation}
ax + by + cz = 0
\end{equation}
where $[x,y,z]$ are homogeneous coordinates on $\mathbf{P}^2$. Since the
overall coefficient is irrelevant, a given line is fixed by giving
$[a,b,c]$ up to an overall scaling. Thus the moduli space of lines is
itself $\mathbf{P}^2$. Furthermore, we see that a given point in the line is
specified by fixing, for instance, $x$ and $y$ up to an overall
scaling. Consequently, we see that, topologically, a line in $\mathbf{P}^2$ is
just a sphere $\mathbf{P}^1$. For the class $\Omega$, we further require that the
line pass through a given point $p_1=[x_1,y_1,z_1]$. This provides a
single linear constraint on $a$, $b$ and $c$,
\begin{equation}
ax_1 + by_1 + cz_1 = 0
\end{equation}
We now have only the set of lines radiating from $p_1$ and the moduli
space is reduced to $\mathbf{P}^1$. Topologically, the line in $\mathbf{P}^2$ is
still just a sphere and, generically, its image in $dP_8$ will also
be a sphere.
There are, however, seven special points in the moduli space. A
general line passing through $p_1$ will not intersect any other blown-up
point. However, there are seven special lines radiating from $p_1$
which also pass through a second blown-up point. (To be a $dP_8$
manifold, the eight blow-up points must be in general position, so no
three are ever in a line.) This is shown in Figure~\ref{lE1}. Let us
consider one of these seven lines, say the one which passes through
$p_2$. The transform of such a line to $dP_8$ splits into two curves
\begin{equation}
C = C_1 + C_2
\end{equation}
The first component $C_1$ projects back to the line in $\mathbf{P}^2$. The
second component corresponds to a curve wrapping the blown up $\mathbf{P}^1$ at
$p_2$ and so has no
analog
in $\mathbf{P}^2$. Specifically, the classes of
the two curves are
\begin{equation}
[C_1] = l - E_1 - E_2, \qquad
[C_2] = E_2
\label{Csplit}
\end{equation}
Using the results in the Appendix to~\cite{dlow2}, we see that
\begin{equation}
[C_1] \cdot [C_1] = [C_2] \cdot [C_2] = -1
\end{equation}
It follows that both curves are in exceptional classes in $dP_8$ and
so cannot be deformed within the base. Hence, no new moduli for moving
in the base appear when the curve splits.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=lE1.eps,height=2.5in}}
\caption{The moduli space of lines in the class $l-E_1$. The solid
lines represent two examples of the special case where the proper
transform of the line splits into two components}
\label{lE1}
\end{figure}
From the form of~\eqref{Csplit}, we see that, when the curve splits,
$C_1$ remains a line in $\mathbf{P}^2$ so is topologically still a sphere,
while $C_2$ wraps the blown up $\mathbf{P}^1$ and, so, is also topologically a
sphere. Furthermore, the intersection number
\begin{equation}
[C_1]\cdot [C_2]=1
\end{equation}
implies that the two spheres intersect at one point. What has
happened is that the single sphere $C$ has pinched off into a pair of
spheres as shown in Figure~\ref{Cpinch}. In summary, for the moduli
space of curves $C$ in the base, in the homology class $\Omega=l-E_1$, we
have,
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c|cc}
[C] & \text{genus} & \text{moduli space} \\
\hline
l-E_1
& 0 & \mathbf{P}^1 - 7\text{ pts.} \\
(l-E_1-E_i) + (E_i)
& 0+0 & \text{single pt.}
\end{array}
\label{Cmodspace}
\end{equation}
where in the second line $i=2,\dots,8$.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=Cpinch.eps,height=1in}}
\caption{Splitting a single sphere into a pair of spheres}
\label{Cpinch}
\end{figure}
The next step is to find, for a given curve $C$, how many curves $W$
there are in the full Calabi--Yau space which project onto
$C$. Furthermore, $W$ must be in the homology class
$\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1$. Let us start with a curve $C$ at a generic point in the
moduli space~\eqref{Cmodspace}, that is, a point in the first line of the
table where the curve has not split. Any curve $W$ which projects onto
$C$ must lie somewhere in the space of the elliptic fibration over
$C$. Thus, we are interested in studying the complex surface
\begin{equation}
S_C = \pi^{-1}(C)
\end{equation}
This structure is shown in Figure~\ref{piC}. By
definition, this surface is an elliptic fibration over $C$ which,
means it is a fibration over $\mathbf{P}^1$. In general, the surface will
have some number of singular fibers. This is equal to the intersection
number between the discriminant curve $\Delta$, which gives the position
of all the singular fibers on $B$, and the base curve $C$. Recall that
$[\Delta]=-12K_B$. Using the results summarized in the Appendix
to~\cite{dlow2}, since the base is a $dP_8$ surface and intersection
numbers depend only on homology classes, we have
\begin{equation}
[\Delta] \cdot [C]
= 12\left(3l-E_1-\dots-E_8\right) \cdot \left(l-E_1\right)
= 24
\end{equation}
Thus we see that, generically, $S_C$ is an elliptic fibration over
$\mathbf{P}^1$ with 24 singular fibers. This implies
~\cite{griffharr}
that
\begin{equation}
S_C \text{ is a K3 surface}
\end{equation}
The curve $C$ is the zero section of the fibration. Further,
projection gives us a map from the actual curve $W$ to its image $C$
in the base. The projection only wraps $C$ once, so, since $C$ is not
singular, the map is invertible and $W$ must also be a section of
$S_C$. Our question then simplifies to asking: what is the moduli space
of sections of $S_C$ in the class $\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1$?
To answer this question, we start by identifying the algebraic classes
in $S_C$. We know that we have at least two classes inherited from the
Calabi--Yau threefold: the class of the zero section $C$, which we
write as $D_C$, and the class of the elliptic fiber,
$F_C$. Specifically, under the inclusion map
\begin{equation}
i_C : S_C \to X
\end{equation}
$D_C$ and $F_C$ map into the corresponding classes in $X$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
i_{C*}D_C &= [C] = \sigma_*l - \sigma_*E_1 \\
i_{C*}F_C &= F
\end{aligned}
\label{K3inclmap}
\end{equation}
where $i_{C*}$ is the map between classes
\begin{equation}
i_{C*} : H_2(S_C,\mathbf{Z}) \to H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})
\end{equation}
These are the only relevant generic classes in $X$. However, there may
be additional classes on $S_C$ which map to the same class in
$X$ so that the map $i_{C*}$ has a kernel. That is to say, two curves
which are homologous in $X$ may not be homologous in $S_C$. However,
we note that a generic K3 surface would have no algebraic classes
since $h^{2,0}\neq 0$ (see the discussion in
section~\ref{algclasses}). Given that in our case of an elliptically
fibered K3 with section we have at least two algebraic classes, the
choice of complex structure on $S_C$ cannot be completely
general. However, generically, we have no reason to believe that there
are any further algebraic classes. For particular choices of complex
structure additional classes may appear but, since here we are
considering the generic properties of the moduli space, we will ignore
this possibility.
Now, we require that $W$, like $C$, is also in the class
$\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1$ in the full Calabi--Yau space. This immediately implies,
given the map~\eqref{K3inclmap}, that $W$ is also in the class $D_C$
of the zero section $C$ in $S_C$. Furthermore, we can calculate the
self-intersection number of this class within $S_C$. This can be done
as follows. Recall that the Riemann--Hurwitz formula~\cite{griffharr}
applied to the curve $C$ states that
\begin{equation}
2g - 2 = \deg K_C
\label{RHformula}
\end{equation}
where $g$ is the genus and $K_C$ is cohomology class of the canonical
bundle of $C$. The adjunction formula~\cite{griffharr} then gives
\begin{equation}
\deg K_C = \left(K_{S_C} + D_C \right) \cdot D_C
\label{adj}
\end{equation}
where $K_{S_C}$ is the canonical class of the K3 surface $S_C$. Using
the fact that the canonical class of a K3 surface is zero,
$K_{S_C}=0$, and that $C$ is a sphere so $g=0$, it follows
from~\eqref{RHformula} and~\eqref{adj} that
\begin{equation}
D_C \cdot D_C = - 2
\label{Omegasq1}
\end{equation}
This implies that the section cannot be deformed at all within the
surface $S_C$. In conclusion, we see that there is, generically, no
moduli space of curves $W$ which project onto $C$. Rather, the only
curve in $S_C$ in the class $\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1$ is the section $C$
itself. We see that, generically, the curve $W$ can only move in the
base of $X$ and cannot be deformed in a fiber direction.
Recall that a fivebrane wrapped on $W$ also has a modulus describing
its position in $S^1/Z_2$, as well as the axionic modulus. Together, as
was discussed in the previous section, these form a $\mathbf{P}^1$ moduli
space. Thus, we conclude that the moduli space associated with a
generic curve in~\eqref{Cmodspace} is locally simply
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_{\text{generic}} = \left(\mathbf{P}^1 - \text{7 pts.}\right) \times \PP^1_a
\label{genericmod}
\end{equation}
As discussed above, since the axion can be twisted, globally, this
extends to a $\PP^1_a$ bundle over $\mathbf{P}^1$. Physically, we have a
single fivebrane wrapping an irreducible curve in the Calabi--Yau
threefold, which lies entirely within the base $B$. The curve can be
deformed in the base, which gives the first factor in the moduli
space, but cannot be deformed in the fiber direction. It can also move
in the orbifold interval and have different values for the axionic
modulus, which gives the second factor in~\eqref{genericmod}. Since
the curve has genus zero, there are no vector fields in the low-energy
theory.
Thus far we have discussed the generic part of the moduli space. The
full moduli space will have the form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1) = \left(\mathbf{P}^1 - \text{7 pts.}\right) \times \PP^1_a
\cup \mathcal{M}_{\text{non-generic}}
\end{equation}
where the additional piece $\mathcal{M}_{\text{non-generic}}$ describes the
moduli space at each of the special 7 points where the curve $C$
splits into two components. To analyze this part of the moduli space,
we must consider each component separately, but we can use the same
procedure we used above. The fact that the image $C$ splits, means
that the original curve $W$ must also split in $X$
\begin{equation}
W = W_1 + W_2
\label{simplesplit}
\end{equation}
with $C_1$ being the projection onto the base of $W_1$ and $C_2$ the
projection of $W_2$. Let us consider the case where the line in $\mathbf{P}^2$ also
intersects $p_2$. Then the homology classes of $W_1$ and $W_2$ must
split as
\begin{equation}
[W_1] = \sigma_*l - \sigma_*E_1 - \sigma_*E_2 \qquad
[W_2] = \sigma_*E_2
\label{Wsplit}
\end{equation}
Note that one might imagine adding $nF$ to $[W_1]$ and $-nF$ to
$[W_2]$, still leaving the total $[W]$ unchanged and having the
correct projection onto the base. However, from~\eqref{thrm}, we see
that one class would not then be effective and so, since $W_1$ and
$W_2$ must each correspond to a physical fivebrane, such a splitting
is not allowed.
If we start with $W_1$, to find the curves in $X$ which project onto
$C_1$ and are in the homology class $\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1-\sigma_*E_2$, we begin,
as above, with the surface $S_{C_1}=\pi^{-1}(C_1)$ above
$C_1$. Calculating the number of singular fibers, we find
\begin{equation}
\Delta \cdot [C_1]
= 12\left(3l-E_1-\dots-E_8\right) \cdot \left(l-E_1-E_2\right)
= 12
\end{equation}
Since $C_1$ is a sphere, we have an elliptic fibration over $\mathbf{P}^1$
with 12 singular fibers, which implies that~\cite{griffharr}
\begin{equation}
S_{C_1} \text{ is a $dP_9$ surface}
\end{equation}
Similarly, if we consider $[C_2]=E_2$,
\begin{equation}
\Delta \cdot [C_2]
= 12\left(3l-E_1-\dots-E_8\right) \cdot E_2
= 12
\end{equation}
Since the curve $C_2$ is also a sphere, it follows that we again have
an elliptic fibration over $\mathbf{P}^1$ with 12 singular fibers, and hence
we also have
\begin{equation}
S_{C_2} \text{ is a $dP_9$ surface}
\end{equation}
Thus, we are considering the degeneration of the K3 surface $S_C$,
which had 24 singular fibers, into a pair of $dP_9$ surfaces $S_{C_1}$
and $S_{C_2}$, each with 12 singular fibers.
On a given $dP_9$ surface, say $S_{C_1}$, we are
guaranteed, as for the K3 surface, that there are at least two
algebraic classes, the section class $D_{C_1}$ and the fiber class
$F_{C_1}$. However, the $dP_9$ case is more interesting than the case
of a K3 surface since there are always other additional algebraic
classes. On a $dP_9$ surface, $h^{2,0}=0$. Consequently, as was
discussed in section~\ref{algclasses}, whatever complex structure one
chooses, all classes in $H_2(dP_9,\mathbf{Z})$ are algebraic. Thus, one finds
that the algebraic classes on $dP_9$ form a 10-dimensional
lattice. Since there are only two distinguished classes on the
Calabi--Yau threefold (namely $\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1$ and the fiber class
$F$), this implies that distinct classes in $S_{C_1}$ must map to the
same class in $X$. That is to say, curves which are not homologous in
$S_{C_1}$ are homologous once one considers the full threefold $X$.
The full analysis of the extra classes on $S_{C_1}$ will be considered
in section~\ref{sec:dP9}. In our particular case, it will turn out
that, for $W_1$ to be in the same class as $C_1$ in the full
Calabi--Yau threefold, it must also be in the same class within
$S_{C_1}$. Thus, we are again interested in the moduli space of the
section class $D_{C_1}$ in $S_{C_1}$. Now, we recall (see, for
instance, the Appendix to~\cite{dlow2}) that the canonical class for a
$dP_9$ is simply $K_{S_{C_1}}=-F_D$. So by the analogous calculation
to~\eqref{Omegasq1}, using the fact that $D_{C_1}\cdot F_D=1$ since
$C_1$ is a section, we have that
\begin{equation}
D_{C_1} \cdot D_{C_1} = -1
\label{dP9sec}
\end{equation}
This means that the curve $C_1$ cannot be deformed within
$S_{C_1}$. Thus, as in the K3 case, the only possible $W_1$ is the
section $C_1$ itself.
An identical calculation goes through for the other component
$W_2$. Furthermore, the analysis is the same at each of the other six
exceptional points in moduli space. Given that the curve has split
into two components at each of these points, we have two separate moduli
describing the position of each component in $S^1/Z_2$ as well as two
moduli describing the axionic degree of freedom for each
component. It follows that
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_{\text{non-generic}} = 7\left(\PP^1_a \times \PP^1_a\right)
\label{nongeneric}
\end{equation}
where $7(\mathbf{P}^1\times\mathbf{P}^1)=\mathbf{P}^1\times\mathbf{P}^1\cup\dots\cup\mathbf{P}^1\times\mathbf{P}^1$. We
find, then, that the full moduli space has a branched structure,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1) = \left(\mathbf{P}^1 - \text{7 pts.}\right) \times \PP^1_a
\cup 7\left(\PP^1_a \times \PP^1_a\right)
\label{lE1mod}
\end{equation}
where, globally, the first component, $\mathcal{M}_{\text{generic}}$, in
fact, extends to a $\mathbf{P}^1$ bundle over $\mathbf{P}^1$. We can also describe
the way each copy of $\PP^1_a\times\PP^1_a$ is attached to
$\mathcal{M}_{\text{generic}}$: the diagonal of $\PP^1_a\times\PP^1_a$, the set of
points where the two components intersect, is glued to a fiber of the
$\PP^1_a$ bundle $\mathcal{M}_{\text{generic}}$.
Physically, as we discussed above, at a generic point in the moduli
space we have a single fivebrane wrapping a curve which lies solely in
the base of the Calabi--Yau threefold and is topologically a
sphere. The curve can be moved in the base and in $S^1/Z_2$ but not in
the fiber direction. In moving around the base there are seven special
points where the fivebrane splits into two curves intersecting at one
point, as in Figure~\ref{Cpinch}. These are each fixed in both the
base and the fiber of the Calabi--Yau manifold, but can now each move
independently in $S^1/Z_2$. The two fivebranes can then be separated so
that they no longer intersect.
In making the transition from one of these
branches of the moduli space to the case where there is a single
fivebrane, the two fivebranes must be at the same point in $S^1/Z_2$ and
have the same value of the axionic scalar $a$. They can then combine
and be deformed away within the base as a single curve. This structure
is shown in Figure~\ref{lE1modfig}. Note that, unlike the pure fiber
case~\eqref{fFmod}, the two curves $W_1$ and $W_2$ are
distinguishable, since they wrap different cycles in the base, so we do
not have to be concerned with modding out by discrete symmetries.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=lE1mod.eps,height=2.8in}}
\caption{The moduli space $\mathcal{M}(\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1)$.}
\label{lE1modfig}
\end{figure}
Since in our example all the curves are topologically spheres, there
are generically no vector fields in the low-energy theory. However, at
the points where there is a transition between the two-fivebrane
branch and the single fivebrane branch, additional low-energy fields
can appear. These correspond to membranes which stretch between the
two fivebranes becoming massless as the fivebranes
intersect.
\subsection{$[W]=\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1+F$}
\label{exbase2}
We can generalize the previous example by including a fiber component
in the class of $W$, so that
\begin{equation}
[W] = \sigma_*l - \sigma_*E_1 + F
\end{equation}
Note that from~\eqref{thrm} this class is effective.
We immediately see that one simple possibility is that $W$ splits
into two curves
\begin{equation}
W = W_0 + W_F
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
[W_0] = \sigma_*l - \sigma_*E_1, \qquad [W_F] = F
\end{equation}
The moduli space of the $W_0$ component will be exactly the same as
our previous example, while for the pure fiber component, as given in
equation~\eqref{Fmod}, the moduli space is locally $B\times \PP^1_a$. Since
the base in this example is $dP_8$ here we conclude that, when the
curve splits, this part of the moduli space is just the product of the
moduli spaces for $W_0$ and $W_F$, that is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1) \times \left(dP_8 \times \PP^1_a\right)
\label{largecomp}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{M}(\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1)$ was given above in~\eqref{lE1mod}.
Physically we have two fivebranes, one wrapped on the fiber and one on
the base, which can each move independently. As discussed above, for
the curve wrapped on the base there are certain special points in
moduli space where it splits into a pair of fivebranes, so that, at
these special points, we have a total of three independent
fivebranes. Since the curves of the base are all topologically
spheres, their genus is zero. Hence, the only vector multiplets come
from the fivebrane wrapping the fiber which, being topologically a
torus with $g=1$, gives a $U(1)$ theory. Generically, the five brane
wrapping the fiber $W_F$ does not intersect the fivebranes in the base
$W_0$. However, there is a curve of points in the moduli space of
$W_F$ where both fivebranes are in the same position in $S^1/Z_2$, with
the same value of $a$, and $W_0$ lies above $W_B$ in the Calabi--Yau
fibration. Generically, this gives a single intersection. However,
there is a special point, when the base curves splits, as
in~\eqref{simplesplit} and~\eqref{Wsplit}, and the fiber component
intersects exactly the point where the two base curves intersect. At
such a point in moduli space, we have three fivebranes intersecting at
a single point in the Calabi--Yau threefold. These different possible
intersections are shown in Figure~\ref{enhance}. Generically, we
expect there to be additional multiplets in the low-energy theory at
such points.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=enhance.eps,height=2in}}
\caption{Possible enhancements in the moduli space of
$[W]=\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1+F$. The first figure is where the curve in the
base $W_0$ does not split. The second gives two possible cases
when $W_0$ splits.}
\label{enhance}
\end{figure}
We might expect that there is also a component of the moduli space
where the curve $W$ does not split at all, that is, where we have a
single fivebrane in the class $\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1+F$. To analyze this
second possibility we simply follow the analysis given above, where we
first consider the moduli space of the image $C$ of $W$ in the base
and then find the moduli space of curves which project down to the
same given curve $C$.
Since the projection of $F$ onto the base is zero, the image of $[W]$
in the base is $\Omega=l-E_1$, as above. Thus many of the results of
the previous discussion carry over to this situation. The moduli space
of $C$ is given by~\eqref{Cmodspace}. At a generic point in moduli
space $S_C=\pi^{-1}(C)$ is a K3 surface, while at the seven special points
where $C$ splits, the surface above each of the two components of $C$
is a $dP_9$ surface. If we consider first a generic point in the
moduli space, $W$ is again a section of the K3 surface, but must now
be in the class $\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1+F$. How many such sections are there?
It turns out that for generic K3 there are none. We can see this as
follows. By adjunction, since the genus of $C$ was zero, we showed in
equation~\eqref{Omegasq1} that its class in $S_C$ satisfies $D_C\cdot
D_C=-2$. The identical calculation applies to any section, since
all sections
have
genus zero. Thus, in particular, we have
\begin{equation}
[W]_C \cdot [W]_C = - 2
\label{contr1}
\end{equation}
where by $[W]_C$, we mean the class of $W$ in $S_C$. However, from
the map between classes~\eqref{K3inclmap}, it is clear that
$[W]_C=D_C+F_C$. Since $D_C$ is the class of the zero section, we
have $D_C\cdot F_C=1$. For the fiber class we always have
$F_C\cdot F_C=0$. Hence, we must also have
\begin{equation}
[W]_C \cdot [W]_C = 0
\label{contr2}
\end{equation}
This contradiction implies that there can be no sections of $S_C$ in
the class $\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1+F$. In other words, we have shown that,
generically, we cannot have just a single fivebrane in the class
$\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1+F$. Rather, the fivebrane always splits into a pure
fiber component and a pure base component, as described above.
What about the special points in the moduli space where the curve $C$
splits into two? Do we still have to have a separate pure fiber
component? The answer is no, for the reason that, as discussed above,
the space above each component is a $dP_9$ surface and, unlike the K3
case, there are many more algebraic classes on $dP_9$ than just the
zero section and the fiber. Specifically, suppose there is no separate
pure fiber component in $W$ and consider the point where $C$ splits into
$C_1+C_2$ with $[C_1]=l-E_1-E_2$ and $[C_2]=E_2$. The actual curve $W$
must also split into $W_1$ and $W_2$. Given that each component must
be effective, we then have two possibilities, depending on which
component includes the fiber class
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
{}[W_1] = \sigma_*l - \sigma_*E_1 - \sigma_*E_2 + F, \qquad [W_2] = \sigma_*E_2 \\
\text{or} \\
{}[W_1] = \sigma_*l - \sigma_*E_1 - \sigma_*E_2, \qquad [W_2] = \sigma_*E_2 + F
\end{gathered}
\label{dP9Fdecomp}
\end{equation}
Let us concentrate on the first case, although a completely analogous
analysis holds in the second example. Above, we calculated the number of
curves in the case where the class contains no $F$. We found,
for instance, that if $[W_2]=\sigma_*E_2$ then $W_2$ is required to be
precisely the section $C_2$ and there is no moduli space for moving
the curve in the fiber direction. The situation is richer, however,
for the class with an $F$ component. We will discuss this is more
detail in section~\ref{sec:dP9} below, but it turns out that there are
240 different sections of $dP_9$ in the class
$[W_1]=\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1-\sigma_*E_2+F$. It is a general result, just
repeating the calculation that led to~\eqref{dP9sec}, that any section
of the $dP_9$ has self-intersection $-1$. Consequently none of the 240
different sections in the class $\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1-\sigma_*E_2+F$ can be
deformed in the fiber direction and, hence, they simply provide a discrete
set of different $W_1$ which all map to the same $C_1$. Furthermore,
one can show that none of these sections intersect the base of the
Calabi--Yau manifold. Thus, since, in the case we are considering,
$W_2$ lies solely in the base, we find that $W_1$ and $W_2$ can never
overlap. Their relative positions within the Calabi--Yau threefold are
shown in Figure~\ref{discrete}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=discrete.eps,height=3in}}
\caption{$W=W_1+W_2$ in the case where
$[W_1]=\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1-\sigma_*E_2+F$ and $[W_2]=\sigma_*E_2$.}
\label{discrete}
\end{figure}
It is important to note that these curves are completely stuck within
the Calabi--Yau threefold. They cannot combine into a single curve and
move away from the exceptional point in the moduli space of $C$ (the
projection of $W$ into the $dP_8$ base) where $C$ splits into two
curves. Furthermore, we have argued that they cannot move in the
fiber. Thus, the only moduli for this component of the moduli space are
the positions of the two fivebranes in the orbifold interval and the
values of their axions, giving a moduli space of
\begin{equation}
\PP^1_a \times \PP^1_a
\label{smallcomp}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, since all the sections of $dP_9$ are topologically
spheres, there are no vector multiplets in this part of the moduli
space. As we noted above, the fivebranes cannot overlap. Hence, there
is no possibility of additional multiplets appearing. Finally, we note
that there were seven ways $C$ could split into $C_1+C_2$, and, for
each splitting, $W$ can decompose one of two
ways~\eqref{dP9Fdecomp}. Since for each decomposition there are 240
distinct sections, we see that there is a grand total of 3360 ways of
making the analogous decomposition to that we have just discussed.
In conclusion, we see that the full moduli space for
$[W]=\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1+F$ has a relatively rich structure. It splits into
a large number of disconnected components. The largest component is
where $W$ splits into separate fiber and base components,
$W=W_0+W_F$. The moduli space is then given
by~\eqref{largecomp}, which includes the possibility of the base
component splitting. There are then 3360 disconnected components where
$W$ splits into two irreducible components, one of which includes the
fiber class $F$. We can summarize this structure in a table
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c|cc}
[W] & \text{genus} & \text{moduli space} \\
\hline\hline
(\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1) + (F)
& 0+1
& \left(\left[\mathbf{P}^1 - 7\text{ pts.}\right]\times\PP^1_a\right)
\times \left(dP_8\times\PP^1_a\right) \\
(\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1-\sigma_*E_2) + (\sigma_*E_2) + (F)
& 0+0+1 & \PP^1_a\times\PP^1_a \times \left(dP_8\times\PP^1_a\right) \\
\hline
(\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1-\sigma_*E_2+F) + (\sigma_*E_2)
& 0+0
& \PP^1_a\times\PP^1_a
\end{array}
\label{lE1Fmodspace}
\end{equation}
Here, the first column gives the homology classes in $X$ of the different
components of $W$. The first two rows describe the moduli
space~\eqref{largecomp} where $W$ splits into $W_0+W_F$, first for a
generic component in the base and then at one of seven points where
the base component splits. The final row describes one of the 3360
disconnected components of the moduli space~\eqref{smallcomp}. From
the genus count, we see that in the first two cases we expect a $U(1)$
gauge field on the fivebrane which wraps the fiber, while in the last
case there are no vector multiplets. As we have noted, the component
of the moduli given in the first two rows has the possibility that the
fivebranes intersect leading to additional low-energy fields, as
depicted in Figure~\ref{enhance}. The disconnected components, have no
such enhancement mechanism. Furthermore, their moduli space is
severely restricted since neither fivebrane can move within the
Calabi--Yau manifold.
\section{General procedure for analysis of the moduli space}
\label{gen}
From the examples above, we can distill a general procedure for the
analysis of the generic moduli space. We start with a general
fivebrane curve in the class
\begin{equation}
[W] = \sigma_*\Omega + f F
\label{initialW}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, $[W]$ is assumed to be effective, so that,
by~\eqref{thrm}, $\Omega$ is some effective class in $H_2(B,\mathbf{Z})$ and
$f\geq 0$. We need to first find the moduli space of the projection
$C$ of $W$ onto the base. One then finds all the curves in the full
Calabi--Yau threefold in the correct homology class which project onto
$C$. In general, we will find that the above case, where the space
$S_C=\pi^{-1}(C)$ above $C$ was a K3 surface, is the typical
example. There, we found that no irreducible curve which projects onto
$C$ could include a fiber component in its homology class. Hence, $[W]$
splits into a pure base and a pure fiber component. One exception, as
we saw above, is when $S_C$ is a $dP_9$ surface. In the following, we
will start by analysing the generic case and then give a separate
discussion for the case where $dP_9$ appears.
\subsection{Decomposition of the moduli space}
\label{decomp}
Any curve $W$ in the Calabi--Yau threefold can be projected to the
base using the map $\pi$. In general, $W$ may have one or many
components. Typically, a component will project to a curve in the
base. However, there may also be components which are simply curves
wrapping the fiber at different points in the base. These curves will
all project to points in the base rather than curves. Thus, the first
step in analyzing the moduli space is to separate out all such
curves. We therefore write $W$ as the sum of two components, each of
which may be reducible,
%
\begin{equation}
W = W_0 + W_F
\label{decompF}
\end{equation}
but with the assumption that none of the components of $W_0$ are pure
fiber components. For general $[W]$ given in~\eqref{initialW}, the
classes of these components are
\begin{equation}
[W_0] = \sigma_*\Omega + nF \qquad [W_F] = (f-n)F
\end{equation}
with $0\leq n \leq f$, since each class must be separately
effective. Note that, although $W_0$ has no components which are pure
fiber, its class may still involve $F$ since, in general, components of
$W_0$ can wrap around the fiber as they wrap around a curve in the
base. Except when $n=f$, so $W_F=0$, $W$ has at least two components in
this decomposition and so there are at least two five-branes.
In general, the decomposition~\eqref{decompF} splits the moduli space
into $f+1$ different components depending on how we partition the $f$
fiber classes between $[W_0]$ and $[W_F]$. Within a particular
component, the moduli space is a product of the moduli space of $W_0$
and $W_F$. If $\mathcal{M}_F((f-n)F)$ is the moduli space of $W_F$ and
$\mathcal{M}_0(\sigma_*\Omega+nF)$ is the moduli space of $W_0$, we can then write the
full moduli space as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(\sigma_*\Omega + fF) =
\bigcup_{n=0}^f \mathcal{M}_0(\sigma_*\Omega+nF) \times \mathcal{M}((f-n)F)
\label{moddecomp}
\end{equation}
The problem is then reduced to finding the form of the moduli spaces
for $W_0$ and $W_F$. The latter moduli space has already been analyzed
in section~\ref{sec:fF}. We found that, locally,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}((f-n)F) = \left(B\times\PP^1_a\right)^{f-n}/\mathbf{Z}_{f-n}
\label{WFmod}
\end{equation}
Thus we are left with $\mathcal{M}_0(\sigma_*\Omega+nF)$, which can be analyzed by
the projection techniques we used in the preceding examples.
Projecting $W_0$ onto the base, we get a curve $C$ in the class $\Omega$ in
$B$. Let us call the moduli space of such curves in the base
$\mathcal{M}_B(\Omega)$. This space is relatively easy to analyze since we know the
form of $B$ explicitly. In general, it can be quite complicated with
different components and branches as curves degenerate and split.
To find the full moduli space $\mathcal{M}_0(\sigma_*\Omega+nF)$, we fix a point in
$\mathcal{M}_B(\Omega)$ giving a particular curve $C$ in $B$ which is the
projection of the original curve $W_0$ in the Calabi--Yau
threefold. In the following, we will assume that $C$ is not
singular. By this we mean that it does not, for instance, cross itself
or have a cusp in $B$. If it is singular, it is harder to analyze the
space of curves $W_0$ which project onto $C$. In general, $C$ splits
into $k$ components, so that
\begin{equation}
C = C_1 + \dots + C_k
\label{genCdecomp}
\end{equation}
We then also have
\begin{equation}
\Omega = \Omega_1 + \dots + \Omega_k
\end{equation}
where $\Omega_i=[C_i]$ and, so, must be an effective class on the base for
each $i$. Clearly if the curve in the base has more than one component
then so does the original curve $W_0$, so that
\begin{equation}
W_0 = W_1 + \dots + W_k
\label{Widecomp}
\end{equation}
with $\pi(W_i)=C_i$. In general, the class of $W_0$ will be partitioned
into a sum of classes of the form
\begin{equation}
[W_i] = \sigma_*\Omega_i + n_i F
\label{Wiclasses}
\end{equation}
where, for each curve to be effective, $n_i\geq 0$ and
$n_1+\dots+n_k=n$, leading to a number of different possible
partitions.
One now considers a particular component $C_i$. To find the moduli
space over $C_i$, one needs to find all the curves $W_i$ in $X$ in
the cohomology class $\sigma_*\Omega_i+n_iF$ which project on $C_i$. Recall,
in addition, that we have assumed in our original
partition~\eqref{decompF} that $[W_i]$ contains no pure fiber
components. Repeating this procedure for each component and for each
partition of the $n$ fibers into $\{n_i\}$, gives the moduli space over a
given point $C$ in $\mathcal{M}_B(\Omega)$ and, hence, the full moduli space.
Consequently, we have reduced the problem of finding the full moduli
space $\mathcal{M}_0(\sigma_*\Omega+nF)$ to the following question. To simplify
notation, let $R$ be the given irreducible curve $C_i$ in the base,
and let $V$ be the corresponding curve $W_i$ in the full Calabi--Yau
threefold. Let us further write the class $\Omega_i$ of $C_i$ as $\Lambda$ and
write $m$ for $n_i$. Our general problem is then to find, for the
given irreducible curve $R$ in the effective homology class $\Lambda$, what
are all the curves $V$ in the Calabi--Yau threefold in the class
$\sigma_*\Lambda+mF$, where $m\geq 0$ which project onto $R$. Necessarily, all
the curves $V$ which project into $R$ lie in the surface
$S_R=\pi^{-1}(R)$. By construction, $S_R$ is elliptically fibered over
the base curve $R$. Furthermore, typically, the map from $V$ to $R$
wraps $R$ only once. It is possible that $R$ is some number $q$ of
completely overlapping curves in $B$, so that $[R]=q\Gamma$ for some
effective class $\Gamma$ in $B$. Then the map from $V$ to $R$ wraps the
base curve $q$ times. This will occur in one of the examples we give
later in the paper, but here, since we are discussing generic
properties, let us ignore this possibility. Then, assuming $R$ is not
singular, the map is invertible and we see that $V$ must be a section
of the fibered surface $S_R$.
Furthermore, we note that $S_R$ can be characterized by the genus $g$
of the base curve $R$ and the number of singular fibers. The former
is, by adjunction, given by
\begin{equation}
2g - 2 = \left(K_B + \Lambda\right) \cdot \Lambda
\label{genus}
\end{equation}
The latter is also a function only of the class $\Lambda$ of $R$ and can be
found by intersecting the discriminant class $[\Delta]$ with $\Lambda$. Since
$[\Delta]=-12K_B$, the number of singular fibers must be of the form $12p$
with
\begin{equation}
p = - K_B \cdot \Lambda
\label{pdef}
\end{equation}
where $p$ is an integer. If $p$ is negative, the curve $R$ lies
completely within the discriminant curve of the elliptically
fibered Calabi--Yau manifold. This means that every fiber above $R$ is
singular. The form of $S_R$ then depends on the structure of the
particular fibration of the Calabi--Yau threefold. Since we want to
consider generic properties of the moduli space, we will ignore this
possibility and restrict ourselves to the case where $p$ is non-negative. We
note that this is not very restrictive. For del Pezzo and Enriques
surfaces $-K_B$ is nef, meaning that its intersection with any
effective class in the base is non-negative. Hence, since $\Lambda$ must be
effective, we necessarily have $p\geq 0$. The only exceptions, are
Hirzebruch surfaces $F_r$ with $r\geq 3$ and where $\Lambda$ includes the
negative section $\mathcal{S}$.
Finally, then, finding the full moduli space $\mathcal{M}_0(\sigma_*\Omega+nF)$ has
been reduced to the following problem
\begin{itemize}
\item
For a given irreducible curve $R$ in the base $B$ with homology class
$\Lambda$, find the moduli space of sections $V$ of the surface
$S_R=\pi^{-1}(R)$ in the homology class $\sigma_*\Lambda+mF$ in the full
Calabi--Yau threefold $X$, where $m\geq 0$.
$S_R$ is characterized by $g=\genus{C}$, as given in~\eqref{genus},
and $p$, where $12p$ is the number of singular elliptic fibers, as
given in~\eqref{pdef}. Consequently, we write this moduli space as
$\mathcal{M}(g,p;m)$.
\end{itemize}
We will assume that $p\geq 0$. This is necessarily true, except when
$B$ is an $F_r$ surface with $r\geq 3$ and $\Lambda$ contains the class of
the section at infinity $\mathcal{S}$.
\subsection{The generic form of $\mathcal{M}(g,p;m)$}
\label{generic}
To understand the sections of $S_R$, we start by finding the algebraic
classes on $S_R$. As for the K3 surface, a generic surface $S$ has no
algebraic classes since $h^{2,0}\neq 0$. For $S_R$, we know that two
classes are necessarily present, the class of the zero section $D_R$
and the fiber class $F_R$. However, generically, there need not be any
other classes. Additional classes may appear for special choices of
complex structure, but here we will consider only the generic
case. The obvious exception is the case where $g=0$ and $p=1$. From
equations~\eqref{genus} and~\eqref{pdef}, this implies that $R$ is an
exceptional curve in $B$.
The surface $S_R$ is then an elliptic fibration over $\mathbf{P}^1$ with 12
singular fibers, which is a $dP_9$ surface. In this case $h^{2,0}=0$
and every class in $H_2(S_R,\mathbf{Z})$ is algebraic. We will return to this
case in the next section. The inclusion map $i_R:S_R\to X$, gives a
natural map between classes in $S_R$ and in $X$
\begin{equation}
i_{R*} : H_2(S_R,\mathbf{Z}) \to H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})
\end{equation}
In general, with only two classes the map is simple. By construction,
we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
i_{R*}D_R &= \sigma_*\Lambda \\
i_{R*}F_R &= F
\end{aligned}
\label{geninclmap}
\end{equation}
Just as in the K3 example, we will find that the existence of only two
classes strongly constrains the moduli space $\mathcal{M}(g,p;m)$. We can find
the
analog
of the contradiction of equations~\eqref{contr1}
and~\eqref{contr2} as follows. Let $K_{S_R}$ be the cohomology class
of the canonical bundle of the surface. Since both $V$ and $R$ are
sections, they have the same genus $g$. By the Riemann--Hurwitz
formula and adjunction, we have
\begin{equation}
2g - 2 = \left(K_{S_R} + D_R\right) \cdot D_R
= K_{S_R} \cdot D_R + D_R \cdot D_R
\label{Radj}
\end{equation}
where $D_R$ is the class of the zero section, and
\begin{equation}
2g - 2 = \left(K_{S_R} + [V]_R\right) \cdot [V]_R
= K_{S_R} \cdot [V]_R + [V]_R \cdot [V]_R
\label{Vadj}
\end{equation}
where $[V]_R$ the class of $V$ in $S_R$. We also have, for the fiber,
by a similar calculation, since it has genus one and, since two
generic fibers do not intersect, $F_R\cdot F_R=0$, that
\begin{equation}
0 = \left(K_{S_R} + F_R\right) \cdot F_R = K_{S_R} \cdot F_R
\end{equation}
Finally, since we require in $X$ that $[V]=\sigma_*\Lambda+mF$ and since we
assume that no additional classes exist on $S_R$, %
\begin{equation}
[V]_R = D_R + mF_R
\label{Vclass}
\end{equation}
Substituting this expression into~\eqref{Vadj} and using~\eqref{Radj},
we find
\begin{equation}
[V]_R \cdot [V]_R = D_R \cdot D_R
\label{Vsqr1}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, given that $F_R\cdot D_R=1$ because the fiber
intersects a section at one point, we can compute the
self-intersection of $[V]_R=D_R+mF_R$, explicitly, yielding
\begin{equation}
[V]_R \cdot [V]_R = D_R \cdot D_R + 2m
\label{Vsqr2}
\end{equation}
Comparing~\eqref{Vsqr1} with~\eqref{Vsqr2}, we are left with the
important conclusion that we must have $m=0$. This implies that,
generically, no component of $W_0$ can contain any fibers in its
homology class. We conclude that
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(g,p;m) = \emptyset \qquad \text{unless} \quad m=0
\end{equation}
In fact, we can go further. Since we require $m=0$, we see
from~\eqref{Vclass} that $V$ is in the same class $D_R$ as the zero
section $R$. Using the
Riemann--Roch formula and Kodaira's description of elliptically
fibered surfaces, one can show that the canonical class in the
cohomology of $S_R$ is
given by
\begin{equation}
K_{S_R} = \left(2g - 2 + p\right) F_R
\label{KSR}
\end{equation}
Then, substituting this expression into~\eqref{Radj}, we see that
\begin{equation}
D_R \cdot D_R = - p
\end{equation}
Thus we see that for $p>0$, $R$ is an exceptional divisor and cannot
be deformed in $S_R$. Consequently, all the fivebrane can do is to
move in the orbifold direction and change its value of $a$, so we have a
moduli space of $\PP^1_a$. If $p=0$, the fibration is locally
trivial. It may or may not be globally trivial. However, it is always
globally trivial when pulled back to some finite cover of the
base. Every section is in the class $D_R$ and the moduli space simply
corresponds to moving the fivebrane in the fiber direction and in
$S^1/Z_2$ and $a$. If the original fibration was globally trivial, this
yields a moduli space of $E\times\PP^1_a$, where $E$ is an elliptic curve
describing motion of $V$ in the fiber direction. If it was only
locally trivial, then these deformations in the fiber directions still
make sense over the cover, but only a finite subset of them happens to
descend, so the actual moduli space consists in this case of some
finite number of copies of $\PP^1_a$.
In summary, we see that, generically, if we exclude the case $g=0$,
$p=1$ where $S_R$ is a $dP_9$ surface,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(g,p;m) = \emptyset \qquad \text{for} \quad m > 0
\label{gencMR1}
\end{equation}
while if $m=0$ we have,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(g,p;0) =
\begin{cases}
N \PP^1_a & \text{if } p = 0
\text{ and the fibration is not globally trivial} \\
E\times\PP^1_a & \text{if } p = 0
\text{ and the fibration is globally trivial}\\
\PP^1_a & \text{if } p > 0
\end{cases}
\label{gencMR2}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is some integer depending on the global structure of $S_C$.
In each case, the gauge group on the fivebrane is given by $U(1)^g$
where $g$ is the genus of the curve $R$ in the base $B$. Since both
$R$ and $V$ are sections of $S_R$, this is equal to the genus of the
curve $V$ in the space $X$.
\subsection{The $dP_9$ exception and ${\cal{M}}(0,1;m)$}
\label{sec:dP9}
As we have mentioned, the obvious exception to the above analysis is
when $S_R$ is a $dP_9$ surface. This occurs when the base curve $R$ is
topologically $\mathbf{P}^1$ and there are 12 singular elliptic fibers in
$S_R$, that is if $[R]=\Lambda$ in the base $B$,
\begin{equation}
2g - 2 = \left(K_B+\Lambda\right)\cdot\Lambda = -2, \qquad
p = - K_B \cdot \Lambda = 1
\label{dP9cond}
\end{equation}
As we mentioned above, this implies that $R$ is an exceptional curve
in the base.
In this case, $D_R$ and $F_R$ are not the only generic algebraic
classes on $S_R$. Rather, since $h^{2,0}=0$, every integer class in
$dP_9$ is algebraic. The surface $dP_9$ can be described as the plane
$\mathbf{P}^2$ blown up at nine points which are at the intersection of two
cubic curves. Consequently, there are ten independent algebraic
classes on $dP_9$, the image $l'$ of the class of a line in $\mathbf{P}^2$
and the nine exceptional divisors, $E'_i$ for $i=1,\dots,9$,
corresponding to the blown up points. Here we use primes to
distinguish these classes from classes in the base $B$ of the
Calabi--Yau threefold (specifically, the $E_i$ classes in $B$ when the
base is a del Pezzo surface).
The point here is that, in the full Calabi--Yau manifold $X$, there
are only two independent classes associated with $S_R$, namely, the
class of the base curve $\sigma_*\Lambda$ and the fiber class
$F$. Consequently, if $i_R:S_R\to X$ is the inclusion map from the
$dP_9$ surface into the Calabi--Yau threefold, the corresponding map
between classes
\begin{equation}
i_{R*} : H_2(S_R,\mathbf{Z}) \to H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})
\label{iRmap}
\end{equation}
must have a non-empty kernel, since it maps the ten independent
classes on $S_R$ mentioned above into only two in $X$. Recall that our
goal is to find the set of sections $V$ of $S_R$ which are in the
class $\sigma_*\Lambda+mF$ in $X$. Previously, we found that generically there
were no such sections unless $m=0$. This followed from
equations~\eqref{Radj} to~\eqref{Vsqr2}. Now, the appearance of a
kernel in the map~\eqref{iRmap}, means that $[V]_R$ is no longer
necessarily of the form $D_R+mF_R$, as in
equation~\eqref{Vclass}. Consequently we can no longer conclude that
we must have $m=0$. In fact, as we will see, there are several
different sections $V$ in the same class $\sigma_*\Lambda+mF$ in $X$ with
$m>0$.
Let us start by recalling why a $dP_9$ surface is also an elliptic
fibration. Viewed as $\mathbf{P}^2$ blown up at nine points, we have the
constraint that the nine points lie at the intersection of two
cubics. This is represented in Figure~\ref{dP9}. The cubics can be
written as two third-order homogeneous polynomials in homogeneous
coordinates $[x,y,z]$ on $\mathbf{P}^2$. Let us call these polynomials $f$
and $g$. Clearly any linear combination $af+bg$ defines a new cubic
polynomial. By construction, this polynomial also passes through the
same nine points. Since the overall scale does not change the cubic,
the set of cubics is given by specifying $a$ and $b$ up to overall
scaling. Thus, we have a $\mathbf{P}^1$ of cubics passing through the nine
points. Since each cubic defines an elliptic curve, we can think of
this as an elliptic fibration over $\mathbf{P}^1$. Furthermore, the cubics
cannot intersect anywhere else in $\mathbf{P}^2$. The space of cubics spans
the whole of the plane and, further, it blows up each intersection point into a
$\mathbf{P}^1$ of distinct points, one point in $\mathbf{P}^1$ for each cubic
passing through the intersection. Thus the space of cubics is giving
an alternative description of the $dP_9$ surface. In addition, we note
that each of the exceptional divisors $E'_i$, the blow-ups of the
intersection points, is a $\mathbf{P}^1$ surface which intersects each fiber
at a single point, and so corresponds to section of the
fibration. Furthermore, the anti-canonical class of $dP_9$ is given by
\begin{equation}
- K_{S_R} = 3l' - E'_1 - \dots - E'_9 = F_R
\label{dP9FR}
\end{equation}
and is precisely the class of the cubics passing through the nine
intersection points. It follows that
\begin{equation}
K_{S_R} = - F_R
\end{equation}
which, since $g=0$ and $p=1$, agrees with the general
expression~\eqref{KSR}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=dP9.eps,height=2.5in}}
\caption{The space $dP_9$}
\label{dP9}
\end{figure}
It is natural to ask if there are other sections of $dP_9$ aside from
the exceptional curves $E'_i$. We first note that any section of
$dP_9$ is exceptional, with $[V]_R\cdot[V]_R=-1$. This follows
from~\eqref{Vadj} and~\eqref{dP9FR}, recalling that any section will
have genus zero and intersects the fiber (the anti-canonical class)
only once. Next, we recall that there is a notion of addition of points
on elliptic curves. Consequently, we can add sections point-wise to get
a new section. Thus, we see that the set of sections forms an infinite
Abelian group containing all the exceptional curves on the $dP_9$
surface. From the point of view of curves in $\mathbf{P}^2$, these additional
exceptional classes correspond to curves of higher degree passing
through the nine intersection points with some multiplicity (see for
instance~\cite{dlow2}). In general, we can write an exceptional class
(except the classes $E'_i$) as
\begin{equation}
Q = q l' - \sum q_i E'_i
\label{gensec}
\end{equation}
such that
\begin{equation}
q, q_i \geq 0, \quad
q^2 - \sum q_i^2 = -1, \quad
3q - \sum q_i = 1
\label{genseccond}
\end{equation}
where the first condition is required in order to describe an
effective curve in $\mathbf{P}^2$, the second condition gives $Q\cdot Q=-1$ and
the third condition gives $Q\cdot F_R=1$. The appearance of an infinite
number of exceptional classes means that these equations have an
infinite number of solutions for $i=1,\dots,9$.
Having identified all the relevant classes in $dP_9$, we can now turn
to a description of the map~\eqref{iRmap}. First, we note that the
group structure of the set of sections means that we can choose any
section as part of the basis of classes. In our case, we have singled
out one section as the class of the base curve $R$. Thus, without loss
of generality, we can identify this class with one of the $E'_i$, for
example, $E'_9$. Thus we set
\begin{equation}
D_R = E'_9
\end{equation}
By construction, we know that $D_R$ maps to $\sigma_*\Lambda$ and $F_R$ maps to
$F$ under $i_{R*}$. Thus, in terms of $l'$ and $E'_i$, we have,
using~\eqref{dP9FR} and the generic result~\eqref{geninclmap},
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
i_{R*} E'_9 = \sigma_*\Lambda \\
i_{R*} \left(3l'-E'_1-\dots-E'_9\right) = F
\end{gathered}
\label{genincl}
\end{equation}
We now need to understand how the remaining independent classes
$E'_1,\dots,E'_8$ map under $i_{R*}$. We first note that, since all
these classes are sections, they must project onto the class $\Lambda$ in
the base. The only ambiguity is how many multiples of the fiber class
$F$ each contains. Thus, we know
\begin{equation}
i_{R*}E'_i = \sigma_*\Lambda + c_i F
\end{equation}
for some $c_i$. The easiest way to calculate $c_i$ is to recall that a
class in $H_2(X,\mathbf{Z})$ is uniquely determined by its intersection
numbers with a basis of classes in $H_4(X,\mathbf{Z})$. A suitable basis was
given in section~\ref{algclasses}. In particular, we can consider the
intersection of $E'_i$ with the class $D$ of base $B$ of the full
Calabi--Yau threefold. We note that $E'_i\cdot E'_9=0$ for
$i=1,\dots,8$, so the extra sections $E'_i$ do not intersect the base
$R$ of the $dP_9$. However, since $R$ describes the intersection of
$B$ with the $dP_9$ surface $S_R$, we see that the extra classes
cannot intersect $B$. Thus, we must have
\begin{equation}
i_{R*} E'_i \cdot D = 0 \qquad \text{for} \quad i = 1,\dots,8
\end{equation}
From the table of intersections~\eqref{inters}, using~\eqref{dP9cond},
we see that we must have $c_i=1$ for $i=1,\dots,8$. Together with the
result~\eqref{genincl} we find, in conclusion, that the
map~\eqref{iRmap} is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
i_{R*} l' &= 3 \sigma_*\Lambda + 3 F \\
i_{R*} E'_i &= \sigma_*\Lambda + F \qquad \text{for} \quad i = 1,\dots,8 \\
i_{R*} E'_9 &= \sigma_*\Lambda
\end{aligned}
\label{fulliR}
\end{equation}
demonstrating explicitly that the map has a kernel.
Having identified the map, we would now like to return to our original
question, which was how many sections are there in the class
$\sigma_*\Lambda+mF$ and what is their moduli space. The second part is easy
to answer. We have noted that all sections are exceptional with
self-intersection $-1$. This implies that they cannot be moved within
the $dP_9$ surface. However, they can move in the orbifold and have different
values of the axion. Consequently, each section has a moduli space of
$\PP^1_a$. If there are a total of $N(m)$ sections for a given $m$,
then the total moduli space $\mathcal{M}(0,1;m)$ has the form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(0,1;m)=N(m)\PP^1_a
\label{cMm}
\end{equation}
The value of $N(m)$ is a problem in
discrete mathematics. Recall that the class of a general section had
the form given in~\eqref{gensec}. Under the map $i_{R*}$ this maps
into
\begin{equation}
i_{R*}Q = \sigma_*\Lambda + \left(q_9+1\right) F
\end{equation}
where we have used the condition $3q-\sum q_i=1$. Thus, we can
summarize the problem as finding the number of solutions to
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
q^2 - \sum q_i^2 + 1 &= 0 \\
3q - \sum q_i &= 1
\end{aligned}
\label{sectcond}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
q \geq 0, \quad q_i \geq 0, \quad q_9 = m - 1
\end{equation}
We will not solve this problem in general, but just note the solution
of $m=0$ and $m=1$. The former case is not actually included in the
above form, since it implies $q_9=-1$. However, this case is easy to
analyze since, with $m=0$, we see, from~\eqref{inters}
and~\eqref{dP9cond}, that the intersection of $[V]=\sigma_*\Lambda$ with the
base class $D$ of the Calabi--Yau manifold is $-1$. Consequently, a
component of $V$ must lie in the base $B$. Since, by assumption, $V$ is
irreducible, this means that the whole of $V$ lies in $B$. Thus, $V$ can
only be the base section $R$ in the $dP_9$ surface. Thus we conclude that,
for a $dP_9$ surface $S_R$, $N(0)=1$. That is,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(0,1;0) = \PP^1_a
\end{equation}
corresponding to moving the single curve $R$ in $S^1/Z_2$. This
result was used in analyzing the example in section~\ref{exbase1}.
For $m=1$, there are 240 solutions to the equations~\eqref{sectcond},
that is $N(1)=240$.
The easiest way to see this is to
note that $m=1$ implies $q_9=0$. Thus, we can ignore
$E'_9$. Effectively, one is then trying to count the number of
exceptional curves on a $dP_8$ surface. This is known to be a finite
number, $240$~\cite{dPref}. Explicitly, they are of the following
forms
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{}& E'_i \\
{}& l' - E'_i - E'_j \\
{}& 2l' - E'_{i_1} - \dots - E'_{i_5} \\
{}& 3l' - 2E'_{i} - E'_{i_1} - \dots - E'_{i_6} \\
{}& 4l' - 2E'_{i_1} - \dots - 2E'_{i_3} - E'_{i_4} - \dots - E'_{i_8} \\
{}& 5l' - 2E'_{i_1} - \dots - 2E'_{i_6} - E'_{i_7} - E'_{i_8} \\
{}& 6l' - 2E'_{i_1} - \dots - 2E'_{i_7} - 3E'_{i_8}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where all the indices run from $1$ to $8$. One can see,
using~\eqref{fulliR}, that all these classes map under $i_{R*}$ to
$\sigma_*\Lambda+F$. Again, since none of these sections can move in the $dP_9$
surface, the moduli space is simply 240 copies of $\PP^1_a$,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(0,1;1) = 240\, \PP^1_a
\end{equation}
This result was used in analyzing the example in
section~\ref{exbase2}. We also note that none of these sections
intersects the base section $R$.
\section{A three-family $dP_8$ example}
In the previous section we have given a general procedure for
analyzing the moduli space of fivebranes wrapped on a holomorphic
curve in a particular effective class in the Calabi--Yau manifold. The
problem is of particular importance because it has been
shown~\cite{nse,dlow1,dlow2} that including fivebranes in
supersymmetric M~theory compactifications greatly enlarges the number
of vacua with reasonable grand unified gauge groups and three families
of matter.
In the remaining sections, we apply this procedure to some
specific examples which arise in the construction of phenomenological
models. We will find that the moduli spaces are very
rich. Nonetheless, we will find that there are isolated
parts of moduli space where the number of moduli is greatly
reduced. We will not describe the full moduli spaces here, but rather
consider various characteristic components.
Let us start with the example given in~\cite{dlow1} and expanded upon
in~\cite{dlow2}. There, the base $B$ was a $dP_8$ surface and the class
of the fivebranes was given by
\begin{equation}
[W]= 2\sigma_*E_1 + \sigma_*E_2 + \sigma_*E_3 + 17F
\label{eq:y1}
\end{equation}
where $l$ and $E_i$ for $i=1,\dots,8$ are the line class and the
exceptional blow-up classes in the $dP_8$. Since $2E_1+E_2+E_3$ is
effective in $dP_8$, this describes an effective class in the
Calabi--Yau manifold. This choice of fivebrane class, together with a
non-trivial $E_8$ bundle $V_1$, led to a low-energy $SU(5)$ theory
with three families.
\subsection{General decomposition}
Let us follow exactly the procedure laid down in the previous
section. First, we separate from $W$ all the pure fiber components,
writing it as the sum of $W_0$ and $W_F$ as in~\eqref{decompF}. We
write
\begin{equation}
[W_0] = 2E_1 + E_2 + E_3 + nF, \qquad [W_F] = (17-n) F
\end{equation}
with $0\leq n\leq 17$. Unless $n=17$, we have at least two
separate fivebranes. This splits the moduli space into several
different components depending on the partition of 17 into $n$ and
$17-n$, as given in~\eqref{moddecomp}. The moduli space for the pure
fiber component $W_F$ is just the familiar form, read off
from~\eqref{WFmod}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}((17-n)F) = \left(dP_8 \times \PP^1_a\right)^{17-n}/\mathbf{Z}_{17-n}
\end{equation}
More interesting is the analysis of the $W_0$ moduli space. As
described above, the first step in the analysis is to project $W_0$
onto the base. This gives the curve $C$ which is in the homology
class
\begin{equation}
[C] = 2E_1 + E_2 + E_3
\end{equation}
We then need to find the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_B(2E_1+E_2+E_3)$ of $C$ in
the base. We recall that the del Pezzo surface $dP_8$ can be viewed as
$\mathbf{P}^2$ blown up at eight points. The exceptional classes $E_i$ each
have a unique representative, namely the exceptional curve $\mathbf{P}^1$ at the
$i$-th blown-up point. Furthermore, we have the intersection numbers
$E_i\cdot E_j=-\delta_{ij}$. Thus $[C]$ has a negative intersection number
with each of $E_1$, $E_2$ and $E_3$. This implies that it must have a
component contained completely within each of the exceptional curves
described by $E_1$, $E_2$ and $E_3$. Since these are all distinct, $C$
must be reducible into three components
\begin{equation}
C = C_1 + C_2 + C_3
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
[C_1] = 2E_1 \qquad
[C_2] = E_2 \qquad
[C_3] = E_3
\end{equation}
None of these components can be moved in the base, since they all have
negative self-intersection number. Consequently, we have
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_B(2E_1+E_2+E_3) = \text{single pt.}
\end{equation}
corresponding to three fivebranes, each wrapping a different
exceptional curve.
Since the projection $C$ splits, so must the curve $W_0$ itself. We
must have
\begin{equation}
W_0 = W_1 + W_2 + W_3
\end{equation}
We can partition the fiber class in $[W_0]$ in different ways. In
general we write
\begin{equation}
[W_1] = 2\sigma_*E_1 + n_1 F \qquad
[W_2] = \sigma_*E_2 + n_2 F \qquad
[W_3] = \sigma_*E_3 + n_3 F
\label{split1}
\end{equation}
with $n_1+n_2+n_3=n$ and $n_i\geq0$ since each curve must be
separately effective. The problem of finding the full moduli space has
now been reduced to finding the moduli space of $W_1$, $W_2$ and $W_3$
separately.
We see that, unless $n=17$, we have at least four separate
five-branes, one wrapping the pure fiber curve $W_F$ and one wrapping
each of the three curves $W_1$, $W_2$ and $W_3$. As discussed in
section~\ref{sec:fF}, the pure fiber component can move in the base
$B$, as well as in the orbifold. Furthermore it has transitions where
it separates into more than one fivebrane. The components $W_i$,
meanwhile, are stuck above fixed exceptional curves in the base. They
are free to move in the orbifold and may be free to move in the fiber
direction (this will be discussed in the following sections). The
$W_i$ components cannot intersect since the exceptional curves in the base over
which they are stuck cannot intersect. However, the pure fiber
components can intersect the $W_i$, leading to the possibility of
additional low-energy fields appearing.
\subsection{The $W_2$ and $W_3$ components}
\label{W2W3}
We start by analyzing the $W_2$ and $W_3$ components. As usual, we are
interested in the number of sections of the surface $S_{C_i}$ which
are in the class $\sigma_*E_i+n_iF$ in the full Calabi--Yau manifold for
$i=2,3$. In each case, the base curve $C_i$ wraps an exceptional
curve $\mathbf{P}^1$ of one of the blown-up points in $dP_8$. Such a case is
familiar from the examples given in sections~\ref{exbase1}
and~\ref{exbase2}. The corresponding surface $S_{C_i}$, as expected,
since $C_i$ wraps an exceptional curve, is a $dP_9$
manifold. Explicitly, for both $C_2$ and $C_3$ we have
\begin{equation}
g_i = \text{genus}(C_i) = 0
\end{equation}
and the number of singular fibers in the fibration is given by $12p_i$, where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
p_i &= - K_{dP_8} \cdot E_i \\
&= \left(3l-E_1-\dots-E_8\right)\cdot E_i = 1
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Thus, we see that
\begin{equation}
S_{C_i} \text{ is a $dP_9$ surface for } i = 2, 3
\end{equation}
The moduli space for each $W_{i}$, for $i=2,3$, is then the moduli space of
sections of the $dP_{9}$ surface in the homology class $\sigma_*E_i + n_i F$ in
the full Calabi--Yau space $X$. Since in this case $g_{i}=0$ and $p_{i}=1$, it
follows that we are interested in the moduli spaces $\mathcal{M}(0,1;n_i)$
discussed in section~\ref{sec:dP9}.
Let us concentrate on $W_2$, since the moduli space of $W_3$ is
completely analogous. We recall from section~\ref{sec:dP9} that, for a
given $n_2$, there are a finite number of sections of the $dP_9$ in the
class $\sigma_*E_2 + n_2 F$ in $X$. Furthermore, all these sections are exceptional
with self-intersection $-1$ and so there is no moduli space for
moving these curves within $dP_{9}$. Since the curve $C_2$ is also
fixed in the base, we see that there are no moduli for moving $W_2$
in the Calabi--Yau threefold. All we are left with are the moduli for
moving in $S^1/Z_2$ and the axion modulus.
We showed in section~\ref{sec:dP9} that there was precisely one section
in the class $\sigma_*E_2$ and 240 in $\sigma_*E_2+F$. Rather than do a
general analysis, let us consider some examples for which
$n_2=2$. That is
\begin{equation}
[W_2]=\sigma_*E_2 + 2F
\label{eq:hello1}
\end{equation}
Consequently, we will be interested in the moduli space $\mathcal{M}(0,1;2)$. We know
from the previous discussion that
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(0,1;2)=N(2)\PP^1_a
\label{eq:hi}
\end{equation}
Here, we will not evaluate $N(2)$ but content ourselves with several specific
examples.
From the general map~\eqref{fulliR}, with $\Lambda=E_2$, we see
that we can, for instance, write the class of $W_2$ as
\begin{equation}
[W_2] = i_{C_2*}\left(l'-E'_1-E'_9\right)
\label{eq:hello2}
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
[W_2]= i_{C_2*}\left(2l'-E'_1-E'_2-E'_3-E'_4-E'_9\right)
\label{eq:hello3}
\end{equation}
or many other decompositions which we will not discuss here.
We might be tempted to include the case where
\begin{equation}
[W_2] = i_{C_2*}\left(3l' - E'_2 - \dots - E'_9\right)
\label{badex}
\end{equation}
However, this is not a section. This can be seen directly from the
fact that it fails to satisfy the
equations~\eqref{sectcond}. Alternatively, we note that the nine blown
up points in $dP_9$ are not in general position. If a cubic passes
through eight of them, then it also passes through the
ninth. Consequently, the class $3l'-E'_2-\dots-E'_9$, which is the
class of a cubic through eight of the nine points, always splits into
two classes: the fiber $F_{C_2}=3l'-E'_1-\dots-E'_9$ and the base
$E'_1$. Consequently, the example~\eqref{badex} is always reducible,
splitting into a pure fiber component and the section in the class
$E'_1$.
Since all the sections are genus zero like the base, we have a simple
table for the cases given in~\eqref{eq:hello2} and~\eqref{eq:hello3}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c|cc}
[W_2] \text{ in $dP_9$} & \text{genus} & \text{moduli space} \\
\hline
l'-E'_1-E'_9 &
0 & \PP^1_a \\
2l'-E'_1-E'_2-E'_3-E'_4-E'_9 &
0 & \PP^1_a
\end{array}
\end{equation}
All the other possible sections in the class $\sigma_*E_2+2F$ will have
the same genus and moduli space.
\subsection{The $W_1$ Component}
The remaining component $W_1$ is considerably more interesting. We
start by noting that the projection $C_1=2R$, where $R$ is the
exceptional curve corresponding to $E_1$. This implies that the
projection map from $W_1$ to $R$ is a double cover. For the same
reason as in the previous section, we have that the fibered space
$S_R$ above $R$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
S_R \text{ is a $dP_9$ surface}
\end{equation}
However, the fact that $W_1$ is a double cover implies that, unlike
all the cases we have considered thus far, $W_1$ is not a
section. Hence, the $W_{1}$ moduli space is not given by $\mathcal{M}(0,1;n_{1})$.
However, we can still analyze its moduli space using
the general map between classes~\eqref{fulliR}.
Suppose, for simplicity, we choose $n_1=2$, that is
\begin{equation}
[W_1] = 2E_1 + 2 F
\label{eq:today1}
\end{equation}
since other cases can be
analyzed in an analogous way. As above, we will not consider all
possibilities for the class of $W_1$ in the $dP_9$. Instead, we will restrict
our discussion to a few interesting examples.
For instance,
using~\eqref{fulliR} with $\Lambda=E_1$, some possibilities are
\begin{subequations}
\label{W1ex}
\begin{align}
{} [W_{1}]&= i_{R*}\left(2E'_1\right) \label{W1ex1}\\
{} [W_{1}]&= i_{R*}\left(E'_1+E'_2\right) \label{W1ex2}\\
{} [W_{1}]&= i_{R*}\left(l'-E'_1\right) \label{W1ex3}\\
{} [W_{1}]&= i_{R*}\left(3l'-E'_1-\dots-E'_7\right) \label{W1ex4}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We can analyze the moduli spaces in the $dP_9$ surface of each of
these different cases by considering the right-hand sides
of~\eqref{W1ex} as classes of curves through some number of points in
$\mathbf{P}^2$. In examples \eqref{W1ex1} and \eqref{W1ex2}, the curves are
always reducible to just two copies of an exceptional curve in $dP_8$
and, hence, have no moduli for moving in $dP_{9}$. Since the curve $R$
is also fixed in the base, these cases have no moduli for moving in
the Calabi--Yau manifold at all.
The third case, \eqref{W1ex3}, corresponds to a line (topologically
$\mathbf{P}^1$) in $\mathbf{P}^2$ through one point. As such, as discussed in
section~\ref{exbase1}, its moduli space is $\mathbf{P}^1$. Furthermore, there
are special points in the moduli space where the line passes through
one of the other blown-up points in $dP_9$ and the curve becomes
reducible (in analogy to the process described in
Figure~\ref{lE1}). We can have, for instance,
\begin{equation}
W_1 = U_1 + U_2
\label{W1split}
\end{equation}
where the classes in $dP_9$ are
\begin{equation}
[U_1]_R = l' - E'_1 - E'_2 \qquad
[U_2]_R = E'_2
\end{equation}
What was previously a single sphere has now been reduced to a pair of
spheres, each an exceptional curve, which intersect at a single
point (as in Figure~\ref{Cpinch}).
The last case, \eqref{W1ex4}, is even more interesting. This class
corresponds to a cubic in $\mathbf{P}^2$ passing through 7 points. A cubic is an
elliptic curve and so has genus one. A general cubic has a moduli space of
$\mathbf{P}^9$. However, by being restricted to pass through seven points, the
remaining moduli space is simply $\mathbf{P}^2$. At special points in the
moduli space the cubic can degenerate. First, we can have a double
point. This occurs when the discriminant of the curve vanishes. It
corresponds to one of the cycles of the torus pinching, as shown in
Figure~\ref{toruspinch}. The vanishing of the discriminant is a single
additional condition on the parameters and so gives a curve, which we
will call $\Delta_{W_1}$, in $\mathbf{P}^2$. When the cubic degenerates, the
blown up curve is a sphere. Thus, it has changed genus. We can now go
one step further. At certain places, the discriminant curve $\Delta_{W_1}$
in $\mathbf{P}^2$ has a double point. This corresponds to places where the
curve becomes reducible. The curve $W_1$ splits into two
\begin{equation}
W_1 = U_1 + U_2
\label{eq:today2}
\end{equation}
with, for instance, $U_1$ and $U_2$ describing a line and a conic,
\begin{equation}
[U_1]_R = l' - E'_1 - E'_2 \qquad
[U_2]_R = 2l' - E'_3 - \dots - E'_7
\end{equation}
Note that each of the resulting curves is exceptional and so has no
moduli space in the $dP_9$. However, we note that this
splitting can happen $\binom{7}{2}=21$ different ways. The two curves
intersect at two points, corresponding to a double pinching of the
torus into a pair of spheres, as in Figure~\ref{toruspinch}. For
completeness, we note that there is one further singularity
possible. That is where the cubic develops a cusp. However, the
topology remains that of a sphere, so we will not distinguish these
points.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=toruspinch.eps,height=0.8in}}
\caption{Pinching a torus at one point and at a pair of points}
\label{toruspinch}
\end{figure}
We can summarize these branches of moduli space in the following table
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c|cc}
[W_1] \text{ in $dP_9$} & \text{genus} & \text{moduli space} \\
\hline \hline
2E'_1 &
0+0 & \PP^1_a\times\PP^1_a/\mathbf{Z}_2 \\
\hline
E'_1+E'_2 &
0+0 & \PP^1_a \times \PP^1_a \\
\hline
l'-E'_1 &
0 & \left(\mathbf{P}^1-8\text{ pts.}\right) \times \PP^1_a \\
\left(l'-E'_1-E'_2\right) + \left(E'_2\right) &
0+0 & \PP^1_a \times \PP^1_a \\
\hline
3l'-E'_1-\dots-E'_7 &
1 & \left(\mathbf{P}^2-\Delta_{W_1}\right) \times \PP^1_a \\
3l'-E'_1-\dots-E'_7 &
0 & \left(\Delta_{W_1}-21\text{ pts.}\right) \times \PP^1_a \\
\left(l'-E'_1-E'_2\right)+\left(2l'-E'_3-\dots-E'_7\right) &
0+0 & \PP^1_a \times \PP^1_a
\end{array}
\label{W1mod}
\end{equation}
Note that in the first line, we mod out by $\mathbf{Z}_2$ since the fivebranes
wrap the same curve in the Calabi--Yau manifold and so are
indistinguishable. This is not the case in the second example.
We note that there is another type of splitting possible for the fourth
example. The cubic could pass though one of the additional blown up
points. It would then pass through eight of the nine points. However,
as we have discussed above, it must then also pass through the ninth
point. The curve $W_1$ would then decompose into a pure fiber
component plus two sections, namely
\begin{equation}
W_1 = U_1 + U_2 + U_3
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
[U_1]_R = F_R = 3l'-E'_1-\dots-E'_9, \qquad
[U_2]_R = E'_8, \qquad
[U_3]_R = E'_9
\end{equation}
Thus we see that, unlike the case for $W_2$ and $W_3$, it is also
possible to have a transition where a fiber component splits off from
$W_1$.
Let us end this section with an important observation.
We have not discussed the full moduli space of $W$ here but only
various characteristic branches. There is, however, a certain type of
branch that we would like to emphasize. Consider a branch where we
choose $n=17$, so that $W_F=0$, and split the curve $W$ as follows
\begin{equation}
W = W_0 = W_1 + W_2 + W_3
\end{equation}
with, for example
\begin{equation}
[W_1] = 2\sigma_*E_1 + 2F, \qquad
[W_2] = \sigma_*E_2 + 5F, \qquad
[W_3] = \sigma_*E_3 + 10F
\end{equation}
From our previous discussion, $W_2$ and $W_3$ are required to be
sections of the $dP_9$ surface above the exceptional curve in the
class $E_2$ and $E_3$ respectively. As such, they have no moduli to
move within the Calabi--Yau threefold. Furthermore, we have seen an
example in the second line of the table~\eqref{W1mod} where $W_1$
splits into two components, neither of which can move in the
Calabi--Yau space. Consequently, we see that there is a component of
moduli space where we simply have four fivebranes, each wrapping a fixed
curve within the Calabi--Yau threefold. Furthermore, none of the
fivebranes can intersect. We then have a very simple moduli space. It
is
\begin{equation}
\PP^1_a \times \PP^1_a \times \PP^1_a \times \PP^1_a
\end{equation}
corresponding to moving each fivebrane in $S^1/Z_2$ and changing the
value of the axions. Thus, even when the fivebrane class is relatively
complicated, we see that there are components of the moduli space with
very few moduli.
\section{A second three-family $dP_8$ example}
In this section, we will briefly discuss a second example of a
realistic fivebrane moduli space. Again, we will take the base
\begin{equation}
B \text{ is a $dP_8$ surface}
\end{equation}
and choose the fivebrane class
\begin{equation}
[W] = \sigma_*l - \sigma_*E_1 + \sigma_*E_2 + \sigma_*E_3 + 27F
\end{equation}
This gives a three family model with an unbroken $SU(5)$ gauge
group, as can be seen explicitly using the rules given in~\cite{dlow1}
and~\cite{dlow2} (taking $\lambda=\frac{1}{2}$ in the equations given
there). From the condition~\eqref{thrm}, since $l-E_1+E_2+E_3$ is
effective in the base, $[W]$ is an effective class as required.
To calculate the moduli space, first, one separates the pure fiber
components, partitioning $W$ as $W=W_0+W_F$, as in~\eqref{decompF},
with
\begin{equation}
[W_0] = \sigma_*l - \sigma_*E_1 + \sigma_*E_2 + \sigma_*E_3 + nF, \qquad
[W_F] = \left(27-n\right) F
\end{equation}
where $0\leq n\leq 27$. As usual, unless $n=27$, this implies that we
have at least two distinct fivebranes. This partition splits the
moduli space into 28 components, as in~\eqref{moddecomp}. The moduli
space of the $W_F$ component is the usual symmetric
product given in~\eqref{WFmod}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}((27-n)F) = \left( F_r \times \PP^1_a\right)^{27-n}/\mathbf{Z}_{27-n}
\label{WFex2}
\end{equation}
Next, we analyze the moduli space of $W_0$ for a given $n$. If we
project $W_0$ onto the base, we get the curve $C$ in the class
\begin{equation}
[C] = l - E_1 + E_2 + E_3
\end{equation}
We then need to find the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_B(l-E_1+E_2+E_3)$ of such
curves in the base. The last two classes correspond to curves wrapping
exceptional blow-ups and so, as in the previous section, $C$ must be
reducible. We expect that there is always one component wrapping the
exceptional curve in $E_2$ and another component wrapping the
exceptional curve in $E_3$.
In general, there are eight distinct parts of $\mathcal{M}_B(l-E_1+E_2+E_3)$,
with different numbers of curves in the base. In general, $C$
decomposes into $k$ curves as
\begin{equation}
C = C_1 + \dots + C_k
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
[C_i] = \Omega_i, \qquad \Omega_1 + \dots + \Omega_k = l - E_1 + E_2 + E_3
\end{equation}
As $C$ splits, so does $W_0$. In general we can partition the $n$
fiber components in different ways, so that
\begin{equation}
W = W_1 + \dots + W_k, \qquad [W_i] = \sigma_*\Omega_i + n_iF
\end{equation}
where $n_i\geq 0$ and $n_1+\dots+n_k=n$. The eight different parts of
the moduli space of $C$ can be summarized as follows
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cc|c}
[C_i] & \genus{C_i} & \text{moduli space} \\
\hline\hline
\begin{array}{c}
{}[C_1] = l - E_1 \\
{}[C_2] = E_2 \\
{}[C_3] = E_3
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array}
& \mathbf{P}^1 - 7\text{ pts.}
\\ \hline
\begin{array}{c}
{}[C_1] = l - E_1 - E_2 \\
{}[C_2] = 2E_2 \\
{}[C_3] = E_3
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array}
& \text{single pt.}
\\ \hline
\begin{array}{c}
{}[C_1] = l - E_1 - E_3 \\
{}[C_2] = E_2 \\
{}[C_3] = 2E_3
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array}
& \text{single pt.}
\\ \hline
\begin{array}{c}
{}[C_1] = l - E_1 - E_i \\
{}[C_2] = E_2 \\
{}[C_3] = E_3 \\
{}[C_4] = E_i
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c} \text{single pt.} \\ i=4,\dots,8 \end{array}
\end{array}
\label{modCtable}
\end{equation}
The analysis is very similar to that in section~\ref{exbase1}. The
$C_2$ and $C_3$ components are always stuck on the exceptional curves
in $E_2$ and $E_3$ and so have no moduli. In the first row in the
table, $C_1$ is a curve in the $dP_8$ corresponding to a line through
the blown-up point $p_1$. As such it has a moduli of $\mathbf{P}^1$, except
for the seven special points where it also passes through one of the
other seven blown-up points. If it passes through one of the points
$p_4,\dots,p_8$, the curve splits into two curves and we have a total
of four distinct fivebranes. This case is given in the last row
in~\eqref{modCtable}. If it passes through $p_2$ or $p_3$, generically,
we still only have three components, but now $C_2$ or $C_3$ is in the
class $2E_2$ or $2E_3$ respectively. These are the second and third
rows in~\eqref{modCtable}. All the curves are spheres so have genus
zero. In conclusion, we have
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_B(l-E_1+E_2+E_3) = \mathbf{P}^1
\end{equation}
Where there are seven special points in the moduli space: the five
cases given in the last row in~\eqref{modCtable}, where $C$ splits
into four curves, and the two further points where the class of $C_2$
and $C_3$ changes as given in the second and third rows
of~\eqref{modCtable}. We see that, unlike the previous example,
$\mathcal{M}_B$ is more than just a single point.
Let us concentrate on a generic point in moduli space, as in the first
row of~\eqref{modCtable}. As we noted above, $W_0$ then splits into
three distinct components,
\begin{equation}
W_0 = W_1 + W_2 + W_3
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
[W_1] = \sigma_*l - \sigma_*E_1 + n_1 F, \qquad
[W_2] = \sigma_*E_2 + n_2 F, \qquad
[W_3] = \sigma_*E_3 + n_3 F
\label{ex2split1}
\end{equation}
where $n_1+n_2+n_3=n$ and $n_i\geq 0$.
We note that $W_2$ and $W_3$ are exactly of the form we analyzed in
section~\ref{W2W3} above. Recall that each component is a curve stuck
above the exceptional curve $C_2$ or $C_3$ in the base. The space
$S_{C_i}=\pi^{-1}(C_i)$, for $i=2,3$, above each exceptional curve was
given by
\begin{equation}
S_{C_i} \text{ is a $dP_9$ surface for $i=2,3$}
\end{equation}
This means we have $g_i=0$ and $p_i=1$ and the corresponding moduli
spaces are given by $\mathcal{M}(0,1;n_i)$. These spaces were given
in~\eqref{cMm} and are a discrete number $N(n_i)$ of copies of $\PP^1_a$,
corresponding to different sections of a $dP_9$ surface. We have
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(0,1;n_i) = N(n_i) \PP^1_a \qquad \text{for $i=2,3$}
\label{modW2W3}
\end{equation}
There are no moduli for moving the curves within either the base or
the fiber of the Calabi--Yau manifold. Since $g_i=0$ there are no
vector multiplets on the fivebranes.
We now turn to $W_1$. This is essentially of the form we considered
section~\ref{exbase2}. There, we showed that the surface $S_{C_1}$ is
given by
\begin{equation}
S_{C_1} \text{ is a K3 surface}
\end{equation}
That is to say, the genus $g_1$ of $C_1$ is zero and $p_1=2$, so there
are 24 singular fibers. Thus we are interested in the moduli space
$\mathcal{M}(0,2;n_1)$. From the general discussion in section~\ref{generic},
we find from equation~\eqref{gencMR2} that the moduli space for $W_1$
is empty unless $n_1=0$. One then has
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(0,2;0) = \PP^1_a
\end{equation}
Putting this together with the moduli space for $W_2$ and $W_3$ given
in~\eqref{modW2W3}, and recalling the form of the $C$ moduli
space~\eqref{modCtable}, we can write, for this generic part of the
moduli space of $W_0$,
\begin{multline}
\mathcal{M}_0(\sigma_*l-\sigma_*E_1+\sigma_*E_2+\sigma_*E_3+nF) \\
= \left(\left[\mathbf{P}^1 - 7\text{ pts.}\right]\times\PP^1_a\right)
\times N(n_2)\PP^1_a \times N(n_3)\PP^1_a
+ \mathcal{M}_{\text{non-generic}}
\end{multline}
where we must have $n_1=0$, and $n_2+n_3=n$ in the
decomposition~\eqref{ex2split1}. We have three distinct fivebranes,
two of which, $W_2$ and $W_3$ are stuck in the Calabi--Yau
threefold. The third fivebrane can move within the base of the
Calabi--Yau. Each fivebrane wraps a curve of genus zero and so there
are no vector multiplets. The full $W$ moduli space is constructed,
for each $n$, from the product of this space together with the $W_B$
moduli space given in~\eqref{WFex2}.
We will not consider all the seven possible exceptional cases in the
moduli space of $C$, listed in~\eqref{modCtable}. Rather, consider
just one of the cases where $C$ splits into four components,
\begin{equation}
[C_1] = l - E_1 - E_4, \qquad
[C_2] = E_2, \qquad
[C_3] = E_3, \qquad
[C_4] = E_4
\end{equation}
with the corresponding split of $W_0$ as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{}[W_1] &= \sigma_*l - \sigma_*E_1 - \sigma_*E_4 + n_1 F, \quad &
{}[W_2] &= \sigma_*E_2 + n_2 F, \\
{}[W_3] &= \sigma_*E_3 + n_3 F, &
{}[W_4] &= \sigma_*E_4 + n_4 F
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with $n_i\geq 0$ and $n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4=n$. Let us further assume that
$n=27$ so that $W_F=0$ and there are no pure fiber components. Each of
the $C_i$ is an exceptional curve in the base. Consequently, we have
\begin{equation}
S_{C_i} \text{ is a $dP_9$ surface for $i=1,2,3,4$}
\end{equation}
(For $C_1$ the calculation is just as in section~\ref{exbase2}). Thus
we have $g_i=0$ and $p_i=1$ for each curve and so we have the moduli
spaces
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(0,1;n_i) = N(n_i)\PP^1_a \qquad \text{for } i = 1,2,3,4
\end{equation}
where, as usual, $N(n_i)$ counts the number of distinct sections in
each $dP_9$. In particular, we are no longer required to take
$n_1=0$. We now have a total of four distinct fivebranes, wrapping
$W_1$, $W_2$, $W_3$ and $W_4$. All these curves are stuck in the
Calabi--Yau threefold, so that a given connected part of the moduli
space has the form
\begin{equation}
\PP^1_a \times \PP^1_a \times \PP^1_a \times \PP^1_a
\end{equation}
(Here we have assumed that either $n_1$ or $n_4$ is non-zero so that
this branch of moduli space if not connected to the generic branch
discussed above.) As in the previous section, we see that there are
disconnected components of the moduli space with very few moduli. Each
curve has genus zero, so there are no vector multiplet degrees of
freedom.
\section{Two simple Hirzebruch examples}
In this section, we will briefly discuss two simple examples where the
base is a Hirzebruch surface $F_r$. These are $\mathbf{P}^1$ fibrations over
$\mathbf{P}^1$, characterized by a non-negative integer $r$. Following the
notation of~\cite{dlow2}, they have two independent algebraic
classes, the class $\mathcal{S}$ of the section of the fibration at infinity
and the fiber class $\mathcal{E}$. These have the following intersection
numbers
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S} \cdot \mathcal{S} = -r, \qquad
\mathcal{S} \cdot \mathcal{E} = 1, \qquad
\mathcal{E} \cdot \mathcal{E} = 0
\end{equation}
The canonical bundle is given by
\begin{equation}
K_B = -2 \mathcal{S} - (2+r) \mathcal{E}
\end{equation}
Effective classes in $F_r$ are of the form $\Omega=a\mathcal{S}+b\mathcal{E}$ with $a$ and
$b$ non-negative. Thus, from~\eqref{thrm}, a general class of effective
curves in the Calabi-Yau threefold can be written as
\begin{equation}
[W] = a \sigma_*\mathcal{S} + b \sigma_*\mathcal{E} + f F
\end{equation}
where $a$, $b$ and $f$ are all non-negative. (Note, however, that, as
discussed above equation~\eqref{thrm}, there is actually an additional
effective class for $r\geq 3$, which we will ignore here.)
For any realistic model with three families of matter and realistic
gauge groups, if the hidden $E_8$ group is unbroken, then the
coefficients $a$ and $b$ are typically large~\cite{dlow2}. The moduli
space is then relatively complicated to analyze. Thus, for simplicity,
we will consider only two very simple cases with either a single $\mathcal{S}$
class or a single $\mathcal{E}$ class.
\subsection{$[W]=\sigma_*\mathcal{S}+fF$}
We consider first
\begin{equation}
B \text{ is an $F_r$ surface with $r\geq 2$}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
[W] = \sigma_*\mathcal{S} + f F
\end{equation}
using the general procedure we outlined above. Note that we require
$r\geq 2$ to exclude the trivial case of $F_0$, which is just the
product $\mathbf{P}^1\times\mathbf{P}^1$, and $F_1$, which is actually the del Pezzo
surface $dP_1$.
We recall that the first step is to split off any pure fiber components
from $W$, writing it as a sum of $W_0$ and $W_F$ as in~\eqref{decompF}
\begin{equation}
[W_0] = \sigma_*\mathcal{S} + n F, \qquad
[W_F] = (f-n) F
\label{cSpartition}
\end{equation}
with $0\leq n \leq f$. As usual, unless $n=f$, this implies we have at
least two distinct fivebranes. This splits the moduli space into $f+1$
components as in~\eqref{moddecomp}. The moduli space of $W_F$ has the
familiar form, from~\eqref{WFmod},
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}((f-n)F) = \left( F_r \times \PP^1_a\right)^{f-n}/\mathbf{Z}_{f-n}
\end{equation}
Next we turn to analyzing the $W_0$ moduli space for a given
$n$. Projecting $W_0$ onto the base gives the curve $C$ in the
homology class
\begin{equation}
[C] = \mathcal{S}
\end{equation}
Our first step is then to find the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_B(\mathcal{S})$ of $C$ in
the base. This, however, is very simple. Since the self-intersection of
$\mathcal{S}$ is negative, there is a unique representative of the class $\mathcal{S}$,
namely the section at infinity. Thus
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_B(\mathcal{S}) = \text{single point}
\end{equation}
The second step is the to find all the curves $W_0$ in the class
$\pi_*\mathcal{S}+nF$ in the Calabi--Yau threefold which project onto $C$. To
answer this, we need to characterize the surface $S_C=\pi^{-1}(C)$. We
recall that this will be an elliptic fibration over $C$ and is
characterized by the genus $g$ of $C$ and the number $12p$ of singular
fibers. Since $C$ is a section of the Hirzebruch surface, it must be
topologically $\mathbf{P}^1$. Consequently
\begin{equation}
g = \text{genus}(C) = 0
\label{genuscS}
\end{equation}
The expected number number of singular fibers is given by $12p$, where
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
p &= - K_B \cdot [C] \\
&= \left(2\mathcal{S} + (2+r)\mathcal{E}\right) \cdot \mathcal{S} = 2 - r
\end{aligned}
\label{pcS}
\end{equation}
For $r\geq 3$ this seems to predict that we have a negative number of
singular fibers. Actually, this reflects the fact that the curve $C$ is
contained within the discriminant curve of the Calabi--Yau elliptic
fibration. Thus the elliptic curve over $C$ is singular
everywhere. This is a non-generic case we wish to avoid in discussing
the moduli space. Thus, we will assume $r<3$. Given that $F_0$ and
$F_1$ do not give new surfaces, we are left with restricting to $r=2$
and so
\begin{equation}
B \text{ is $F_2$}
\end{equation}
Then we have $p=0$ which implies the elliptic fibration is locally
trivial. If we assume that the surface $S_C$ is also a globally
trivial fibration, it is then simply the product
\begin{equation}
S_C = \mathbf{P}^1 \times E
\end{equation}
where $E$ is an elliptic curve. Comparing with the notation of
section~\ref{gen}, we have $g=p=0$ and so we are interested in the
moduli space $\mathcal{M}(0,0;n)$. However, we have argued,~\eqref{gencMR2},
that these spaces are empty unless $n=0$. In this case
$\mathcal{M}(0,0;0)=E\times\PP^1_a$, where the first factor comes from moving the
fivebrane within $S^1/Z_2$ and the second factor comes from moving it
within $S_C$. (Again, here we are assuming that $S_C$ is a globally as
well as locally trivial fibration.) In particular, the curve is a
section of $S_C$ and, so, can lie at any point on the elliptic curve
$E$.
Thus, we see that the only partition~\eqref{cSpartition} allowed is
where $n=0$. In that case the moduli space of the curve $W_0$ is
simply
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_0(\sigma_*\mathcal{S}) = E \times \PP^1_a
\end{equation}
The full moduli space is then the product
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(\sigma_*\mathcal{S}+fF) = \left(E \times \PP^1_a\right)
\times \frac{\left( F_2 \times \PP^1_a\right)^f}{\mathbf{Z}_f}
\end{equation}
Generically, we have $f+1$ fivebranes. One is $W_0$, which lies over the
section at infinity in $F_2$ and can be at any position in the
elliptic fiber over the base as well as in $S^1/Z_2$. The other $f$
fivebranes are pure fiber components, which can each be at arbitrary
points in the base and in $S^1/Z_2$. Since the genus of $C$ is zero, so
is the genus of $W_0$. Thus, generically, the only vector multiplets
come from $W_F$. At a generic point in moduli space, we therefore have $U(1)^f$
gauge symmetry. It is possible for the fiber components to intersect
$W_0$, in which case we might expect new massless fields to appear in
the low-energy theory.
\subsection{$[W]=\sigma_*\mathcal{E}+fF$}
Now consider the case where again
\begin{equation}
B \text{ is a $F_r$ surface with $r\geq 2$}
\end{equation}
but we take
\begin{equation}
[W] = \sigma_*\mathcal{E} + f F
\end{equation}
As always, we first split off the pure fiber components in $W$, writing
$W=W_0+W_F$ with $f+1$ different partitions
\begin{equation}
[W_0] = \sigma_*\mathcal{S} + n F, \qquad
[W_F] = (f-n) F
\label{cEpartition}
\end{equation}
The moduli space of $W_F$ is the familiar form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}((f-n)F) = \left( F_r \times \PP^1_a\right)^{f-n}/\mathbf{Z}_{f-n}
\end{equation}
To analyze the the moduli space of $W_0$, we project onto the base,
giving the curve $C$ with
\begin{equation}
[C] = \mathcal{E}
\end{equation}
Thus $C$ is in the fiber class of the $F_n$ base. Since $F_n$ is a
$\mathbf{P}^1$ fibration over $\mathbf{P}^1$, the fiber can lie at any point in the
base $\mathbf{P}^1$ so we have that the moduli space of $C$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_B(\mathcal{E}) = \mathbf{P}^1
\label{cEbase}
\end{equation}
Next we need to find all the curves $W_0$ which project onto a given
$C$. We first characterize the surface $S_C=\pi^{-1}(C)$. Since $C$ is
a fiber of $F_r$, it must be topologically $\mathbf{P}^1$. Hence
\begin{equation}
g = \text{genus}(C) = 0
\end{equation}
The number of singular fibers, $12p$, in the elliptic fibration $S_C$
given in terms of
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
p &= -K_B \cdot [C] \\
&= \left(2\mathcal{S}+(2+r)\mathcal{E}\right) \cdot \mathcal{E} = 2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for any $r$. This implies that $S_C$ is an elliptic fibration over
$\mathbf{P}^1$ with 24 singular fibers, that is
\begin{equation}
S_C \text{ is a K3 surface}
\end{equation}
In the notation of section~\ref{gen}, we have $g=0$ and $p=2$ and so
we are interested in the moduli space $\mathcal{M}(0,2;n)$. However, we have
argued,~\eqref{gencMR2}, that these spaces are empty unless $n=0$, in
which case $\mathcal{M}(0,2;0)=\PP^1_a$. That is, the curve is completely stuck
within $S_C$, but is free to move within $S^1/Z_2$.
Thus the only partition~\eqref{cEpartition} allowed is where $n=0$. In
this case, the full moduli space of $W_0$ is then given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_0(\sigma_*\mathcal{E}) = \mathbf{P}^1 \times \PP^1_a
\end{equation}
The first factor of $\mathbf{P}^1$ reflects the moduli space of curves $C$ in
the base~\eqref{cEbase}. The second factor reflects the fact that, for
a given $C$, the moduli space of $W_0$ is $\mathcal{M}(0,2;0)=\PP^1_a$. We note
that there are no moduli for moving $W_0$ in the direction of the
elliptic fiber. The full moduli space is then given by the product
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(\sigma_*\mathcal{E}+fF) = \left(\mathbf{P}^1 \times \PP^1_a\right)
\times \frac{\left( F_r \times \PP^1_a\right)^f}{\mathbf{Z}_f}
\end{equation}
As in the previous example, generically we have $f+1$ fivebranes. One is
$W_0$ which, in the base, can be deformed in the base and can move in
$S^1/Z_2$, but has no moduli for moving in the elliptic fiber. The other
$f$ fivebranes are pure fiber components, which can each be at
arbitrary points in the base and in $S^1/Z_2$. Again, since the genus of
$C$ is zero, so is the genus of $W_0$. Thus, generically, the only
vector multiplets come from $W_F$. At a generic point in moduli space
we have, therefore, $U(1)^f$ gauge symmetry. It is possible for the fiber
components to intersect $W_0$, in which case we might expect new
massless fields to appear in the low-energy theory.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
B.A.O. and D.W. would like to thank Angel Uranga for helpful
discussions.
R.D. is supported in part by an NSF grant DMS-9802456 as well as by
grants from the University of Pennsylvania Research Foundation and
Hebrew University.
B.A.O. is supported in part by a Senior Alexander von Humboldt Award,
by the DOE under contract No. DE-AC02-76-ER-03071 and by a University
of Pennsylvania Research Foundation Grant.
D.W. is supported in part by the DOE under contract
No. DE-FG02-91ER40671.
|
\section{Introduction}
The unusual and peculiar SN1998bw was (\cite{K98}) the most luminous radio
supernova ever observed. Its visible properties were also extraordinary
(\cite{G98}); a reported expansion speed approaching 60,000 km/s is larger
than that of other SN. Modeling (\cite{I98}) indicates a
kinetic energy of $\sim 3 \times 10^{52}$ ergs, more than an order of
magnitude greater than that of most supernovae.
Perhaps most remarkable was the apparent association of SN1998bw with the
unusual GRB980425, leading to the suggestion (\cite{B98}) of a new class of
supernova-gamma-ray burst. The statistical significance and reality of this
association have been disputed (\cite{GLM99}), but the supernova is
extraordinary even without an association with a GRB.
\cite{K98} have argued on the basis of the absence of interstellar
scintillation and bounds on the radio brightness temperature that the radio
source of SN1998bw expanded semi-relativistically, with a Lorentz factor
$\Gamma$ in the range 1.6--2. This value may be a clue to understanding
SN1998bw and its radio emission. \cite{WL98} argued that the expansion was
in fact much slower, but this has not been generally accepted, and I will
adopt, at least approximately, the estimates of \cite{K98}.
A possible origin of the semi-relativistic expansion as a result of electrons
Compton-scattered by $^{56}$Ni and $^{56}$Co gamma-rays is suggested in \S 2.
In \S 3 I estimate the magnetic field in the source region implied by the
synchrotron self-absorption interpretation of the radio spectrum of
SN1998bw and discuss the origin of the field. In \S 4 I mention possible
mechanisms for achieving electron-ion and particle-field equipartition. In
\S 5 I ask if the radio spectrum may in fact be the result of inverse
bremsstrahlung by a thermal gas; although possible, this does not lead to
drastically lower estimates of the field than those presented in \S 3. \S 6
questions the association of SN1998bw with GRB980425. \S 7 contains a
summary discussion and predictions.
\section{Compton Electrons}
\cite{I98} inferred, on the basis of its visible light curve, that SN1998bw
contained about $0.7 M_\odot$ of $^{56}$Ni, or $N_{56} = 1.5 \times 10^{55}$
atoms. The 6.10 d half life of $^{56}$Ni (an $e$-folding decay time of 8.8
d) is comparable to the duration of the first peak of radio intensity found
by \cite{K98}. The daughter nucleus $^{56}$Co decays with a half life of 77
d (an $e$-folding decay time of 111 d), comparable to the rise and decay
time scale of the second, lower frequency, peak of radio emission in
SN1998bw.
The two characteristic time scales of radio emission and the double-peaked
intensity observed at some wavelengths suggest two distinct, but analogous,
processes. In addition, the observation of expansion with Lorentz factor
$\Gamma$ in the approximate range 1.6--2 calls for explanation. Is there is
a natural explanation of the observation of mildly relativistic expansion
with this particular value of $\Gamma$?
The decay of $^{56}$Ni (which is by electron capture) produces gamma-rays of
0.788 MeV, 0.812 MeV and 1.56 MeV, which are emitted in 48\%, 85\% and 14\%
of the decays, respectively (\cite{LHP67}). The decay of $^{56}$Co, 80\% by
electron capture, produces gamma-rays of several energies, of which the
most important are 0.847 MeV (100\%), 1.04 MeV (15\%), 1.24 MeV (66\%), 1.76
MeV (15\%), 2.02 MeV (11\%), 2.60 MeV (17\%) and 3.26 MeV (13\%); 20\% of
its decays are by e$^+$ emission, with an energy distribution extending up
to 1.5 MeV. This copious production of gamma-rays offers a possible
explanation of the existence and expansion speed of the radio source and
perhaps of its magnetic field.
It is necessary to assume that the $^{56}$Ni is mixed to the surface of the
debris; perhaps a jet or plume of $^{56}$Ni-rich material penetrates any
envelope and is expelled. The absence of H or He in the spectrum of SN1998bw
establishes the absence at least of a massive envelope cloaking the high-Z
material. After $10^6$ s at the observed photospheric
velocity of $6 \times 10^9$ cm/s this matter is in a shell of column density
$\approx 3$ gm/cm$^2$. If mixed with an equal quantity of other material, to
make up a Chandrasekhar mass of debris, the total column density is $\approx
6$ gm/cm$^2$, which is transparent (optical depth $\approx 0.5$) to 0.812
MeV gamma-rays, the most important emission of $^{56}$Ni.
After the gamma-rays emerge from the supernova debris they enter any
surrounding medium, moving outward at the speed of light. Their source
gradually becomes transparent to them as it expands, and their emergent
intensity increases with a rise time of a few days, until the competition
between increasing transparency and radioactive decay leads to a peak at
$\approx 10$ d, corresponding to the first peak in radio intensity.
Averaging over the Klein-Nishina cross-section, the mean electron produced
by Compton scattering of a 0.812 MeV gamma-ray has $\gamma = 1.65$ and the
most energetic has $\gamma = 2.12$. The stopping column density of a
$\gamma = 1.65$ (kinetic energy $E_C = 330$ KeV) electron in dilute ($n_e
\sim 10^4$ cm$^{-3}$; the dependence on $n_e$ is only through the Coulomb
logarithm and is very weak) ionized plasma is $\ell_s \approx 8 \times
10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ (\cite{L80}). Comparing this to the Klein-Nishina
cross-section $\sigma_{KN} = 2.6 \times 10^{-25}$ cm$^{-2}$ yields an
estimated efficiency of conversion of gamma-rays to Compton electrons
$\epsilon = \ell_s \sigma_{KN} \approx 2 \times 10^{-3}$; the remaining
energy appears as thermal heating of the plasma by Compton electrons which
stop within it.
If there is less than a stopping length of low-Z medium surrounding the
$^{56}$Ni then the efficiency will be reduced because in traversing the
high-Z debris the Compton electrons suffer Coulomb scattering by the
nuclei as well as energy losses to the electrons; the scattering length in
pure $^{56}$Ni is only $\approx 10^{19}$ cm$^2$ (\cite{S62}). A
hydrogen-rich shell of column density $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ (requiring only $4
\times 10^{-3} M_\odot$ at a radius of $6 \times 10^{15}$ cm, the distance
traveled by the massive debris in $10^6$ s) would be sufficient to
regenerate the full flux of Compton electrons and to restore the efficiency
to the value of the preceding paragraph. As discussed above, supernovae are
expected to be surrounded by the remains of the winds of their progenitors.
These Compton electrons move outward with a mean speed $v_e \approx 0.8 c$
and current density ${\vec j}_{Compt}$. Once they have expanded to a radius
$> 2$ times that at which they were born they move essentially radially
outward, which may be shown either by considering them as an adiabatically
expanding gas (non-radial components of motion are, in effect, random
thermal velocities, soon converted to ordered outward motion) or as
individual ballistic particles. This free expansion requires a denser
ambient medium in order to provide a return (counter-) current density
${\vec j}_{cc}$ to maintain electrical neutrality. The free-streaming
density of Compton electrons
$$n_{Ce} = {\epsilon N_{56} \nu_{56} \exp{(-\nu_{56} \Delta t)} \over 4 \pi
r^2 v_e}, \eqno(1)$$
where $\nu_{56}$ is the radioactive decay rate ($1.3 \times 10^{-6}$
s$^{-1}$ for $^{56}$Ni) and $\Delta t$ the time between creation of the
$^{56}$Ni and the decays whose Compton-scattered electrons are observed; the
nonrelativistic motion of the $^{56}$Ni and the gamma rays' path between
production and Compton scattering are neglected. Adopting $\Delta t = 7$ d
and $r = 3 \times 10^{16}$ cm yields $n_{Ce} \approx 3 \times 10^4$
cm$^{-3}$, corresponding to $\approx 3 \times 10^{-3} M_\odot$ of hydrogen,
similar to values estimated elsewhere in this paper. A medium even slightly
denser than this, such as plausibly produced by loss of the progenitor's
envelope over $\sim 10^3$ y, would supply the countercurrent required by
charge neutrality with only a small cost in energy to the Compton electrons
(the potential required to drive the countercurrent retards the Compton
electrons, but only slightly if the countercurrent density is significantly
larger and velocity significantly less).
After the $^{56}$Ni decays, $^{56}$Co produces its own gamma-rays, Compton
electrons and positrons. The combination of positrons and Compton electrons
permits a neutral mildly relativistic wind even in the absence of a
background plasma to provide a countercurrent, should there be none. In
other respects, the effects of $^{56}$Co decays are similar to those of
$^{56}$Ni decays, although the $^{56}$Co gamma-rays and Compton electrons
are more energetic (the abundant 1.24 MeV gamma-ray produces a mean Compton
$\gamma_e = 2.14$ and the gamma-ray spectrum extends up to 3.26 MeV). This
new wave of Compton electrons will eventually outrun the $^{56}$Ni Compton
electrons and produce a second peak of radio emission, as observed.
\section{Magnetic Field}
\subsection{Self-Absorbed Spectrum}
Inspection of the radio spectrum of SN1998bw (\cite{K98}) shows evidence of
self-absorption. The characteristic self-absorption frequency is $\approx 5$
GHz 10 d after the supernova, declines to $\approx 2$ GHz after 30 d, and
continues to decline as the source fades thereafter. This accords with
expectations for an expanding self-absorbed synchrotron source. The low
frequency (self-absorbed) flux first rises as the radiating area expands.
The higher frequency flux declines as a consequence of declining magnetic
field or electron energies. It is possible to fit simple models to the data,
but the observed (\cite{K98}) double-peaked time dependence of the flux at
most frequencies implies that simple models will not be satisfactory.
The brightness temperature $T_B^\prime$ in the emitting frame may be
obtained directly from the observed intensity, if the size of the radiating
region is known, and \cite{K98} used such brightness temperatures, combined
with energetic arguments, to infer the rate of expansion of the
self-absorbed source:
$$k T_B^\prime(\nu^\prime) = {S_\nu d^2 \over 2 \pi b^2 t^2 \nu^2 D},
\eqno(2)$$
where $k$ is Boltzmann's constant, $S_\nu$ is the observed flux density, $d
= 38$ Mpc is the distance (assuming a Hubble constant of 65 km/s/Mpc), $\nu$
is the frequency of observation, $t$ is the elapsed time since expansion
began, $bc$ is the apparent velocity of expansion ($b = \Gamma \beta$ where
$\Gamma$ and $\beta c$ are the Lorentz factor and expansion speed), $D =
[\Gamma(1 - \beta \cos\theta)]^{-1} \sim \Gamma$ and $\nu^\prime = \nu/D$
where $\nu$ is the observed frequency and $\nu^\prime$ the frequency in the
comoving frame.
The brightness temperature of a self-absorbed source will generally
approximate the energy of the radiating particles (in thermal equilibrium it
equals the particle temperature). Hence the radiating electrons
have a Lorentz factor in the co-moving frame
$$\gamma_e^\prime \approx {S_\nu d^2 \over 2 \pi b^2 m_e c^2 t^2 \nu^2 D}.
\eqno(3)$$
\subsection{Required Field}
The co-moving magnetic field $B^\prime$ may be estimated from (3) using the
synchrotron radiation relation $B^\prime \approx 2 \pi m_e c \nu^\prime/e
\gamma_e^{\prime\,2}$:
$$B^\prime = {8 \pi^3 m_e^3 c^5 \nu^5 b^4 t^4 D^2 \over e S_\nu^2 d^4}.
\eqno(4)$$
The values of $B$ inferred for SN1998bw are remarkably high. For mildly
relativistic motion approximate $D \approx 1$, $b \approx \beta$ and $B
\approx B^\prime$. The numerical values (\cite{K98}) $\nu = 2.49$ GHz
(nominally $\lambda = 13$ cm), $t = 1.01 \times 10^6$ s (11.7 d), $S_\nu =
19.7$ mJy and $d = 38$ Mpc yield
$$B \approx 0.13 \beta^4\ {\rm gauss}. \eqno(5)$$
These large inferred fields are a consequence of the low $T_b^\prime$ (and
$T_b$) implied by a rapidly expanding source of large linear size. The low
brightness temperature combined with the interpretation of self-absorption
implies radiation by electrons of comparatively low energy, and hence a high
magnetic field is required to produce radiation of the observed frequency.
\cite{WL98} suggest $\beta \approx 0.3$. This would imply a substantially
lower value of $B$ than for mildly relativistic motion (their numerical
estimates are somewhat larger than that of (5) because of differences in
various details). \cite{K98} dispute such low values of $\beta$, and this
paper does not attempt to resolve this issue.
Is the magnetic field (5) plausible, extended over a region of size $r
\approx \Gamma \beta c t \approx 3 \times 10^{16} b$ cm$^2$? The implied
magnetic energy is
$${\cal E}_B = {D^2 B^{\prime\,2} r^3 \over 6} \sim 8 \times 10^{46}
\beta^{11} \Gamma^{11} D^4\ {\rm ergs}. \eqno(6)$$
This is modest if the expansion is not relativistic ($\Gamma \approx D
\approx 1$). In that case \cite{WL98} point out that ${\cal E}_B$ is
several orders of magnitude less than the kinetic energy of SN1998bw and the
energy of the radiating electrons. Only if $\Gamma$ exceeds 2 does ${\cal
E}_B$ approach the kinetic energy of the supernova debris.
\subsection{Sources of Field}
\subsubsection{Flux}
Energy is not the only relevant criterion. If a magnetic field's
dependence on distance can be described by a power law $B \propto
r^{-\alpha}$ three simple models may be considered. A static dipole field
has $\alpha = 3$; this is clearly inadequate. If the field is frozen into a
conducting outflow either from the progenitor or from the SN itself, then
flux is conserved and $\alpha = 2$. In this case the apparent inferred flux
$$\Phi_m \approx 10^{32} \beta^6\ {\rm gauss\,cm}^2; \eqno(7)$$
this flux is only apparent because it is $\int \vert {\vec B} \vert\,dS$
rather than $\int {\vec B} \cdot {\vec {dS}}$. For comparison, the flux of a
typical pulsar is $\sim 10^{24}$ gauss-cm$^2$, that of a
(perhaps-hypothetical) ``magnetar'' is $\sim 10^{27}$ gauss-cm$^2$ and that
of the Sun is $\sim 10^{23}$ gauss-cm$^2$. The magnetic fields of SN
progenitors are not directly measured but it is clear that the estimate (7)
is excessive, and that such a flux cannot be produced by a flux-conserving
flow. If this model is to be salvaged there must be another source of field.
\subsubsection{Hydrodynamic Dynamo Fields}
When supernova debris runs into a surrounding medium the contact
discontinuity between the two shocked fluids is generally hydrodynamically
unstable and may amplify pre-existing fields by a turbulent dynamo mechanism,
but this is not readily quantified. Such a medium and shocks are not
necessary parts of a supernova model, but will occur if the supernova is
surrounded by the remains of a wind produced by its progenitor (\cite{B99}),
as is assumed elsewhere in this paper. This is the only mechanism in which
the field is powered by the hydrodynamic energy of the supernova, although
only a small fraction of this energy is available unless the surrounding
medium is as massive as the fast debris.
\subsubsection{Radiation Fields}
Another possibility is the field of a propagating electromagnetic wave, for
which $\alpha = 1$. Because the field alternates in direction with a short
wavelength the actual flux is not large, even though the field and apparent
flux may be large. The magnetic field at a distance $r \gg c/\omega$ from a
source of rotational frequency $\omega$ and dipole moment $\mu$ is
$$B \sim {\mu \omega^2 \over c^2 r}. \eqno(8)$$
For a magnetic neutron star ($\mu \sim 10^{30}$ gauss-cm$^3$) rotating at
breakup ($\omega \sim 1.5 \times 10^4$ s$^{-1}$) $B \sim 10$ gauss at $r = 3
\times 10^{16}$ cm. This is certainly more than sufficient, and allows for
smaller $\omega$ or $\mu$. An electromagnetic wind from a neutron star (or
magnetized accretion disc) would be required to emerge through the dense
debris implied by the visible light curve of the supernova. This is in
contrast to a GRB in which the presence of relativistic outflow implies the
absence of dense debris, at least in directions in which gamma-rays are
observed. If the supernova debris is confined to dense filaments then the
electromagnetic wind may penetrate between these filaments, as in the much
older Crab Nebula.
If the magnetic field has its origin in the radiation of a new pulsar, then
(8) determines $\mu \omega^2$. The spindown power is
$$P = {2 \over 3}{(\mu \omega^2)^2 \over c^3} \sim {2 \over 3}{B^2 r^2 c} \sim
10^{40}\ {\rm erg/s}. \eqno(9)$$
In principle, such a pulsar may be observed once the nonrelativistic debris
becomes transparent.
Eq.~(8) may be applied to other astronomical objects. For example, a
similar estimate has been used to explain the field of the Crab nebula, in
which there is a pulsar of known properties, and no dense gas intervening
between it and the synchrotron emitting nebula. Accretion discs around
black holes in AGN and extragalactic double radio sources are another
application; the rotating magnetized disc implies an oscillating magnetic
dipole moment and radiation. If the radiation is beamed into an
angle $\Omega$ then (8) should be replaced by
\begin{eqnarray}
B \sim {\mu \omega^2 \over c^2 r} \left({4 \pi \over \Omega}
\right)^{1/2} &\sim& \left({B_d \over 10^4\,{\rm gauss}}\right) \left({M
\over 10^8 M_\odot}\right) \left({r \over 300\,{\rm Kpc}}\right)^{-1}
\left({\Omega \over 10^{-2}\,{\rm sterad}}\right)^{-1/2}\ 3\,\mu{\rm gauss}\\
&\sim& \left({L \over 10^{46}\,{\rm erg/s}}\right)^{1/2} \left({r \over 300\,
{\rm Kpc}}\right)^{-1} \left({\Omega \over 10^{-2}\,{\rm sterad}}
\right)^{-1/2}\ 3\,\mu{\rm gauss},
\end{eqnarray}
where $B_d$ is the disc field and the last relation is obtained assuming
only that the disc viscosity is magnetic (\cite{K91}) and $L$ is the
accretional power. In double radio sources equipartition is also suggested
if the pressure of the relativistic wind is balanced by that of the
electrons accelerated as its fields reconnect.
\subsubsection{Compton Current Fields}
Electrostatic neutrality requires ${\vec \nabla}\cdot{\vec j}_{Compt} = -
{\vec \nabla}\cdot{\vec j}_{cc}$ to high accuracy. It does not require
${\vec j}_{Compt} = - {\vec j}_{cc}$, and if the flow is not spherically
symmetric the latter equality is not likely to hold. As a result, the
Compton electrons may create closed loops of net current, with resulting
magnetic fields. One characteristic value of the field is obtained from
Amp\`ere's Law: $B \sim \epsilon N_{56} \nu_{56} \exp{(-\nu_{56} \Delta t)}
e/(rc) \sim 10^{10}$ gauss! It is evident on energetic grounds
that fields of this magnitude cannot be created; magnetic forces will induce
countercurrents which will cancel the divergence-free part of the Compton
current (as well as its divergence) to high accuracy. However,
this cancellation will not be exact. Just as electrostatically-driven
countercurrents leave a net potential (which drives them) of some fraction of
the Compton electron energy, magnetic countercurrents may leave a net current
sufficient to produce a field whose energy approaches equipartition with that
of the Compton electrons. This energy is $\sim \epsilon N_{56}
\exp{(-\nu_{56} \Delta t)} E_c \sim 10^{46}$ ergs, corresponding to $B \sim
0.04$ gauss for $r \sim 3 \times 10^{16}$ cm. This is comparable to that
suggested by the synchrotron self-absorption argument, and offers a possible
explanation of the apparent deviation of the magnetic energy from energetic
equipartition---equipartition is, in fact, achieved, but with the Compton
electrons' energy rather than with the bulk hydrodynamic energy.
\subsubsection{Plasma Instability Fields}
A related hypothesis attributes the magnetic field to electromagnetic plasma
instabilities resulting form the interpenetration of Compton- and
counter-currents. In this case the field is chaotic on fine scales rather
than ordered, but the possible field energy is again comparable to (but
somewhat less than) the energy of the Compton electrons.
\section{Equipartition?}
\subsection{Particle-field Equipartition}
\cite{K98} assume equipartition between magnetic and particle energies in
their theoretical argument for mildly relativistic expansion. There are two
classical arguments for this assumption. The first is based on attempts to
calculate the generation of magnetic fields by dynamo mechanisms. This
argument comes in as many forms as there are theories of dynamos, but it
generally concludes (or assumes) that when the magnetic energy density
becomes a significant fraction of the kinetic energy density its
back-reaction on the motion will suppress further dynamo activity. If the
particle energy density is similarly limited by the hydrodynamic energy
density (\cite{K91}) then rough particle-magnetic equipartition will be
achieved. Clearly, without detailed understanding of the dynamo and
acceleration processes in any particular configuration this argument is very
approximate, or perhaps only suggestive, but it does appear to be crudely
correct for the interstellar medium and (excluding the energetic particles)
for the Solar convective motion.
The second classical argument for particle-field equipartition notes that
for a given total energy the synchrotron power radiated will be maximized if
equipartition obtains. Astronomical surveys are generally flux-limited,
implying that most detected sources will be fairly close to equipartition,
if it can be achieved.
It is unclear if either of these arguments applies to SN1998bw. There may
be opportunity for Rayleigh-Taylor instability at the contact discontinuity
between the forward and reverse shocks when the debris encounters the
surrounding medium (likely a wind ejected by the SN progenitor; {\it cf.}
{\cite{B99}), but this depends on the details of the hydrodynamics.
Departures from spherical symmetry may lead to Kelvin-Helmholtz instability.
It is unknown if, or how effectively, these processes may produce dynamo
field amplification. The radio counterpart of SN1998bw was detected by a
search targeted on this unusual visible and gamma-ray object, and was radio
flux-limited only in the implicit sense that its detection was limited by the
radio sensitivity.
\subsection{Electron-ion Equipartition}
Electron-ion equipartition presents a question entirely distinct from that
of particle-magnetic field equipartition. All GRB models require at least
an approximation to electron-ion equipartition in order to couple the ion
kinetic energy to the electrons which radiate. \cite{WL98} require this
too, and in fact their assumed velocity fairly approximates that required
(assuming a composition of helium or heavier elements) to produce their
estimated electron energies if equipartition occurs. The mechanism of
electron-ion equipartition in a collisionless shock, relativistic or
non-relativistic may be as simple as an electrostatic double-layer with a
potential sufficient to slow the ions as implied by the shock jump
condition (\cite{K94}).
If cold electron and ion streams penetrate an orthogonal magnetic field
their differing gyroradii would lead to a charge separation which can only
be avoided by the presence of a potential sufficient to equalize the
gyroradii, which (in the relativistic limit) equally divides the kinetic
energy between electrons and ions (in the nonrelativistic limit the electron
kinetic energy exceeds that of the ions by the ion/electron mass ratio).
This is an oversimplification because it assumes the magnetic stress greatly
exceeds the hydrodynamic stress, but the qualitative justification for
equating gyroradii (and energies, in the relativistic regime)---that only if
the gyroradii are equal will electrostatic neutrality be maintained when
shocks occur in magnetic fields---may be valid. If the gyroradii are
unequal an electrostatic potential will develop which will equalize them.
\section{Inverse Bremsstrahlung?}
The interpretation of the low-frequency turnover in the radio spectrum of
SN1998bw as synchrotron self-absorption led to the inference of a magnetic
field too large to be easily explained. An alternative explanation for this
turnover is absorption by inverse bremsstrahlung, as suggested by
\cite{C82}. Inverse bremsstrahlung absorption will not, in general, produce
the quantitative $F_\nu \propto \nu^2$ or $F_\nu \propto \nu^{5/2}$ spectra
of synchrotron self-absorption, but when the low frequency turnover is only
defined by two spectral points of moderate accuracy, as was the case for
SN1998bw (\cite{K98}) it is impossible to distinguish between these two
explanations on spectral grounds alone.
If the low frequency turnover is the result of inverse bremsstrahlung
absorption then the observed brightness temperature is only a lower bound on
the brightness temperature in the (optically thin) emitting region. This,
in turn, is only a lower bound on the energy of the emitting electrons.
Hence the magnetic field is only bounded from above, and may be as small as
required by a theory of field generation. The actual field value depends on
the electron energy (or {\it vice versa}); in the absence of a detailed
theory of particle acceleration it is generally impossible to reject an
inferred value of the electron energy. High electron energies need not,
however, imply excessive brightness temperatures because the source is
optically thin. Hence, as argued by \cite{K98}, the synchrotron
self-Compton catastrophe may be avoided if the source is expanding
relativistically, which reduces the inferred brightness temperature, as
first pointed out by \cite{W66}.
If the magnetic field is too small then the ratio of inverse Compton
luminosity $L_{IC}$ to synchrotron $L_S$ becomes excessive. The value of
$L_{IC}$ permitted by the observations depends on its (unknown) frequency,
but it probably safe to require it to be less than the visible luminosity
$L_V \sim 10^{43}$ erg/s, roughly $3 \times 10^4$ times the radio power at
$10^6$ s (\cite{K98}). This sets a lower bound on $B$:
$$B \approx \left({2 L_V \over r^2 c}{L_S \over L_{IC}}\right)^{1/2} >
0.04\ {\rm gauss}, \eqno(11)$$
where the numerical value has assumed only mildly relativistic expansion.
The numerical result is close enough to the estimates derived for the
self-absorbed synchrotron model that discarding this assumption has not
materially reduced the difficulty of explaining the required field.
If the synchrotron source is expanding relativistically then $r \approx c t
\Gamma^2$ and the visible radiation intensity in the frame of the
synchrotron source is $\sim L_V/(4 \pi r^2 \Gamma^2) \propto \Gamma^{-6}$,
where the two extra powers of $\Gamma$ come from the redshift of the visible
radiation, and the lower bound on the comoving $B^\prime$ is reduced $\propto
\Gamma^{-3}$. The bound on the laboratory frame $B$ is only reduced
$\propto \Gamma^{-2}$. For mildly relativistic expansion, such as inferred
for SN1998bw, the required $B$ remains large. In addition, because of the
larger inferred $r$, the various scaling laws yield estimates of of $B$
which are reduced by factors $\propto \Gamma^{-2\alpha}$. The difficulty
is not resolved, and, in fact, is worsened for $\alpha > 1$.
The inverse bremsstrahlung opacity of hydrogen, including the effects of
stimulated emission, is
$$\kappa_{ff} = 3.69 \times 10^8 {n^2 h \over k T^{3/2} \nu^2} g_{ff}\ {\rm
cm}^{-1} \eqno(12)$$
(\cite{S62}). Taking $T = 10^{4\,\circ}$K and $\nu = 2.49 \times
10^9$ Hz (for which $g_{ff} \approx 5$) yields $\kappa_{ff} \approx 1.2
\times 10^{-26} n^2$ cm$^{-1}$. Effective absorption will be obtained in $3
\times 10^{16}$ cm if $n = 10^5$ cm$^{-3}$, requiring $\sim 10^{-2}$
M$_\odot$ of gas. Such a circum-SN evelope, produced by a wind from the
progenitor star, is possible; if expelled at 10 km/s (as
appropriate to a red supergiant) its lifetime is $\sim 10^3$ yr. Much more
massive winds are plausible. Such winds have been widely discussed since
the discovery of ring structures around SN1987A, and have been inferred in
other supernovae ({\it cf.} \cite{B99}).
It is, of course, necessary that the envelope be ionized in order for inverse
bremsstrahlung to occur. The envelope consists of $\sim 10^{55}$ atoms,
which require $\sim 2 \times 10^{44}$ ergs of ionizing ultraviolet radiation
to ionize. The flux of SN1998bw in the Lyman continuum is not directly
observable, but the required energy is only $\sim 10^{-5}$ of the visible
radiation emitted, which is certainly plausible and will be found for a
Planck spectrum with $T > 9000^\circ$ K. The resulting temperature of the
photoionized gas depends on the shape of the ultraviolet spectrum, but for a
comparatively cool spectrum it will be $\approx 10^{4\,\circ}$K, as assumed.
A dense and comparatively cool ionized gas is a source of recombination line
radiation. A straightforward estimate using the preceding parameters and
standard theory (\cite{O74}) leads to unobservably small ($\sim 10^{-5}$\AA)
equivalent widths, even for the Balmer lines, so that it is not possible to
test the hypothesis of inverse bremsstrahlung absorption in this manner.
As the ionized envelope is dispersed by the supernova debris (once
shock-heated its absorption coefficient decreases greatly because of the
temperature dependence of $\kappa_{ff}$) the inverse
bremsstrahlung absorption will decrease. This can qualitatively account for
the evolution of the radio spectrum, whose early deficiency of longer
wavelength flux gradually disappears. Quantitative modeling might, in
principle, distinguish these predictions from those of self-absorption
models, but all models contain several free parameters; together with
the complexity of the observed radio spectral behavior (\cite{K98}) this
makes an unambiguous discrimination between the models difficult.
\section{GRB980425?}
GRB980425, if produced by SN1998bw, poses another problem. The early states
of a stellar explosion would be expected to be very optically thick, and to
produce roughly a black body spectrum. The observed spectrum (\cite{B98}),
if fitted to a black body, suggests a temperature $\sim 30$ KeV. Combining
this with the inferred power (\cite{G98}) of $5.5 \times 10^{46}$ erg/s
implies an emitting radius (assumed spherical) of $7 \times 10^7$ cm.
However, the observed expansion speed of $6 \times 10^9$ cm/s (\cite{K98})
means that this radius will be exceeded about 0.01 s after the explosion
begins, inconsistent the observed GRB duration of about 10 s. The power and
duration are consistent if the temperature is $\sim 1$ KeV, but this is
completely inconsistent with the observed spectrum.
Matter expelled from a supernova core with temperature $\sim 30$ MeV at $r
\sim 6 \times 10^6$ cm will cool adiabatically to $\sim 3$ KeV, much less
than the value estimated from the observed spectrum, by the time it reaches
$6 \times 10^{10}$ cm, the radius at the period of gamma-ray emission.
In addition, a radiating photosphere will be much cooler than the temperature
deep within the outflow, for which adiabatic expansion is the only cooling
process. The difficulty of explaining the observed properties of GRB980425
in the context of a supernova may best be resolved, despite the apparent
coincidence, if they are in fact unrelated events, as suggested on
statistical grounds (\cite{GLM99}). This is supported by the
observation (\cite{P99}) of two transient X-ray sources, one long-lived and
coincident with SN1998bw and the other, briefer and not coincident with
SN1998bw, resembling a GRB X-ray afterglow.
\section{Discussion}
The most difficult part of the problem of the radio emission of SN1998bw is
explaining how the kinetic energy of the Compton electrons is converted to
the acceleration of the electrons which produced the observed radio
emission. These must have $\gamma_e^\prime \sim 100$, making them many times
more energetic than the Compton electrons.
The interpenetration of Compton- and counter-currents is unstable to
electrostatic and electromagnetic plasma instabilities, which may explain
both the electron acceleration and the magnetic field (although previous
sections have also discussed Compton current, hydrodynamic dynamo and
pulsar radiation zone models of the field). The absence of radio
polarization (\cite{K98}) suggests that the magnetic field is disordered,
which would be consistent with the dynamo, pulsar and plasma instability
models of the field, but might also be explained by differential Faraday
rotation (which may be estimated, using the previous parameters, as $\sim
10^4$ radians even at $\lambda = 3$ cm) within the Compton current model.
Compton electron models predict the presence of the
nuclear gamma-rays. At distances of many Mpc these gamma-rays are unlikely
to be detectable directly, but their effects on the visible light curve are
evident (and, in fact, led to the inference of $A = 56$ radioactive decay).
In these models the rise of the radio flux in the first week is dependent on
the escape of the gamma-rays, which will only occur so soon for supernovae
(such as SN1998bw) with very fast debris. It is therefore predicted that
strong early radio emission will be correlated with the debris expansion
speed. It is also predicted that strong early radio emission requires the
presence of a surrounding medium, presumably the result of mass loss by the
progenitor, of density $> 10^4$ cm$^{-3}$, far in excess of typical
interstellar densities. Such a medium may be independently confirmed or
disproved because of its effects on the SN visible light curve, pulse
dispersion of any newly born pulsar, or X-ray emission resulting from its
interaction with the debris.
As the debris collides with the radio-absorbing gas cloud a forward and
reverse shock are produced. The forward shock has a post-shock temperature
$\sim 1$ MeV because of the high supernova debris speed, and emits
comparatively little radiation. However, the reverse shock is cooler and
propagates in denser matter (the debris having a mass of several $M_\odot$,
compared to the mass $\ll M_\odot$ of the radio-absorbing envelope) and may
well produce the X-ray source S1 discovered (\cite{P99}) to be associated
with SN1998bw and to decay over $\sim 6$ months. The decay is attributable
to the forward shock reaching the outer extent of the radio-absorbing cloud,
after which a rarefaction reflects and erodes the reverse shock.
Supernovae in which Compton electrons produce radio emission should have
several similar properties: They will all have approximately the same
Lorentz factors (1.6--2) for their expanding radio photospheres, because
this is determined by nuclear physics. They will all show similar
double-peaked radio intensity curves, again because the nuclear physics is
the same. Finally, their debris will show a nearly complete absence of a
low-Z envelope (as distinct from a surrounding low-Z medium)
because such an envelope would prevent the escape of the Compton electrons.
It is also worth noting that the energy of explosive C or O burning (about 1
MeV/nucleon) is insufficient to produce the debris velocity observed in
SN1998bw; gravitational energy from collapse to nearly neutron star density
(and probably neutrino transport) must be appealed to.
After the submission of the original version of this paper \cite{NP99}
reported that SN1987A was accompanied by two visible sources asymmetrically
located on opposite sides of the supernova. Assuming these sources to
represent jets directed outward from the supernova at the same speed, they
found that their speed of ejection was $0.80 c$. This is the speed of the
mean Compton electrons produced by the abundant 0.812 MeV gamma-rays of
$^{56}$Ni (\S 2), and is consistent with the radio source expansion speed
found by \cite{K98} for SN1998bw. Although relativistic expansion is
observed at very different frequencies in these two objects, perhaps because
of observational limitations, it may be that both the spots near SN1987A and
the radio emission of SN1998bw are powered by similar Compton electrons.
\acknowledgements
I thank D. A. Frail and S. R. Kulkarni for useful discussions.
|
\section{\sc Preliminaries}
If $(a_n)$ and $(b_n)$ are scalar sequences we write \mbox{$a_n \prec b_n$}
whenever there is some $c \ge 0$ such that $a_n \le c \cdot b_n$ for all $n$,
and
\mbox{$a_n \asymp b_n$} whenever \mbox{$a_n \prec b_n$} and
\mbox{$b_n \prec a_n$}.
For $1 \le p \le \infty$ the number $p'$ is defined by $1/p + 1/{p'} =1$.
\par
We shall use standard notation and
notions from Banach space theory, as presented e.\,g. in
\cite{djt}, \cite{lt} and \cite{tj}.
If $E$ is a Banach space, then
$B_E$ is its (closed) unit ball and $E'$ its dual. We consider complex
Banach spaces only (but note that most of the consequences of our abstract
interpolation results can be formulated also for real spaces).
As usual ${\cal L}(E,F)$
denotes the Banach space of all (bounded and linear) operators from
$E$ into $F$ endowed with the operator norm $\norm{\cdot}$.
With $\mathbf{T_2}(E)$ and $\mathbf{C_2}(E)$ we denote the (Gaussian)
type~2
and cotype~2 constant of a Banach space $E$ with this
property, respectively, and with
$\mathbf{M_{(u)}}(E)$ and $\mathbf{M^{(u)}}(E)$ the $u$-concavity and $u$-convexity
constant of a Banach lattice $E$.
\par
We call a Banach space $E \subset c_0$ (the space of all zero sequences)
a symmetric Banach sequence space if the $i$-th standard unit vectors $e_i$
form a symmetric basis, i.\,e. the $e_i$'s form a Schauder basis such that
$\norm{x}_E = \norm{\sum_{i=1}^\infty \varepsilon_i x_{\pi(i)} e_i}_E$
for each $x \in E$, each permutation $\pi$ of $\Bbb{N}$ and each choice of
scalars $\varepsilon_i$ with $|\varepsilon_i|=1$. Moreover, denote
for each $n$ the subspace
$\text{{\rm span}} \{e_i \, | \, 1 \le i \le n\}$ of $E$ by $E_n$.
Together
with its natural order a symmetric Banach sequence space $E$ forms a
Banach lattice, and clearly its basis is $1$-unconditional.
The associated unitary
ideal $\mathcal{S}_E$ is the Banach space of all compact operators $T\in {\cal L}(\ell_2
,\ell_2)$ with singular numbers $(s_i(T))_i$
in $E$ endowed with the norm $\norm{T}_{\mathcal{S}_E}:=
\norm{(s_i(T))_i}_E$; with $\mathcal{S}_E^n$ we denote ${\cal L}(\ell_2^n,\ell_2^n)$
together with the norm $\norm{T}_{\mathcal{S}_E^n}:=
\norm{(s_i(T))_{i=1}^n}_{E_n}$. For $E=\ell_u$ ($1 \le u < \infty$) one gets
the well-known Schatten-$u$-class $\mathcal{S}_u$; for simplicity put
$\mathcal{S}_\infty:= {\cal L}(\ell_2,\ell_2)$.
\par
For all information on Banach operator ideals, in particular on summing
and mixing operators, see e.\,g. \cite{df}, \cite{djt} and \cite{pietsch}.
An operator $T \in {\cal L}(E,F)$ is called absolutely $(r,p)$-summing
$(1 \le p \le r \le \infty)$ if there is a constant $\rho \ge 0$ such that
$$
\bigl ( \sum_{i=1}^n \norm{Tx_i}^r \bigr )^{1/r} \le \rho
\cdot \sup \biggl \{ \bigl ( \sum_{i=1}^n |\langle x',x_i \rangle |^p
\bigr )^{1/p} \, | \, x' \in B_{E'} \biggr \}
$$
for all finite sets of elements $x_1, \dots, x_n \in E$
(with the obvious modifications for $p$ or $r$ $=\infty$). In this case,
the infimum over all possible $\rho \ge 0$ is denoted by $\pi_{r,p}(T)$,
and the Banach operator ideal of all absolutely $(r,p)$-summing
operators by $(\Pi_{r,p},\pi_{r,p})$; the special case $r=p$ gives
the ideal $(\Pi_p, \pi_p)$ of all absolutely $p$-summing operators.
\par
An operator $T \in {\cal L}(E,F)$ is called $(s,p)$-mixing
$(1 \le p \le s \le \infty)$ whenever its composition with an
arbitrary operator $S \in \Pi_s(F,Y)$ is absolutely $p$-summing; with
the norm
$$ \mu_{s,p}(T) := \sup\{\pi_p(ST) \, | \, \pi_s(S) \le 1 \} $$
the class ${\cal M}_{s,p}$ of all $(s,p)$-mixing operators forms again a
Banach operator ideal. Obviously, $({\cal M}_{p,p}, \mu_{p,p}) =
({\cal L}, \norm{\cdot})$ and $({\cal M}_{\infty,p}, \mu_{\infty,p}) = (\Pi_p, \pi_p)$.
Recall that due to \cite{maurey} (see also \cite[32.10--11]{df}) summing
and mixing operators are closely related:
$$ ({\cal M}_{s,p}, \mu_{s,p}) \subset (\Pi_{r,p}, \pi_{r,p}) \qquad \text{for }
1/s + 1/r = 1/p, $$
and ``conversely''
$$ (\Pi_{r,p}, \pi_{r,p}) \subset ({\cal M}_{s_0,p}, \mu_{s_0,p}) \qquad
\text{for } 1 \le p \le s_0 < s \le \infty \text{ and } 1/s + 1/r =
1/p. $$
Moreover, it is known that each
$(s,2)$-mixing operator on a cotype~2 space is even $(s,1)$-mixing
(see again \cite{maurey} and \cite[32.2]{df}).
\par
For an operator $T \in {\cal L}(E,F)$
the $n$-th Weyl number $x_n(T)$ of $T$ is defined by
$$ x_n(T) := \sup \{a_n(TS) \,| \, S \in {\cal L}(\ell_2, E) \text{ with }
\norm{S}=1 \},$$
where $a_n(TS)$ denotes the $n$-th approximation number of $TS$.
We will use the following important inequality of K\"onig in order to
obtain lower estimates:
\begin{equation}
\label{weyl}
n^{1/r} \cdot x_n(T) \le \pi_{r,2}(T), \qquad T \in \Pi_{r,2}
\end{equation}
(for all details on $s$-numbers and this inequality see \cite[2.a.3]{koenig}
or \cite{pietsch2}).
\section{\sc Complex Interpolation of Mixing Operators}
The aim of this section is to prove a complex interpolation formula for the
mixing norm of a fixed operator acting between two complex interpolation
spaces.
\par
For all information on complex interpolation we refer to \cite{BL}.
A couple $[E_0,E_1]$ of Banach spaces is called an interpolation couple
if there exists a topological Hausdorff vector space $E$ in which
$E_0$ and $E_1$ can be continuously embedded.
We speak of a finite-dimensional interpolation couple $[E_0, E_1]$, if
$E_0$ and $E_1$ are finite-dimensional Banach
spaces with the same dimensions.
For an interpolation couple $[E_0,E_1]$ of Banach
spaces and $0 \le \theta\le 1$ we denote by
$[E_0,E_1]_\theta = E_\theta$ the interpolation space
obtained by the complex interpolation method of Calder\'on.
Well-known examples
of complex interpolation spaces are the Minkowski spaces $\ell_p^n(E)$ and
Schatten classes $\mathcal{S}_p^n$: For $1\le p_0,p_1 \le \infty $,
$0 < \theta < 1$ and an
interpolation couple $[E_0,E_1]$
$$ [\ell_{p_0}^n(E_0), \ell_{p_1}^n(E_1)]_\theta = \ell_p^n(E_\theta)
\qquad \text{and} \qquad [\mathcal{S}_{p_0}^n,\mathcal{S}_{p_1}^n]_\theta = \mathcal{S}_p^n$$
(isometrically), where $1/p = (1-\theta)/{p_0} + \theta/{p_1}$ (for the complex
interpolation formula for $\ell_p^n(E)$'s see
\cite[5.1.2]{BL}, whereas the formula for Schatten
classes can be deduced from e.\,g. \cite[Satz~8]{pt} and
the complex reiteration theorem \cite[4.6.1]{BL}).
For $0 \le \theta <1$
a $\theta$-Hilbert space is an interpolation space $[E_0,E_1]_\theta$
where $E_1$ is a Hilbert space (this notion goes back to Pisier);
in particular, $\ell_p^n$ and $\mathcal{S}_p^n$ for $1 < p < \infty$
are $\theta$-Hilbert spaces for $\theta=1-|1-{2/p}|$.
\par
The following complex interpolation theorem for the mixing norm is our main
abstract tool.
\begin{theo}
\label{mixing}
Let $2 \le s_0,s_1 \le \infty$, $0 \le \theta \le 1$ and $s_\theta$
given by $1/{s_\theta}=(1-\theta)/{s_0} + \theta / {s_1}$. Then for two
finite-dimensional interpolation couples $[E_0,E_1]$, $[F_0,F_1]$
and each $T \in {\cal L}(E_\theta,F_\theta)$
$$ \mu_{s_\theta,2}(T : E_\theta \rightarrow F_\theta) \le d_\theta[E_0,E_1]
\cdot \mu_{s_0,2}(T : E_0 \rightarrow F_0)^{1-\theta} \cdot
\mu_{s_1,2}(T : E_1 \rightarrow F_1)^{\theta},$$
where
\begin{equation}
d_\theta[E_0,E_1]:= \sup_m \norm{{\cal L}(\ell_2^m, E_\theta)
\hookrightarrow [{\cal L}(\ell_2^m, E_0), {\cal L}(\ell_2^m, E_1)]_\theta}.
\end{equation}
\end{theo}
\proof Consider for $\eta=0,\theta,1$ the bilinear mapping
$$
\begin{array}{lccccc}
\Phi_\eta^{n,m}: &\ell_{s_\eta}^n(F_\eta') & \times
&{\cal L}(\ell_2^m,
E_\eta) &\longrightarrow & \ell_2^m(\ell_{s_\eta}^n) \\
&(y_1', \dots , y_n') &\times & S &\longmapsto
& ((\langle y_k',TSe_j \rangle )_k)_j
\end{array},
$$
where $(e_j)$ denotes the canonical basis in $\Bbb{C}^m$. By the discrete
characterization of the mixing norm (see \cite{maurey} or
\cite[32.4]{df}) $\mu_{s_\eta}(T: E_\eta \rightarrow F_\eta)$ is the
infimum over all $c \ge 0$ such that for all $n,m$, all $y_1', \ldots,
y_n' \in F_\eta'$ and all $x_1, \ldots, x_m \in E_\eta$
$$
\left ( \sum_{j=1}^m \left ( \sum_{k=1}^n |\langle y_k',Tx_j \rangle |
^{s_\eta} \right )^{2/{s_\eta}} \right )^{1/2} \le
c \cdot \left ( \sum_{k=1}^n \norm{y_k'}_{F_\eta'}
^{s_\eta} \right )^{1/{s_\eta}} \cdot
\sup_{x' \in B_{E_\eta'}} \left ( \sum_{j=1}^m |\langle x',x_j
\rangle |^2 \right )^{1/2}.
$$
Since for each $S = \sum_{j=1}^m e_j \otimes x_j \in {\cal L}(\ell_2^m,E_\eta)$
$$
\norm{S} = \sup_{x' \in B_{E_\eta'}} \left ( \sum_{j=1}^m | \langle x',x_j
\rangle |^2 \right )^{1/2},
$$
we obviously get that
$$
\mu_{s_\eta,2}(T:E_\eta \rightarrow F_\eta) = \sup_{n,m}
\norm{\Phi_\eta^{n,m}}.
$$
Now the proof follows by bilinear complex interpolation: For the interpolated
bilinear mapping
$$ [\Phi_0^{n,m},\Phi_1^{n,m}]_\theta : [\ell_{s_0}^n(F_0'), \ell_{s_1}^n(F_1')]_\theta
\times [{\cal L}(\ell_2^m,E_0), {\cal L}(\ell_2^m,E_1)]_\theta \longrightarrow
[\ell_2^m(\ell_{s_0}^n),\ell_2^m(\ell_{s_1}^n)]_\theta
$$
by \cite[4.4.1]{BL}
$$ \norm{[\Phi_0^{n,m},\Phi_1^{n,m}]_\theta} \le
\norm{\Phi_0^{n,m}}^{1-\theta} \cdot \norm{\Phi_1^{n,m}}^\theta. $$
Since by the interpolation theorem for $\ell_p(E)$'s
together with the duality theorem \cite[4.5.2]{BL}
$$ [\ell_{s_0}^n(F_0'),\ell_{s_1}^n(F_1')]_\theta =
\ell_{s_\theta}^n(F_\theta') \qquad \text{and} \qquad
[\ell_2^m(\ell_{s_0}^n),\ell_2^m(\ell_{s_1}^n)]_\theta =
\ell_2^m(\ell_{s_\theta}^n) $$
(isometrically), we have
$$ \norm{\Phi_\theta^{n,m}} \le \norm{{\cal L}(\ell_2^m, E_\theta) \hookrightarrow
[{\cal L}(\ell_2^m, E_0), {\cal L}(\ell_2^m, E_1)]_\theta} \cdot
\norm{[\Phi_0^{n,m},\Phi_1^{n,m}]_\theta}.$$
Consequently
\begin{align*}
\mu_{s_\theta,2}(T:E_\theta \rightarrow F_\theta) &=
\sup_{n,m} \norm{\Phi_\theta^{n,m}} \\
& \le\sup_{n,m} \{
\norm{{\cal L}(\ell_2^m, E_\theta) \hookrightarrow [{\cal L}(\ell_2^m, E_0),
{\cal L}(\ell_2^m, E_1)]_\theta} \cdot \norm{\Phi_0^{n,m}}^{1-\theta}
\cdot \norm{\Phi_1^{n,m}}^\theta \} \\
& \le d_\theta[E_0,E_1] \cdot \mu_{s_0,2}(T:E_0 \rightarrow F_0)^{1-\theta}
\cdot \mu_{s_1,2}(T:E_1 \rightarrow F_1)^\theta,
\end{align*}
the desired result.
\qed
\\[10pt]
In the same way an analogous result for the $(r,2)$-summing norm can be
obtained.
\par
Applications of theorem~\ref{mixing} come from ``uniform estimates'' for
$d_\theta[E_0,E_1]$. Pisier proved in \cite{pisier90} that
\begin{equation}
\label{koubal}
d_\theta[\ell_1,\ell_2]:= \sup_n d_\theta[\ell_1^n,\ell_2^n]
< \infty;
\end{equation}
the proof is based on the Maurey factorization theorem which says that
every operator $T:\ell_2 \rightarrow \ell_p$ ($1 \le p \le 2$) factorizes
through an appropriate diagonal operator $D_\lambda: \ell_2 \rightarrow
\ell_p$, and spaces of diagonal operators clearly behave well under
interpolation. The fact \eqref{koubal} can also be obtained as an
application (case (c) of the following estimates) of a deep result of Kouba
\cite{kouba} on the complex interpolation of injective
tensor products of Banach spaces (see also
\cite{dm99})---as a consequence of Kouba's work we
get for a finite-dimensional interpolation couple $[E_0,E_1]$ and
$0 \le \theta \le 1$ the following
estimates for $d_\theta[E_0,E_1]$:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
$d_\theta[E_0,E_1]=1$, if $E_0=E_1$.
\item
$ d_\theta[E_0,E_1] \le \mathbf{T_2} (E_0')^{1-\theta} \cdot \mathbf{T_2} (E_1')^{\theta}.$
\item
$ d_\theta[E_0,E_1] \le (2/\sqrt{\pi}) \cdot \mathbf{M_{(2)}}(E_0)^{1-\theta} \cdot
\mathbf{M_{(2)}}(E_1)^{\theta},$
if the canonical bases in $E_0$ and $E_1$ are $1$-unconditional
and induce the lattice structures.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-5pt}
Note that the constants given in (b) and (c) are different from
those in Kouba's work. They follow from a short analysis of his
proofs in the finite-dimensional case:
Since in our setting a
Hilbert space is involved, Kouba's formulas
(3.8) and (3.10) on p.~47--48 can both be
changed into \mbox{$\gamma_z (T) \le \| \mspace{-1.5mu} | T \|
\mspace{-1.5mu} |_z$}. Moreover, calculating the terms $W^E(z)$ defined in
Kouba's lemma~3.2 and lemma~3.3 (use two spaces instead of a family of
Banach spaces, see also \cite[p.~218]{ccrsw}),
one obtains
$$W^E(z)= \mathbf{T_2}(E_0)^{1-\theta (z)} \cdot \mathbf{T_2}(E_1)^{\theta (z)} \text{ and }
W^E(z) = (2/\sqrt{\pi}) \cdot \mathbf{M^{(2)}} (E_0)^{1-\theta (z)} \cdot
\mathbf{M^{(2)}} (E_1)^{\theta (z)} $$
(with $\theta (z)$ as in \cite[corollary~5.1]{ccrsw}), respectively.
This leads to the above estimates (note that $E_0$ and $E_1$ in Kouba's
formulas, in our context have to be replaced by
$E_0'$ and $E_1'$, and recall the
well-known duality relation between $2$-concavity and $2$-convexity, see
e.\,g. \cite[1.d.4]{lt}).
\\[10pt] Later we also need a non-commutative version of Pisier's result
\eqref{koubal}.
Using an extension of Kouba's formulas for the Haagerup tensor product
of operator spaces due to \cite{pisierop}, Junge in
\cite[4.2.6]{junge} proved an analogue of \eqref{koubal} for Schatten classes:
\begin{equation}
\label{koubas}
d_\theta[\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2]:= \sup_n d_\theta[\mathcal{S}_1^n,\mathcal{S}_2^n] < \infty.
\end{equation}
\par
Finally we state a corollary on $\theta$-Hilbert spaces which together
with \eqref{koubal} and \eqref{koubas} is crucial for our purposes.
\begin{cor}
\label{hilbert}
Let $0 \le \theta \le 1$, $E=[E_0,\ell_2^n]_\theta$ be a $n$-dimensional
$\theta$-Hilbert space and \mbox{$2 \le s_\theta \le\infty$} given by
$s_\theta =2/\theta$. Then
$$ \mu_{s_\theta,2}(E \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) \le d_\theta[E_0,\ell_2^n] \cdot
\pi_2(E_0 \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n)^{1-\theta}.$$
\end{cor}
\section{\sc Bennett--Carl Inequalities for Symmetric Banach Sequence Spaces}
As announced the preceding interpolation theorem implies the Bennett--Carl
result and its extension of Carl--Defant as an almost immediate consequence:
\begin{samepage}
\begin{cor}
\label{beca}
Let $1 \le u \le 2 $ and $1 \le u \le v \le \infty$. Then for
$2 \le s \le \infty $ such that $1/s= 1/2 - 1/u + \max(1/v,1/2)$
$$ \sup_{n} \mu_{s,2}(\ell_u^n \hookrightarrow \ell_v^n) < \infty.$$
In particular, for $2 \le r \le \infty$ such that $1/r = 1/u - \max(1/v,1/2)$
$$ \sup_{n} \pi_{r,2}(\ell_u^n \hookrightarrow \ell_v^n) < \infty.$$
\end{cor}
\end{samepage}
\proof Only the case $1 \le u < v \le 2$ has to be considered;
the case $2 \le v \le \infty$ then easily follows by factorization through
$\ell_2^n$, and the case $u=v$ is trivial anyway.
In what follows we use the complex interpolation formula for
$\ell_p^n$'s without further mentioning. \\
i) Take first $v=2$. It is well-known (see e.\,g. \cite[22.4.8]{pietsch}
or \eqref{hilfe1})
that
$$ \pi_2 (\ell_1^n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n)= 1. $$
For $1 \le u \le 2$ choose $0\le \theta \le 1$ such that
$1/u = (1-\theta)/1 + \theta/2$. Then $s_\theta:=2/\theta=u'$, and by
corollary~\ref{hilbert} together with \eqref{koubal}
$$ \mu_{u',2}(\ell_u^n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) \le d_\theta[\ell_1,\ell_2]
< \infty.$$
ii) Let $1 \le u < v < 2$. Combining case~i),
$$ \mu_{u',2}(\ell_u^n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) \le d_\theta[\ell_1,\ell_2],$$
and
$$ \mu_{2,2} (\ell_u^n \hookrightarrow \ell_u^n ) = \norm{\ell_u^n \hookrightarrow \ell_u^n }
=1, $$ we have
$$ \mu_{s_{\tilde{\theta}},2}(\ell_u^n \hookrightarrow \ell_v^n) \le
\sup_n d_{\tilde{\theta}}[\ell_u^n,\ell_u^n] \cdot
d_\theta[\ell_1,\ell_2]^{1-\tilde{\theta}} < \infty,$$
with $\tilde{\theta} := (1/v -1/2)/(1/u - 1/2)$ and
$1/{s_{\tilde{\theta}}} := (1-\tilde{\theta})/{u'} + \tilde{\theta}/2
=1/2 - 1/u + 1/v=1/s$.
\qed
\par
As in the original proofs of Bennett and Carl the crucial step
in the preceding proof is to show that
for the symmetric Banach sequence space $E=\ell_u$
\begin{equation}
\label{crucial}
\sup_{n} \pi_{r,2} (E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) < \infty,
\end{equation}
where $1 \le u \le 2$ and $1/r =1/u -1/2$. We now prove a result
within the framework of symmetric Banach sequence spaces which shows that
\eqref{crucial} is sharp in a very strong sense.
Take an arbitrary $2$-concave and $u$-convex
Banach sequence space $E$---these geometric assumptions in particular
imply that the continuous inclusions
$\ell_u \subset E \subset \ell_2$ hold---which satisfies \eqref{crucial}. The
following result shows that there is only one such space:
\begin{samepage}
\begin{theo}
\label{converse}
Let $1 \le u \le 2$ and $1/r =1/u -1/2$. For each $2$-concave and $u$-convex
symmetric Banach sequence space $E$ the following are equivalent:
\em \vspace{-5pt}
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item
$\sup_{n} \mu_{u',2}(E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) <\infty$.
\item
$\sup_{n} \pi_{r,2}(E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) < \infty$.
\item
$E=\ell_u$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theo}
\end{samepage}
Clearly we only have to deal with the implication $(2) \Rightarrow (3)$; its
proof is based on two lemmas. For the first one we invent the
notion of ``enough symmetries in the orthogonal group''.
Let $E=(\Bbb{C}^n,\norm{\cdot})$ be an $n$-dimensional Banach space. We say
that $E$ has {\em enough symmetries in $\mathcal{O}(n)$} if there is a compact
subgroup $G$ in $\mathcal{O}(n)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{invariant}
\forall \, u \in {\cal L}(E) \, \forall \, g,g' \in G: \norm{u}=\norm{gug'}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{enough}
\forall \, u \in {\cal L}(E) \text{ with } ug=gu \text{ for all } g \in G
\, \exists \, c \in \Bbb{K}: u = c \cdot \text{{\rm id}}_E.
\end{equation}
Basic examples of spaces with enough symmetries in the orthogonal group are
the finite-dimensional spaces $E_n$ and $\mathcal{S}_E^n$ associated to a symmetric
Banach sequence space $E$.
The following lemma extends
the corresponding results in \cite[p.~233, 236]{CD97}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{2summing}
Let $E_n$ and $F_n$ have enough symmetries in $\mathcal{O}(n)$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{hilfe1}
\pi_2(E_n \hookrightarrow F_n) = n^{1/2} \cdot
\frac{\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow F_n}}{\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow E_n}},
\end{equation}
and for $1 \le k \le n$
\begin{equation}
\label{hilfe2}
\left ( \frac{n-k+1}{n} \right )^{1/2} \cdot
\frac{\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow F_n}}{\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow E_n}}
\le x_k(E_n \hookrightarrow F_n)
\le \left ( \frac{n}{k} \right )^{1/2} \cdot
\frac{\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow F_n}}{\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow E_n}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\proof \eqref{hilfe1}: Trace duality allows to deduce the lower estimate from
the upper one:
$$
n \le \pi_2(\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow F_n) \cdot \pi_2(F_n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n)
\le \norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow E_n} \cdot \pi_2(E_n \hookrightarrow F_n) \cdot n^{1/2}
\cdot \norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow F_n}^{-1}.
$$
For the proof of the upper estimate it may be assumed without loss of
generality that $F_n=\ell_2^n$ (factorize through $\ell_2^n$). In this
case it suffices to show that
$$
\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow E_n}^{-1} \cdot B_{\ell_2^n}
$$
is John's ellipsoid $D_{\max}$ of maximal volume in $B_{E_n}$ (see e.\,g.
\cite[3.8]{pisier89} or \cite[6.30]{djt}).
By definition there is a linear bijection $u: \ell_2^n \rightarrow E_n$
such that $u(B_{\ell_2^n}) = D_{\max}$. In particular, $\norm{u}=1$ and
$N(u^{-1})=n$ ($N$ denotes the nuclear norm, see e.\,g. \cite[3.7]{pisier89}
or \cite[6.30]{djt}). On the other hand by a standard averaging argument
there is a linear bijection $v:\ell_2^n \rightarrow E_n$ with
$\norm{v}=1$,
$N(v^{-1})=n$ and $vg=gv$ for all $ g \in G$,
where $G$ is a compact group in $\mathcal{O}(n)$ satisfying \eqref{invariant} and
\eqref{enough} (see \cite[3.5]{pisier89} which also holds in the complex
case). By property \eqref{enough} of
$G$ and the fact that $\norm{v}=1$ we have
$v=\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow E_n}^{-1} \cdot \text{{\rm id}}$.
Then by Lewis' uniqueness theorem $v^{-1}u \in \mathcal{O}(n)$
(\cite[3.7]{pisier89} or \cite[6.25]{djt}).
Altogether we finally obtain
$$
\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow E_n}^{-1}\cdot B_{\ell_2^n} =v(B_{\ell_2^n})
= v [v^{-1}u(B_{\ell_2^n})]
= u(B_{\ell_2^n})=D_{\max}.
$$
\eqref{hilfe2}: Recall from \eqref{weyl} that
$k^{1/2} \cdot x_k(T) \le \pi_2(T)$ for
every $2$-summing operator $T$ acting between two Banach spaces. Together
with \eqref{hilfe1} this gives the second inequality. The first then follows
from the basic properties of the Weyl numbers (see e.\,g. \cite{koenig}):
\begin{align*}
1 &= x_n(\text{{\rm id}}_{\ell_2^n}) \\
& \le x_k(\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow F_n) \cdot x_{n-k+1}(F_n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) \\
& \le \norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow E_n} \cdot x_k(E_n \hookrightarrow F_n) \cdot
\left (\frac{n}{n-k+1} \right )^{1/2} \cdot \norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow F_n}^{-1}.
\end{align*}
\qed
\\[10pt]
The following obvious examples will be useful later.
\begin{cor}
For $1 \le u,v \le \infty$
\begin{equation}
\label{formel}
\pi_2 (\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n) =
n \cdot \frac{\max(1, n^{1/v -1/2})}{\max(1, n^{1/u -1/2})}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{weylschatten}
x_{[n^2/2]} (\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n) \asymp
\frac{\max(1, n^{1/v -1/2})}{\max(1, n^{1/u -1/2})}.
\end{equation}
\end{cor}
\par
The preceding lemma turns out to be of special interest in combination
with a result
due to Szarek and Tomczak-Jaegermann \cite[proposition~2.2]{stj} which
states that for each $2$-concave symmetric Banach sequence space $E$
\begin{equation}
\label{szarek}
\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow E_n} \asymp n^{-1/2}
\cdot \norm{\sum\nolimits_1^n e_i}_{E_n}.
\end{equation}
The second lemma which we need for the proof of theorem~\ref{converse},
is based on \eqref{szarek} and an important result
about the interpolation of Banach lattices due to Pisier \cite{pisier79}.
\begin{lemma}
For $1 \le u \le 2$ let $E$ be a $u$-convex and $u'$-concave symmetric
Banach sequence space. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{zuerst}
\norm{E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_u^n} \asymp \frac{n^{1/u}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}}.
\end{equation}
In particular, if $E$ is even $2$-concave, then
\begin{equation}
\label{lu}
\norm{E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_u^n} \asymp \frac{n^{1/u}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}}
\asymp \frac{n^{1/u-1/2}}{\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow E_n}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\proof \eqref{lu} follows directly from \eqref{zuerst} and \eqref{szarek},
and clearly $n^{1/u} \le \norm{E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_u^n} \cdot
\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}$.
For the upper estimate in \eqref{zuerst} we only have to consider
$1 < u <2$: The case
$u=1$ is stated below in \eqref{border}, and a $2$-convex and $2$-concave
symmetric Banach sequence space necessarily equals $\ell_2$ with
equivalent norms.
Without loss
of generality we may assume $\mathbf{M^{(u)}}(E)= \mathbf{M_{(u')}}(E)=1$ (see
\cite[1.d.8]{lt}). Then by \cite[theorem~2.2]{pisier79} there exists
a symmetric Banach sequence space $E_0$ such that $E=[E_0,\ell_2]_\theta$
with $\theta=2/{u'}$; moreover, we have $E_n=[E_0^n,\ell_2^n]_\theta$ with
equal norms. The conclusion now follows by interpolation: It can be shown
easily that
\begin{equation}
\label{border}
\norm{E_0^n \hookrightarrow \ell_1^ n} \le \frac{n}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_0^n}}
\end{equation}
(see e.\,g. \cite[proposition~2.5]{stj}), hence
$$
\norm{E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_u^n} \le \norm{E_0^n \hookrightarrow \ell_1^n}^{1-\theta}
\cdot \norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n}^\theta \le
\frac{n^{1-\theta}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_0^n}^{1-\theta}}.
$$
Since $E_n=[E_0^n,\ell_2^n]_\theta$ is of $J$-type $\theta$ (i.\,e.
$\norm{x}_{E_n} \le \norm{x}_{E_0^n}^{1-\theta} \cdot \norm{x}_{\ell_2^n}
^\theta$ for all $x \in E_n$), we have
$$
\norm{{\textstyle \sum_1^n e_i}}_{E_n} \le
\norm{{\textstyle \sum_1^n e_i}}_{E_0^n}^{1-\theta} \cdot
n^{\theta/2},
$$
and consequently
$$
\norm{E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_u^n} \le \frac{n^{1-{\theta/2}}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}}
= \frac{n^{1/u}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}}.
$$
\qed
\\[10pt]
{\em Proof} of the implication $(2) \Rightarrow (3)$ in
theorem~\ref{converse}:
Assume that $\sup_{n} \pi_{r,2}(E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) < \infty$. By
\eqref{weyl}, \eqref{hilfe2} and \eqref{lu}
\begin{equation}
\label{lower}
\pi_{r,2}(E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) \ge [n/2]^{1/r} \cdot x_{[n/2]}(E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n)
\succ \frac{n^{1/r}}{\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow E_n}} \asymp
\norm{E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_u^n},
\end{equation}
which by assumption shows that $\sup_n \norm{E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_u^n} < \infty$.
This clearly gives the claim. \qed
\\[10pt] Note that \eqref{lower} does not depend on
the special choice of $r$.
\par
If $E$ is a $2$-concave and $u$-convex $(1 \le u \le 2)$ symmetric
Banach sequence space
different from $\ell_u$ (i.\,e. the inclusion $\ell_u \subset E$ is strict),
then by theorem~\ref{converse} for $1/r = 1/u-1/2$
$$
\pi_{r,2}(E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) \nearrow \infty.
$$
The following result gives the precise asymptotic order of the sequence
\mbox{$(\pi_{r,2}(E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n))_n$}:
\begin{cor}
\label{precise}
For $1 \le u \le 2$ let $E$ be a $2$-concave and $u$-convex symmetric Banach
sequence space. Then for $2 \le r,s \le \infty$ such that $1/r =1/u-1/2$
and $1/s=1/2-1/r$
$$
\pi_{r,2}(E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) \asymp \mu_{s,2}(E_n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n)
\asymp \frac{n^{1/r+1/2}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}}.
$$
\end{cor}
\proof The lower estimate has already been shown in \eqref{lower}, and the
upper estimate simply follows by factorization through $\ell_u^n$, the
Bennett--Carl inequalities and \eqref{lu}. \qed
\begin{rem}
\label{remark}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
Since a $u$-convex Banach lattice is $p$-convex for all $1\le p \le u$
(see \cite[1.d.5]{lt}), the formula in the preceding theorem even holds
for all $2\le r \le \infty$ such that $1/r \ge 1/u -1/2$.
\item
For $1 \le u \le 2$ let $E$ be a $2$-concave and $u$-convex symmetric
Banach sequence space, $F$ an arbitrary symmetric Banach sequence space,
and let $2 \le r \le \infty$ such that $1/r \ge
1/u -1/2$. Then---by factorization through $\ell_2^n$ for
the upper estimate and \eqref{lower} for the lower one---the following
formula holds:
$$
\pi_{r,2}(E_n \hookrightarrow F_n) \asymp n^{1/r} \cdot \frac{\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow F_n}}
{\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow E_n}};
$$
in particular, if $F$ is a $2$-concave, then
$$
\pi_{r,2}(E_n \hookrightarrow F_n) \asymp n^{1/r} \cdot \frac{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{F_n}}
{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}}.
$$
Note that these results can be considered as extensions of \eqref{hilfe1}.
\item
For the special case $F=\ell_v$ ($1 \le u \le v \le 2$) the formulas in (b)
even hold for all $2 \le r \le \infty$ such that $1/r \ge 1/u -1/v$; simply
repeat the proof of corollary~\ref{precise} for $1/r =1/u -1/v$
and use the argument from remark (a).
\end{enumerate}
\end{rem}
\section{\sc Bennett--Carl Inequalities for Unitary Ideals}
We now use Junge's counterpart \eqref{koubas} of \eqref{koubal} and our
interpolation theorem~\ref{mixing} in order to show
a ``non-commutative'' analogue. Note first that for all
$1 \le u,v \le \infty$ and $2 \le r \le \infty$
\begin{equation}
\label{low}
n^{1/r} \le \pi_{r,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n),
\end{equation}
and hence also for $2 \le s \le \infty$
$$ n^{1/2 -1/s} \le \mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n);$$
this is a consequence of the
trivial estimate $\pi_{r,2}(\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) \ge n^{1/r}$ (insert
$e_k$'s) and the fact that $\ell_2^n$ is $1$-complemented in each $\mathcal{S}_u^n$
(assign to each $x \in \ell_2^n$ the matrix $x \otimes e_1 \in \mathcal{S}_u^n$).
For $u,v$ considered in corollary~\ref{beca}
this lower bound is optimal:
\begin{cor}
\label{schatten}
Let $1 \le u \le 2 $ and $1 \le u \le v \le \infty$. Then for $2 \le s \le
\infty$ such that $1/s= 1/2 - 1/u + \max(1/v,1/2)$
$$ \mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n) \asymp n^{1/2-1/s}.$$
In particular, for $2 \le r \le \infty$ and $1/r = 1/u - \max(1/v,1/2)$
$$\pi_{r,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n) \asymp n^{1/r}.$$
\end{cor}
\proof The proof of the upper bound is analogous to that of
corollary~\ref{beca}:
Of course the complex interpolation formula for $\mathcal{S}_p^n$'s is needed
instead of that for $\ell_p^n$'s, and
in i) use $\pi_2(\mathcal{S}_1^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n) = n^{1/2}$ (see \eqref{formel}) and
Junge's result \eqref{koubas} in order to obtain
$$
\mu_{u',2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n) \le d_\theta[\mathcal{S}_1^n,\mathcal{S}_2^n] \cdot n^{(1-\theta)/2}
\le d_\theta[\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2] \cdot n^{1/u-1/2},
$$
where $\theta=2/{u'}$.
Then in ii) one arrives at
$$ \mu_{s_{\tilde{\theta}},2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n) \prec n^{(1-\tilde{\theta})(1/u - 1/2)}
=n^{1/u-1/v}, $$
with $\tilde{\theta} := (1/v -1/2)/(1/u - 1/2)$ and
$1/{s_{\tilde{\theta}}} = (1-\tilde{\theta})/{u'} + \theta/2
=1/2 - 1/u + 1/v$=1/s.\qed
\par
Exploiting the ideas of the preceding section one easily obtains the
asymptotic order of the $(r,2)$-summing and the $(s,2)$-mixing norm of
identities between finite-dimensional unitary ideals $\mathcal{S}_E^n$ and
$\mathcal{S}_2^n$:
\begin{cor}
\label{unitary}
For $1 \le u \le 2$ let $E$ be a $2$-concave and $u$-convex symmetric
Banach sequence space. Then for all $2\le r,s \le \infty$ such that
$1/r \ge 1/u -1/2$ and $1/s =1/2-1/r$
$$
\pi_{r,2}(\mathcal{S}_E^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n) \asymp
\mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_E^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n) \asymp \frac{n^{2/r+1/2}}{\norm{\sum_1^n
e_i}_{E_n}}.
$$
\end{cor}
\proof Recall the simple fact that for all
symmetric Banach sequence spaces $E$ and $F$
\begin{equation}
\label{ssui}
\norm{\mathcal{S}_E^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_F^n} = \norm{E_n \hookrightarrow F_n},
\end{equation}
and by the same reasoning as in remark~\ref{remark} (a) it is enough to deal
with the case $1/r=1/u-1/2$. Then factorization through $\mathcal{S}_u^n$ and
\eqref{lu} give
$$
\mu_{u',2}(\mathcal{S}_E^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n) \prec \norm{\mathcal{S}_E^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_u^n} \cdot n^{1/u-1/2}
\asymp \frac{n^{2/u-1/2}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}}
=\frac{n^{2/r+1/2}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}},
$$
and in order to obtain the lower estimate apply again \eqref{hilfe2} together
with \eqref{weyl} and the second asymptotic in \eqref{lu}:
$$
\pi_{r,2}(\mathcal{S}_E^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n) \ge [n^2/2]^{1/r} \cdot x_{[n^2/2]}(\mathcal{S}_E^n
\hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n) \succ \frac{n^{2/r}}{\norm{\ell_2^n \hookrightarrow E_n}} \asymp
\frac{n^{2/r+1/2}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}}.
$$
\qed
\section{\sc Applications}
\subsection*{Weyl Numbers}
The results of the preceding sections can be used to improve
the estimates for Weyl numbers of identities on symmetric
Banach sequence spaces and
unitary ideals in \eqref{hilfe2}: The exponent $1/2$ in each of the two
inequalities there can be replaced by $1/u-1/2$ whenever $u$-convexity
and $2$-concavity assumptions are made.
\begin{cor}
\label{weylcor}
For $1 \le u,v \le 2$ let $E$ and $F$ be $2$-concave
symmetric Banach sequence spaces where $E$ is $u$-convex and $F$ is $v$-convex.
Then there exist constants $C_u,C_v>0$ such that for all
$1 \le k \le n$
$$
C_v^{-1} \cdot \left (\frac{n-k+1}{n} \right )^{1/v-1/2}
\cdot \frac{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{F_n}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}} \le
x_k(E_n \hookrightarrow F_n) \le C_u \cdot \left (\frac{n}{k} \right )^{1/u-1/2}
\cdot \frac{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{F_n}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}},
$$
and all $1 \le k \le n^2$
$$
C_v^{-1} \cdot \left (\frac{n^2-k+1}{n^2} \right )^{1/v-1/2}
\cdot \frac{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{F_n}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}} \le
x_k(\mathcal{S}_E^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_F^n)
\le C_u \cdot \left (\frac{n^2}{k}
\right )^{1/u-1/2}
\cdot \frac{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{F_n}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{E_n}}.
$$
\end{cor}
\proof The upper estimates follow by using the inequality~\eqref{weyl}
and the results from the preceding two sections, and the lower estimates
then are immediate consequences of the upper ones---simply repeat the proof
of \eqref{hilfe2} with a different exponent. \qed
\\[10pt]
Recall that for the embedding $\ell_u^n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n$, $1 \le u \le 2$
by \cite[2.3.3]{CD92} even the following equality is known:
$x_k(\ell_u^n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n)=k^{1/2-1/u}$, $1 \le k \le n$. The second
estimate in corollary~\ref{weylcor} implies that for $1 <u<2$
$$
x_k(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n) \le C_u \cdot \left ( \frac{n}{k} \right)^{1/u-1/2},
$$
hence by \cite[2.3.2]{CD92}
$$
a_k(\mathcal{S}_2^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_u^n) \ge C_u^{-1} \cdot \left
(\frac{n^2-k+1}{n}\right)^{1/u-1/2}.
$$
This disproves the conjecture
$$
a_k(\mathcal{S}_2^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_u^n) \asymp \max \left (1,\left
(\frac{n^2-k+1}{n^2}\right)^{1/2} \cdot n^{1/u-1/2} \right)
$$
from \cite[p.~249]{CD97} (put $k:=[n^2-n^\alpha+1]$, $1 < \alpha <2$).
\subsection*{Identities on Orlicz and Lorentz Sequence Spaces}
In the following we apply our results, in particular the
corollaries~\ref{precise} and \ref{unitary},
to two natural examples of
symmetric sequence spaces: Orlicz and Lorentz sequence spaces
(for their definition and basic properties we refer to \cite{lt77}). We only
treat the case where the range space of the embedding is the
finite-dimensional Hilbert space and leave the formulation for other spaces
and the corollaries for Weyl numbers to the reader.
\par Let us start with
Orlicz sequence spaces $\ell_M$.
\begin{cor}
Let $1 <u < 2$ and $M$ be a strictly increasing Orlicz function which
satisfies the $\Delta_2$-condition at zero. Assume that there exists
$K>0$ such that for all $s,t \in (0,1]$
\begin{equation}
K^{-1} \cdot s^2 \le {M(st)}/{M(t)} \le K \cdot s^u.
\label{orlicz}
\end{equation}
Then for $2 < r,s < \infty$ such that $1/r >1/u-1/2$ and $1/s=1/2 -1/r$
$$\pi_{r,2}(\ell_M^n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) \asymp \mu_{s,2}(\ell_M^n \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n)
\asymp \frac{n^{1/r+1/2}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{\ell_M^n}}
\asymp n^{1/r+1/2} \cdot M^{-1}(1/n)
$$
and
$$\pi_{r,2}(\mathcal{S}_{\ell_M}^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n) \asymp \mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_{\ell_M}^n
\hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n)
\asymp \frac{n^{2/r+1/2}}{\norm{\sum_1^n e_i}_{\ell_M^n}}
\asymp n^{2/r+1/2} \cdot M^{-1}(1/n).
$$
\end{cor}
Note that \eqref{orlicz} together with the $\Delta_2$-condition assures that
$\ell_M$ is $2$-concave and $p$-convex for all $1 \le p < u$ (see
\cite[2.b.5]{lt}).
\par
Now we state an analogue for Lorentz sequence spaces $d(w,u)$.
\begin{cor}
\label{lorentzcor}
Let $1 < u <2$ and $w$ be such that
$ n \cdot w_n^q \asymp \sum_{i=1}^n w_i^q,$ where $q=2/(2-u)$. Then
for $2 < r,s < \infty$
such that $1/r \ge 1/u -1/2$ and $1/s=1/2-1/r$
$$\pi_{r,2}(d_n(w,u) \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n) \asymp \mu_{s,2}(d_n(w,u) \hookrightarrow \ell_2^n)
\asymp n^{1/r +1/2 -1/u} \cdot w_n^{-{1/u}}.
$$
and
$$\pi_{r,2}(\mathcal{S}_{d(w,u)}^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n) \asymp \mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_{d(w,u)}^n
\hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n)
\asymp n^{2/r +1/2 -1/u} \cdot w_n^{-{1/u}}.
$$
\end{cor}
Recall that the space $d(w,u)$ is $u$-convex, and if $1 \le u<2$, it is
$2$-concave if and only if $w$ satisfies the condition in the assumption
of the corollary
(see \cite[p.~245--247]{reisner}).
\subsection*{Limit Orders}
Finally, we consider the asymptotic order of the sequences $(\pi_{r,2}
(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n))_n$ for arbitrary $2 \le r \le \infty$,
$1 \le u,v \le \infty$.
Define the limit orders
$$\lambda_\ell(\Pi_{r,2},u,v) := \inf \{ \lambda>0 \, | \,
\exists \, \rho>0 \, \forall \, n: \pi_{r,2}(\ell_u^n \hookrightarrow \ell_v^n) \le \rho
\cdot n^\lambda\}$$
and
$$\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}(\Pi_{r,2},u,v) := \inf \{ \lambda>0 \, | \,
\exists \, \rho>0 \, \forall \,n: \pi_{r,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n) \le \rho \cdot
n^\lambda\}.$$
Here we only handle the limit order of summing operators since---using the
fact that $\Pi_{r,2}$ and ${\cal M}_{s,2}$ for $1/s + 1/r = 1/2$
are almost equal---one can easily see that $\lambda_\ell(\Pi_{r,2},u,v)=
\lambda_\ell({\cal M}_{r,2},u,v)$ and
$\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}(\Pi_{r,2},u,v)= \lambda_{\mathcal{S}}({\cal M}_{r,2},u,v)$
(with the obvious definition for the right
sides of these equalities; see \cite[22.3.7]{pietsch}).
\par
The calculation of the limit order
$\lambda_\ell(\Pi_{r,2},u,v)$ was completed in \cite{CMP}:
\begin{center}
\small
\unitlength3pt
\begin{picture}(60,50)
\put(10,10){\framebox(40,40)}
\put(30,10){\line(0,1){40}}
\put(30,30){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(40,10){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(40,30){\line(1,1){10}}
\put(10,20){\line(2,1){20}}
\put(40,10){\makebox(10,22){$0$}}
\put(30,10){\makebox(10,20){\shortstack{$\frac{1}{r}+ \frac{1}{2}$ \\
$-\frac{1}{u}$}}}
\put(30,35){\makebox(20,15){$\frac{1}{r} +
\frac{1}{v}-\frac{1}{u}$}}
\put(10,10){\makebox(20,12){$\frac{1}{r}$}}
\put(10,30){\makebox(20,20){$\frac{1}{v}- (1-\frac{2}{r} )
\frac{1}{u}$}}
\put(5,20){\makebox(0,0){$\frac{1}{r}$}}
\put(30,5){\makebox(0,0){$\frac{1}{2}$}}
\put(40,5){\makebox(0,0){$\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{r}$}}
\put(55,40){\makebox(0,0){$\frac{1}{r'}$}}
\put(7,53){\makebox(0,0){$1/v$}}
\put(53,7){\makebox(0,0){$1/u$}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
Moreover, the proof in \cite{CMP} shows that the limit order is attained:
$\pi_{r,2}(\ell_u^n \hookrightarrow \ell_v^n) \asymp n^{\lambda_\ell(\Pi_{r,2},u,v)}$.
In view of the results of section~4 the following conjecture seems to be
natural:
\\[10pt]
{\bf Conjecture:} $\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}(\Pi_{r,2},u,v)=1/r +
\lambda_\ell(\Pi_{r,2},u,v)$.
\par
For the border cases $r=2$ (the $2$-summing norm) and $r=\infty$
(the operator norm) this conjecture by \eqref{hilfe1} and
\eqref{formel} is true.
In the following corollary we confirm the upper estimates of
this conjecture for all $u,v$ and the lower ones for all $u,v$ except
those in the upper left corner of the picture.
\begin{cor}
Let $1 \le u ,v\le $ and $2 < r < \infty$.
\vspace{-10pt}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}(\Pi_{r,2},u,v)=1/r + \lambda_\ell(\Pi_{r,2},u,v)$ \quad
for $1 \le u \le 2$.
\item
$\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}(\Pi_{r,2},u,v) \le 1/r + \lambda_\ell(\Pi_{r,2},u,v)$ \quad
for $2 \le u \le \infty$,
with equality whenever \mbox{$1/v \le 1/r + (1- 2/r)(1/u)$.}
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\proof Let $1/s:=1/2-1/r$. The upper estimates for the case
$1 \le u \le 2$ follow from
corollary~\ref{schatten}: Consider for $u_0 :=(1/2-1/r)^{-1}$ the
following alternative: (i) $1/u \le 1/{u_0}$ or (ii) $1/u > 1/{u_0}$. Then
the conclusion in case~(i) is a consequence of
corollary~\ref{schatten} and the following factorization:
$$
\mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n) \le \norm{\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_{u_0}^n} \cdot
\mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_{u_0}^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n) \cdot \norm{\mathcal{S}_2^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n}
\prec n^{2/r +1/2-1/u + \max(0,1/v-1/2)},
$$
and for (ii) look with $v_0:= (1/u-1/r)^{-1} \le 2$ at
\begin{align*}
\mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n) \le \mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_{v_0}^n) \cdot
\norm{\mathcal{S}_{v_0}^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n} \prec n^{1/r + \max(0,1/r+1/v-1/u)}.
\end{align*}
Now let $2 \le u \le \infty$. Although this part is very
close to the calculations made in \cite[Lemma~6]{CMP}, we give a short sketch
of the proof for the convenience of the reader. By \eqref{formel}
and theorem~\ref{mixing} (with no interpolation in the range or the image),
\begin{align*}
\mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n) \le \pi_2(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n)^{2/r} \cdot
\norm{\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n}^{1-{2/r}}= n^{1/r +1/2 -(1-2/r)(1/u)},
\end{align*}
hence, by factorization, for $1 \le v \le 2$
$$
\mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n) \le n^{1/r + 1/v -(1-{2/r})(1/u)}.
$$
Furthermore, for $1/{v_1} := 1/r + (1-{2/r})(1/u)$
\begin{align*}
\mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_{v_1}^n ) \le \pi_2(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n)^{2/r}
\cdot \norm{\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_u^n}^{1-{2/r}} = n^{2/r},
\end{align*}
hence
$$\mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n) \le n^{2/r} $$
for all $v_1 \le v \le \infty$. Finally, for all $2 < v < v_1$ and
$0< \theta <1$ such that $1/v= (1-\theta)/{v_1} + \theta/2$
\begin{align*}
\mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n) &\le \mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_{v_1}^n)
^{1-\theta} \cdot \mu_{s,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_2^n)^\theta \\
& \le n^{1/r + (1-\theta)/r + \theta(1/2 -(1-{2/r})(1/u))}
= n^{1/r + 1/v -(1-{2/r})(1/u)}.
\end{align*}
Looking at the picture for $\lambda_\ell(\Pi_{r,2}, u,v)$ one can see that
these are the desired results.
For the lower estimates recall \eqref{weyl}:
$$ [{n^2}/2 ]^{1/r} \cdot x_{[{n^2}/2 ]}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n) \le
\pi_{r,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n),$$
hence \eqref{weylschatten} implies
$$\pi_{r,2}(\mathcal{S}_u^n \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}_v^n) \succ
\begin{cases}
n^{2/r + 1/v - 1/u} & \text{if $1 \le u,v \le 2$,}\\
n^{2/r + 1/2 -1/u} & \text{if $1 \le u \le 2 \le v \le \infty$,} \\
n^{2/r} & \text{if $2 \le u,v \le \infty$.}
\end{cases}
$$
Using \eqref{low}, these estimates can be improved for those
$u,v$ for which $\lambda_\ell(\Pi_{r,2},u,v)=0$.
\qed
\par
Our results for $\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}(\Pi_{r,2},u,v)$ can be summarized in the
following picture:
\begin{center}
\small
\unitlength3pt
\begin{picture}(60,60)
\put(10,10){\framebox(40,40)}
\put(30,10){\line(0,1){40}}
\put(30,30){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(40,10){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(40,30){\line(1,1){10}}
\put(10,20){\line(2,1){20}}
\put(40,10){\makebox(10,22){$\frac{1}{r}$}}
\put(30,10){\makebox(10,20){\shortstack{$\frac{2}{r}+ \frac{1}{2}$ \\
$-\frac{1}{u}$}}}
\put(30,35){\makebox(20,15){$\frac{2}{r} +
\frac{1}{v}-\frac{1}{u}$}}
\put(10,10){\makebox(20,12){$\frac{2}{r}$}}
\put(10,30){\makebox(20,20){\shortstack{$ \le \frac{1}{r} + \frac{1}{v}$ \\
$ \text{ } - (1-\frac{2}{r}) \frac{1}{u}$}}}
\put(5,20){\makebox(0,0){$\frac{1}{r}$}}
\put(30,5){\makebox(0,0){$\frac{1}{2}$}}
\put(40,5){\makebox(0,0){$\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{r}$}}
\put(55,40){\makebox(0,0){$\frac{1}{r'}$}}
\put(7,53){\makebox(0,0){$1/v$}}
\put(53,7){\makebox(0,0){$1/u$}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\par
The contents of this article will be part of the second named author's
thesis written at the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg under
the supervision of the first named author.
\newcommand{\etalchar}[1]{$^{#1}$}
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
|
\section{Introduction}
The strong interaction at low energies, i.e.
elastic nucleon-nucleon scattering, is reasonably described by
$\pi$, $\sigma$, $\eta$, $\rho$ and $\omega$-meson
exchanges between the nucleons and the detailed experimental data on
$NN{\to}NN$ reactions have provided information about the
meson-nucleon-nucleon vertices, i.e. coupling constants and
form factors.
Above the pion production threshold the dominant inelasticy of
the $NN$ interactions is due to pion production.
Already in 1960 Woodruff~\cite{Woodruff}
proposed to extend the $NN$ potential model in order to
calculate $NN{\to}NN{\pi}$ reactions.
Near the reaction threshold the contribution from $\Delta$ intermediate
states is expected to be negligible and the $S$-wave pion production
is governed by the ${\pi}NN$ vertex. Thus pion production
is suited to verify our knowledge about the ${\pi}NN$ coupling constant.
A similar motivation also holds for near threshold $\eta$-meson
production, when the $S_{11}$ resonance replaces
the $\Delta$, and the $\eta$ production cross section should provide
some information about the ${\eta}NN$ vertex. Note that the
status of the ${\eta}NN$ coupling constant is still an open
problem~\cite{Tiator,Feuster,Sibirtsev1} since within our present
knowledge $g_{{\eta}NN}$ might vary between 1 and 9 depending
on the model adopted as well as the accuracy of the experimental data.
Near threshold $\omega$, $\phi$ and $\eta^\prime$-meson
production in $NN$ collisions should provide information about
the relevant $MNN$ couplings as well as on
intermediate baryonic resonances that might be
coupled strongly to these mesons; this is discussed as $hidden$
resonance properties. Obviously the strangeness production in
$NN$ collisions involves an additional mechanism due to
strange meson exchange ($K, K^*$) and sheds light on
the kaon-hyperon-nucleon vertex.
We will base our analysis in this work on the combined efforts of many
experimental groups that have taken data on near threshold meson
production: These type of experiments for
$NN$ collisions were started at the Indiana University Cyclotron
Facility with data on the $pp{\to}pp\pi^0$ reaction
at excess energies $\epsilon{=}\sqrt{s}{-}2m_N{-}m_\pi$ from
$\simeq$1 to $\simeq$30~MeV~\cite{Meyer1,Meyer2}.
The data at $\epsilon{\leq}$1~MeV were complemented by
CELSIUS (Uppsala)~\cite{Bondar}; recently also IUCF
reported~\cite{Hardie,Flammang} new cross sections on the
$pp{\to}pn\pi^+$ reaction at $\epsilon{<}$20~MeV.
The near threshold $\eta$-meson production in $pp$ collisions
was studied at SATURNE by the collaborations SATURNE-II~\cite{Bergdolt}
and PINOT~\cite{Chiavassa} and at
CELSIUS~\cite{Calen1}. These measurements cover the range
${\simeq}1.5{\le}\epsilon{\le}100$~MeV. In 1998 CELSIUS reported
also data~\cite{Calen2} on the $pn{\to}pn\eta$ reaction at
$16{\le}\epsilon{\le}100$~MeV.
Additionally, the $pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$ reaction was studied at SATURNE
by SPES-III~\cite{Hibou} and at the COoler SYnchrotron (J\"ulich)
by COSY-11~\cite{Moscal} at $\epsilon{<}$10~MeV.
Furthermore, the $pp{\to}pp\omega$ reaction
was measured at SATURNE by the DISTO Collaboration;
they reported~\cite{Balestra} data
on $\omega$-meson production from $pp$ collisions at
$\epsilon{\simeq}320$~MeV and $\phi$ production at
$\epsilon{\simeq}82$~MeV. The data on the $pp{\to}pp\omega$
reaction at $\epsilon{<}$31~MeV were measured by SPESIII
and have been reported only very recently~\cite{Hibou1}.
The $pp{\to}p{\Lambda}K^+$ reaction was measured
by the COSY-11~\cite{Balewski} and the COSY-TOF~\cite{Bilger}
Collaborations; COSY-11 also has reported on the
$pp{\to}p\Sigma^0K^+$ reaction~\cite{Sewerin}.
It should be noted that
apart from the $\pi^0$ and $\eta$ data the experimental
results on near threshold meson production in $NN$ collisions
have became available only during the last years. This has initialized
a lot of theoretical activity and inspired the most
recent calculations within meson-exchange models.
Here we present a systematical analysis
of the data and provide the relation between the
experimental observables and the production mechanism, respectively.
Our work is organized as follows: In Section 2 we will describe the
threshold kinematics and discuss various approaches for the final
state interactions (FSI). Section 3 is devoted to an analysis of
the available data with the aim to extract average production
matrix elements for the mesons measured so far. In Section 4 we will
discuss the effect of FSI and resonance amplitudes on differential
observables while Section 5 concludes this study with a summary.
\begin{figure}[t]
\label{memo9}
\centerline{
\psfig{file=memo9.ps,height=8cm,width=13.5cm}}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.8cm}
\caption[]{Experimental data on the
$pp{\to}pp\pi^0$ \protect\cite{Meyer1,Meyer2,Bondar,LB}
and $pp{\to}pn\pi^+$ \protect\cite{Hardie,Flammang,LB}
reaction amplitude as a function of the excess energy $\epsilon$.}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.7cm}
\end{figure}
\section{Threshold kinematics and Final State Interactions}
The threshold kinematics have several features that request
specific conditions for the experimental measurements as well as
the theoretical analysis. We note that within nonrelativistic
approaches the
three-body phase space $\Phi_3$ is proportional to $\epsilon^2$.
Thus data on threshold meson production are frequently analyzed in
terms of the $reduced$ $cross$ $section$ $\sigma{/}\epsilon^2$.
In~\cite{Sibirtsev2} we have proposed to analyze the data in a more
transparent way in terms of an average reaction amplitude
(for fixed invariant energy $\sqrt{s}$) as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{average}
|M_R| &=&
2^4 \ \pi^{3/2} \ \lambda^{1/4}(s,m_N^2,m_N^2) \ \sqrt{\sigma s}
\nonumber \\
&\times& \left\lbrack \ \intop^{(\sqrt{s}-m_a)^2}_{(m_b+m_c)^2}
\hspace{-0.3cm} \lambda^{1/2}(s,s_1,m_a^2) \
\lambda^{1/2}(s_1,m_b^2,m_c^2) \
\frac{ds_1}{s_1} \right\rbrack^{-1/2}
\end{eqnarray}
with ${\lambda}(x,y,z){=}(x{-}y{-}z)^2{-}4yz$ and $m_a, m_b, m_c$ denoting the
masses of the particles in the final state.
Furthermore, among the five variables characterizing the three-body
final state, there are two of direct physical relevance: the invariant
mass $\sqrt{s_1}$ of two final particles $b$ and $c$ and the
4-momentum squared $t$ transfered from the initial nucleon to
particle $a$. These variables allow to express the production amplitude
in the meson-exchange mechanism. Note that $\sqrt{s_1}$ varies from
$m_b{+}m_c$ up to $m_b{+}m_c{+}\epsilon$. Since the width
of the known baryonic resonances is larger than 100~MeV,
it is not possible - within a narrow $\epsilon$ range -
to detect directly an intermediate baryonic resonance coupled to
$bc$ (meson + nucleon or hyperon) and to reconstruct experimentally
the relevant production mechanism~\cite{Sibirtsev1,Sibirtsev3}.
Therefore complete measurements have to be performed at least up
to $\epsilon{\simeq}$100~MeV.
Close to threshold both $\sqrt{s_1}$ and $t$ vary only slightly
and the production amplitude itself is expected to be almost
constant. Fig. \ref{memo9} shows the amplitudes for the
$pp{\to}pp\pi^0$ and $pp{\to}pn\pi^+$ reactions extracted from the
experimental data~\cite{Meyer1,Meyer2,Bondar,Hardie,Flammang,LB}
using Eq. (\ref{average}). The amplitudes substantially depend
on the excess energy $\epsilon$ but seem to approach a constant
value for large excess energies. Such a deviation from a constant
value has been predicted by Watson~\cite{Watson} and
Migdal~\cite{Migdal} due to the strong $S$-wave interaction between
the final nucleons.
Indeed the Watson-Migdal theorem can be understood, for instance,
in terms of the $pp$ cross section shown in Fig.\ref{memo6-8}a) as
a function of the proton momentum $q$ in the center-of-mass
system. The cross section is enhanced at low $q$ due to
the $^1S_0$ partial wave~\cite{SP99} as shown by the
solid line in Fig. \ref{memo6-8}a). Above about 400 MeV/c
the elastic cross section approaches again a constant as
indicated by the dashed line. It is thus expected that the
production of mesons is enhanced when the protons
emerge with a low relative momentum in the final state.
\begin{figure}[h]
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.4cm}
\centerline{
\begin{minipage}[l]{6cm}
\psfig{file=memo8.ps,width=6.2cm,height=8.6cm}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}[l]{6cm}
\psfig{file=memo6.ps,width=6.2cm,height=8.6cm}
\end{minipage}}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.6cm}
\caption[]{a) Total (circles) and elastic (squares) cross
sections for the $pp$ interaction as a function of the momentum in the
$pp$ cms. The data are from Ref. \protect\cite{LB}.
The solid line shows the contribution from the $^1S_0$ partial
wave~\protect\cite{SP99}, while the dashed line indicates the
large momentum limit. b) Correction factor due to
final-state-interactions (FSI).
The squared $pp$ scattering amplitudes are shown for $^1S_0$ (circles),
$^3P_0$ (squares) and $^3P_1$ (triangles) partial
waves~\protect\cite{Nijmegen}. The dotted line shows the result from
the effective range approximation, the dashed line shows the
inverse squared
Jost function without Coulomb correction, while the solid line includes a
Coulomb correction. Further notations are explained in the text.}
\label{memo6-8}
\end{figure}
Note that in the $NN{\to}NNM$ reaction the momentum $q$ varies from
zero up to ${\simeq}\sqrt{m_N\epsilon}$. Obviously at large
excess energies the contribution from FSI due to the strong
$S$-wave to the total $pp{\to}pp\pi^0$ cross section seems to be
not dominant, since one should integrate over the
wide phase space. However, $S$-wave FSI can be detected by
differential observables even at large $\epsilon$ as
we will illustrate in the following. For $\epsilon{\le}25$~MeV
the FSI between the protons is entirely due to the $^1S_0$-wave.
At higher energies the $pp$ cross section deviates from the
calculations with the $^1S_0$ phase shift as can be seen from
Fig.\ref{memo6-8}a) and is indicated by an arrow.
Now the deviation of the $NN{\to}NN\pi$ reaction amplitude
shown in Fig.\ref{memo9} from a constant
can be understood within the Watson-Migdal approximation. Moreover, the
difference in the energy dependence of the $pp{\to}pp\pi^0$
and $pp{\to}pn\pi^+$ reaction amplitudes at $\epsilon{\le}1$~MeV
is due to the Coulomb interaction between the final nucleons,
which is absent in
$np$ scattering, but influences the final $pp$ scattering
for $\epsilon{\le}1$~MeV as can be seen from Fig.\ref{memo6-8}b.
Taking the near threshold production amplitude
$M$ as a constant, it was proposed in Refs.\cite{Watson,Migdal}
to factorize the reaction amplitude $M_R$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{wm}
M_R = M \times C_{FSI} ,
\end{equation}
where $C_{FSI}$ stands for the amplitude due to the interaction
between the final particles. Strictly one should account
for the three-body FSI, which itself is a rigorous problem.
As was suggested by Gell-Mann and Watson~\cite{GellMann} the
near threshold $NN{\to}NN\pi$ reaction might be examined when
considering the dominance of low energy $NN$ scattering as
compared to the $S$-wave ${\pi}N$ interaction and taking
$C_{FSI}$ as the $S$-wave $NN$ on-shell scattering amplitude $T_s$.
Obviously, the produced particles are off-shell before
rescattering due to FSI, which in principle involves an additional
assumption about the off-shell correction to $T_s$.
Fig.\ref{memo6-8}b) shows the squared $^1S_0$, $^3P_0$ and
$^3P_1$ $pp$ scattering amplitudes calculated with
the phase shifts from the Nijmegen partial wave
analysis~\cite{Nijmegen}. At low $\epsilon$ the $S$-wave
amplitude dominates and for further
implementation to $NN{\to}NNM$ calculations can be
expressed within the effective range approximation as
\begin{equation}
\label{scat}
T_s(q) = \left( -\frac{1}{a_s}+\frac{r_s q^2}{2}-iq \right)^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $a_s{=}{-}7.8$~fm and $r_s{=}2.79$~fm~\cite{Stoks} denote the
scattering length and effective range, respectively.
The effective range approximation is shown in Fig.\ref{memo6-8}b)
by the dotted line and is valid for excess energies $\epsilon$ from
1 up to 40~MeV.
Another way~\cite{Taylor} to account for FSI is to
express $C_{FSI}$ as an inverse $S$-wave Jost function
\begin{equation}
\label{Jost}
C_{FSI}(q) = \frac{q+i\beta}{q-i\alpha},
\end{equation}
where the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are related to the
effective range parameters as
\begin{equation}
\label{range}
a_s=\frac{\alpha + \beta}{\alpha \beta}, \hspace{2cm}
r_s= \frac{2}{\alpha + \beta}.
\end{equation}
The squared inverse Jost function is shown by the dashed
line in Fig.\ref{memo6-8}b) and is close to the effective range
approximation only for $\epsilon{\le}5$~MeV. Note that Eq.(\ref{Jost})
approaches unity at large momenta $q$ since the $S$-wave FSI
does not contribute at large $q$, which is the proper boundary
condition in terms of the factorization (\ref{wm}). Furthermore, to
account for the Coulomb repulsion at $\epsilon{\le}1$ one can
correct $C_{FSI}$ in line with the Gamov factor (solid line in Fig. 2b).
Finally, when calculating the FSI within different approaches as
the $NN$ scattering amplitude itself or with the Jost function or an
effective range approximation including Coulomb corrections we
find no severe differences up to excess energies of
${\simeq}5$~MeV. Furthermore, since the $S$-wave dominates the
$NN$ scattering up to $\epsilon{\simeq}25$~MeV, the Jost function
is an appropriate way to account for FSI corrections because
it approaches unity at large $\epsilon$ in line with the
factorization ansatz. The disadvantage of the method is due
to the implementation of the on-shell $NN{\to}NN$ amplitude.
However, off-shell corrections will introduce new parameters
to the calculations that later on should be controlled by data.
\begin{figure}[t]
\psfig{file=memo3.ps,width=13.0cm,height=8cm}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-1.1cm}
\caption[]{Experimental data~\protect\cite{Meyer1,Meyer2,Bondar,LB}
on the average $pp{\to}pp\pi^0$ production amplitude as a function of the
excess energy $\epsilon$ calculated without (upper part)
and with Coulomb correction (lower part).
The solid lines show the fit with a constant value for the
production matrix element.}
\label{memo3}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.8cm}
\end{figure}
\section{Evaluation of the production amplitude from the data}
Now we adopt the on-shell approach and use the Jost function in
order to account for the FSI correction. Moreover, we perform the data
analysis with and without Coulomb correction to demonstrate the
systematic uncertainties. To calculate the
production amplitude $|M|$ we substitute the function $C_{FSI}(q)$
in the integral of Eq.(\ref{average}).
Fig.\ref{memo3} shows the average $pp{\to}pp\pi^0$ production
amplitude as a function of the excess energy $\epsilon$.
In this representation the data are almost energy
independent and approach a constant value. For $\epsilon{<}1$~MeV
two data points from Ref.\cite{Bondar} substantially deviate from
the constant for calculations without the $pp$ Coulomb repulsion,
but become closer to a constant value after Coulomb correction.
However, to shed light on the Coulomb effect one needs more data
at $\epsilon{<}1$~MeV.
We also notice that the 1992 IUCF data~\cite{Meyer2} are better described
by a constant amplitude $|M|$ as compared to the 1990 IUCF
data~\cite{Meyer1}. Our analysis with Coulomb correction
gives $|M|\approx 82$~fm for the $pp{\to}pp\pi^0$ reaction while we get
$|M| \approx$ 79 fm without this correction which indicates the
systematic uncertainty of our analysis.
\begin{figure}[h]
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.8cm}
\centerline{
\begin{minipage}[l]{6cm}
\psfig{file=memo2.ps,width=6.2cm,height=8cm}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}[l]{6cm}
\psfig{file=memo1.ps,width=6.2cm,height=8cm}
\end{minipage}}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption[]{Experimental data on the average
$pp{\to}pp\eta$~\protect\cite{Bergdolt,Chiavassa,Calen1}
and $pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$~\protect\cite{Hibou,Moscal}
production amplitudes calculated with and without Coulomb
repulsion. The solid lines show the fit with a constant value for
the production matrix element.}
\label{memo2-1}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.7cm}
\end{figure}
In a similar way we evaluate the average production
amplitude from the total cross sections for the
$pp{\to}pp\eta$~\protect\cite{Bergdolt,Chiavassa,Calen1},
$pp{\to}pp\omega$~\cite{Hibou1}
and $pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$~\protect\cite{Hibou,Moscal}
reactions and show the result in Figs.\ref{memo2-1},\ref{memo19}.
The results for the $pp{\to}pp\omega$ reaction are shown for
a fixed $\omega$-meson pole mass (squares) and for the calculation
with a Breit-Wigner $\omega$ spectral function (circles), which is
explicitely given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{wigner}
|M_R|=
2^{9/2} \ \pi^2 \ \lambda^{1/4}(s,m_N^2,m_N^2) \ \sqrt{\sigma s}
\left\lbrack \ \intop^{\sqrt{s}-2m_N}_{m_\pi}\hspace{-0.3cm}
\frac{\Gamma \ dx}{(x-m_\omega)^2+\Gamma^2/4} \right.
\nonumber \\
\times \left. \ \hspace{-0.2cm} \intop^{(\sqrt{s}-x)^2}_{4m_N^2}
\hspace{-0.3cm} \lambda^{1/2}(s,s_1,x^2) \
\lambda^{1/2}(s_1,m_N^2,m_N^2) \ \
\left| C_{eff}(0.5\sqrt{s_1-4m_N^2}) \right|^2
\ \ \frac{ds_1}{s_1} \right\rbrack^{-1/2}
\end{eqnarray}
with the vacuum $\omega$-meson width $\Gamma{=}8.41$~MeV.
Again the deviation of the matrix element $|M|$ from a constant seems
to be small for $\eta$, $\omega$ and $\eta^\prime$
production in $pp$ collisions. The data are only available
for $\epsilon{>}1$~MeV and thus we can not observe the effect
of the Coulomb $pp$ final state repulsion. The calculations
with and without Coulomb correction provide almost the same results
for the production amplitudes, i.e. $|M|{\approx}61$~fm
for the $\eta$, $|M|{\approx}33$~fm for the $\omega$,
and $|M|{\approx}19.0$~fm for the $\eta^\prime$-meson.
Note that in case of the $\omega$ meson it is essential to account
for the finite width of the spectral function close to threshold.
\begin{figure}[h]
\psfig{file=memo19.ps,width=12.6cm,height=8cm}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.8cm}
\caption[]{Experimental data on the average
$pp{\to}pp\omega$~\protect\cite{Hibou1} production amplitudes
calculated with and without Coulomb repulsion, for fixed
$\omega$ mass (squares) and for the finite spectral function of the
$\omega$-meson with a width of 8.41 MeV
(circles). The solid lines show the fit with a constant value for
the production matrix element.}
\label{memo19}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
Recently IUCF published data on the $pp{\to}pn\pi^+$~ reaction
\cite{Hardie,Flammang}
and CELSIUS reported $pn{\to}pn\eta$~\cite{Calen2} total cross
sections. Both reactions are crucial for the verification of our
approach, since the final $np$ system does not suffer Coulomb
repulsion as in case of the meson production data at
$\epsilon{\le}1$~MeV. Fig.\ref{memo7} shows the $pp{\to}pn\pi^+$
and $pn{\to}pn\eta$ production amplitude extracted by
Eq.\ref{average} with inclusion of the $np$ FSI. Indeed, the two
experimental points available at $\epsilon{\le}1$~MeV
as well as the data for the $pp{\to}pn\pi^+$ cross section at higher
exess energies are reproduced by a constant value of
$|M|\approx 234$~fm. Fig.\ref{memo7} illustrates that the data
for the $pn{\to}pn\eta$ reaction can be reasonably described by
$|M|\approx 157$~fm.
Finally, the simple approach outlined above allows to evaluate
the average production amplitudes from the total cross sections
for $NN{\to}NNM$ reactions and enables one to substract
the FSI due to $NN$ rescattering. The systematical analysis
of the available experimental data on $\pi^0$, $\pi^+$,
$\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$-meson production confirms the
validity of the method proposed. Furthermore, the results
illustrate a sensitivity to the difference between the $pp$ and
$pn$ interactions in the final state and can be
tested by data at excess energies below 1~MeV.
Since the effective range parameters are the essential
ingredients for our calculations, the method should be
limited to $\epsilon{\leq}40$~MeV (see Fig.\ref{memo6-8}).
However, at $\epsilon{\ge}40$~MeV the $NN$ scattering amplitude
is almost energy independent and approaches a constant value, which
might provide an explanation for the observation that the method
seems to work even at higher energies.
\begin{figure}[h]
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.5cm}
\psfig{file=memo7.ps,width=12.6cm,height=8cm}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.72cm}
\caption[]{The data on the $pp{\to}pn\pi^+$~\protect\cite{Hardie,Flammang}
and $pn{\to}pn\eta$~\protect\cite{Calen2} production amplitudes.}
\label{memo7}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
Indeed, the results for the $pp{\to}pp\eta$ and $pn{\to}pn\eta$ reactions
indicate an almost constant value of $|M|$
up to $\epsilon{\simeq}100$~MeV. This finding is in line with the
meson exchange model for $\eta$-meson production due to the
$S_{11}(1535)$ intermediate baryonic resonance excitation which
provides the dominant $S$-wave production amplitude.
A different situation holds for the $NN{\to}NN\pi$ reaction
because at large $\epsilon$ the meson exchange model involves
the ${\Delta}(1232)$ resonance and a strong contribution to the
production amplitude due to the $P$-wave. Therefore, our approach
can not be valid for $\pi$-meson production at large $\epsilon$.
Recently the $pp{\to}p{\Lambda}K^+$ reaction was measured at
COSY~\cite{Balewski,Bilger}. The data indicate a strong
deviation from the calculations with the one boson exchange
model~\cite{Sibirtsev1,Sibirtsev4} at low $\epsilon$ due to the
FSI between the proton and $\Lambda$-hyperon~\cite{Sibirtsev2}.
We have evaluated the $pp{\to}p{\Lambda}K^+$ production amplitude
with the singlet $^1S_0$ and triplet $^3S_1$ effective range
parameters for ${\Lambda}p$ scattering from Ref.\cite{Stoks}
(model a) and show the result in Fig.\ref{memo4}. Again the data can be
reasonably reproduced with $|M| \approx 43$~fm over the available range
of the excess energy.
We mention that the parameters for the $YN$ interactions cannot
be fitted uniquely to the available $YN$ scattering data
since experimental results are very scarce and have large
statistical and systematical uncertainties. In turn the
$pp{\to}NYK$ reaction might serve as an additional
source for the examination of the hyperon-nucleon interaction at low
relative momenta.
\begin{figure}[h]
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.7cm}
\psfig{file=memo4.ps,width=12.6cm,height=6.5cm}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.8cm}
\caption[]{Experimental data on the average
$pp{\to}p{\Lambda}K^+$\protect\cite{Balewski,Bilger}
production amplitudes. The solid lines show a fit
with $|M|{=}43$~fm.}
\label{memo4}
\end{figure}
Furthermore, to analyze the $pp{\to}p\Sigma^0K^+$ data~\cite{Sewerin}
one needs accurate coupled channel calculations
that include the $\Sigma^0p{\leftrightarrow}{\Lambda}p$
transition as well as $\Sigma^0p{\to}\Sigma^0p$ effective
range parameters, which are not available by now~\cite{Stoks1}.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.9cm}
\caption{\label{table1} The $pp{\to}pp\pi^0$, $pp{\to}pp\eta$,
$pp{\to}pp\omega$
and $pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$ production amplitudes $|M|$
evaluated from the data with and without the Coulomb corrections.}
\vspace{0.25cm}
\begin{tabular}{|l||c|c||c|c|}
\hline
Reference & \multicolumn{2}{c||} {without Coulomb} &
\multicolumn{2}{|c|} {with Coulomb} \\
\cline{2-5} & $|M|$ (fm) & $\chi^2$ & $|M|$ (fm) & $\chi^2$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{|c|} {$pp{\to}pp\pi^0$ } \\
\hline
IUCF~~\cite{Meyer1} & 84.2 & 1.8 & 88 & 6.5 \\
IUCF~~\cite{Meyer2} & 79.0 & 0.8 & 81.7 & 4.8 \\
CELSIUS~~\cite{Bondar} & 79.9 & 7.8 & 83.1 & 13.4 \\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{|c|} {$pp{\to}pp\eta$ } \\
\hline
SATURNE-II~~\cite{Bergdolt} & 55 & 5.1 & 62 & 3.9 \\
PINOT~~\cite{Chiavassa} & 63 & 1.9 & 60 & 3.3 \\
CELSIUS~~\cite{Calen1} & 61 & 1.1 & 61 & 2.5 \\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{|c|} {$pp{\to}pp\omega$ } \\
\hline
SPES-III~~\cite{Hibou1} & 35.3 & 0.5 & 32.7 & 0.5 \\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{|c|} {$pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$ } \\
\hline
SPES-III~~\cite{Hibou} & 17.6 & 0.4 & 18.7 & 1.0 \\
COSY-11~~\cite{Moscal} & 16.1 & 1.3 & 19.3 & 0.6 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.65cm}
\end{table}
The Tables \ref{table1} and \ref{table2} show the averaged
production amplitudes evaluated from the data
for the reactions discussed above. We separately show the
results from different experiments, which are in reasonable
agreement with each other. For the $pp{\to}pp\pi^0$,
$pp{\to}pp\eta$ and $pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$ reactions the
results are shown with and without Coulomb correction to the $pp$ FSI.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.9cm}
\caption{\label{table2} The $pp{\to}pn\pi^+$,
$pn{\to}pn\eta$ and $pp{\to}p{\Lambda}K^+$
production amplitudes $|M|$.}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|}
\hline
Reference & $|M|$ (fm) & $\chi^2$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|} {$pp{\to}pn\pi^+$ } \\
\hline
IUCF~~\cite{Hardie} & 240 & 1.8 \\
IUCF~~\cite{Flammang} & 228 & 6.8 \\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|} {$pn{\to}pn\eta$ } \\
\hline
CELSIUS~~\cite{Calen2}\ & 157 & 0.5 \\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|} {$pp{\to}p{\Lambda}K^+$ } \\
\hline
TOF~~\cite{Bilger} & 38 & 0.05 \\
COSY-11~~~\cite{Balewski} & 46.3 & 0.41 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.8cm}
\end{table}
Finally, due to the FSI the total production cross section is
strongly enhanced at low excess energies as
illustrated by Fig.\ref{memo18} which
shows the $pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$ cross section as a function
of $\epsilon$ calculated in the pion exchange model~\cite{Sibirtsev5}.
The dotted line indicates the calculations without the FSI
and substantially underestimates the experimental
results~\cite{Hibou,Moscal}. Now taking into account the $s$-wave
interaction between the final protons we reasonably reproduce
the available data. Note that the Coulomb corrections
influence the results for $\epsilon{\le}10$~MeV.
\begin{figure}[b]
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.7cm}
\centerline{
\psfig{file=memo18.ps,width=12.5cm,height=7cm}}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.6cm}
\caption[]{The total cross section for the $pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$
reaction. The experimental data are from
Ref.\protect\cite{Hibou,Moscal} while the lines show the calculations
with the pion exchange model~\protect\cite{Sibirtsev5} without
FSI between the protons (dotted), with FSI (solid) and
with Coulomb corrections to FSI (dashed).}
\label{memo18}
\end{figure}
Our calculations illustrate that FSI change the energy
dependence of the $pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$ cross section as compared
to the pure phase space $\epsilon^2$. Note that the results
without FSI (dotted line in Fig.\ref{memo18}) might, in
principle, be renormalized in order to fit the data~\cite{Hibou,Moscal}
for $\epsilon \leq$ 10 MeV, however, the increase with $\epsilon$ would
be much faster.
This indicates that in order to determine the FSI experimentally
one needs data on the total production cross section from threshold
up to about 100 MeV in excess energy.
\section{FSI and differential observables}
Obviously the FSI effect differential observables in a more
pronounced way than the total production cross section.
Fig.\ref{memo6-8} shows that the $s$-wave dominantes the low
energy proton-proton scattering and accordingly enhances
the low energy part of the $pp$ invariant mass distribution.
Thus, due to energy conservation, the high energy part
of the final meson-baryon invariant mass distribution is also enhanced.
Let us illustrate this for the $pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$ reaction.
Since there are no data on baryonic resonances that couple to the
$\eta^\prime$-meson, our calculations~\cite{Sibirtsev5} for the
$pp \rightarrow pp \eta^{\prime}$ reaction have been carried out
within the pion exchange model without explicitly introducing
intermediate baryonic resonances.
Thus any deviation of the calculated differential
observables for the $pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$ reaction at low
$\epsilon$ from phase space only stems from
the $s$-wave FSI between the protons.
\begin{figure}[b]
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.6cm}
\centerline{
\begin{minipage}[l]{6cm}
\psfig{file=memo12.ps,width=6.1cm,height=7.6cm}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}[l]{6cm}
\psfig{file=memo13.ps,width=6.1cm,height=7.6cm}
\end{minipage}}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.6cm}
\caption[]{The differential observables for the
$pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$ reaction at $\epsilon{=}10$~MeV.
a). The Dalitz plot calculated within the pion exchange model and
with FSI. b-c). The momentum spectra of the $\eta^\prime$-mesons
and protons in the center of mass system calculated with
(solid) and without FSI (dashed histograms). The calculations
without FSI have been renormalised to the same total cross section.}
\label{memo12-13}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ref{memo12-13}a) shows the Dalitz plot for the
$pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$ reaction at $\epsilon{=}10$~MeV.
Indeed the distribution is enhanced at low $pp$ and large
$p\eta^\prime$ masses. Figs. \ref{memo12-13}b,c), furthermore, show
the c.m.s. momentum spectra of the $\eta^\prime$-mesons
and protons produced in the $pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$ reaction
at $\epsilon{=}10$~MeV. The solid histograms display our calculations
within the pion exchange model~\cite{Sibirtsev5} including the FSI. The
dashed histograms are the results without FSI but corrected by a
factor $8.12$ due to the difference in the total cross section
calculated with and without FSI (see Fig.\ref{memo18}).
The impact of the FSI is obvious and can be easily detected
in the $\eta^\prime$-spectra. It is important to note that
the distortion of the phase space distribution due to the FSI
should be properly taken into account when extrapolating experimental
data in a limited acceptance to $4\pi$.
Moreover, the FSI produce some resonance structure in the
meson-baryon invariant mass distribution as shown in
Fig.\ref{memo11}a,b) for the $pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$ reaction at
$\epsilon{=}10$~MeV and $\epsilon{=}100$~MeV. Here the solid
histograms are our calculations with FSI while the dotted histograms
show the results calculated without FSI which are similar to
the pure phase-space distributions. The dashed histograms
in Figs. \ref{memo11}a,b) are the calculations
without FSI but renormalized to the same total production cross
section. Recall that we do not include intermediate
baryonic resonances in our model~\cite{Sibirtsev5} and that the
$pseudo$ resonance structure in the $p\eta^\prime$ mass
spectra stems from the FSI.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline{
\psfig{file=memo11.ps,width=12.5cm,height=10cm}}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.6cm}
\caption[]{The $p\eta^\prime$ invariant mass spectra (a,b)
and the compatibility ratio (c,d) calculated for the
$pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$ reaction at $\epsilon{=}10$~MeV and 100~MeV.
The histograms in a),b) show the results with FSI (solid),
without FSI (dotted) and without FSI but renormalized to the same
cross section(dashed).}
\label{memo11}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.8cm}
\end{figure}
Experimentally this effect can be detected when analyzing the
compatibility ratio, i.e. the ratio
of the measured invariant mass spectra to the phase space
distribution that is normalized to the experimental total cross section.
The calculated compatibility ratio for the $pp{\to}pp\eta^\prime$
reaction at $\epsilon{=}10$~MeV and 100~MeV is shown in
Figs. \ref{memo11}c,d)
and visibly deviates from unity. Recall that in the absence of
FSI as well as other effects, e.g. an excitation of a
baryonic resonance in the meson-baryon system or the appearence
of higher partial waves in the production amplitude
(which might happen at large $\epsilon$), the compatibility ratio
should approach unity. On the other hand, to detect the distortion
of the compatibility ratio one needs sufficiently large statistical
accuracy as can be seen from Figs. \ref{memo11}c,d).
In order demonstrate how an intermediate resonance shows up in the
invariant mass spectra we
analyze the $pp{\to}pp\eta$ reaction calculating the
production amplitude due to the excitation of the $S_{11}(1535)$
resonance. Fig.\ref{memo14} shows the resulting $p\eta$ invariant
mass spectra for $\epsilon{=}10$, 100, 150 and 200~MeV.
The solid histograms are our calculations with the $S_{11}(1535)$ and
FSI, while the dotted histograms indicate the results without
FSI between the protons. The dotted lines in Fig.\ref{memo14}
show the phase-space distribution normalized to the calculated
total cross section.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline{
\psfig{file=memo14.ps,width=12.5cm,height=9cm}}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.6cm}
\caption[]{The $p\eta$ invariant mass spectra
for the $pp{\to}pp\eta$ reaction at $\epsilon{=}10$~MeV,
100, 150 and 200~MeV. The solid histograms are calculations with
an excitation of $S_{11}(1535)$ and FSI, while the dashed histograms
show the results with $S_{11}(1535)$ but without FSI. The
dotted lines indicate the normalized phase-space distributions.}
\label{memo14}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.7cm}
\end{figure}
As discussed above, the $S_{11}$ structure cannot be detected at
$\epsilon{\le}100$~MeV since the width of the baryonic resonance is
larger than the range of the $p\eta$ invariant mass. Furthermore,
the shape of the spectra calculated with a $S_{11}$ intermediate resonance
and without FSI are similar to the spectra in line with phase space
at $\epsilon{\le}100$~MeV. The deviation of the $p\eta$ mass
spectra at $\epsilon{=}10$ and 100~MeV from phase space
(dotted lines) is entirely due to FSI.
The $S_{11}$ structure can be detected at $\epsilon{=}150$ and
200~MeV where the $p\eta$ mass spectra calculated even without FSI
(dashed histograms) differ already from pure phase space.
Note, however, that FSI substantially
distort the spectra and consequently we find two structures in the
$p\eta$ invariant mass distributions. The enhancement around
$M_{p\eta}$ is due to the $S_{11}$ resonance while the
structure close to the kinematical limit of the $p\eta$
mass spectra stems from the FSI. Again the compatibility ratio
might serve as a promising tool to detect the reaction mechanism.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline{
\psfig{file=memo15.ps,width=12.5cm,height=8cm}}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.6cm}
\caption[]{The $\eta$-meson energy spectrum in the
center-of-mass system measured for the $pp{\to}pp\eta$ reaction
at $\epsilon{=}16$~MeV. The full dots show the experimental results from
Ref.\protect\cite{Calen4} while the solid histogram is our calculation
with FSI, the dashed histogram without FSI.}
\label{memo15}
\phantom{aa}\vspace{-0.7cm}
\end{figure}
Recently CELSIUS reported~\cite{Calen4} the $\eta$-meson
c.m.s. energy spectrum measured in the $pp{\to}pp\eta$ reaction
at $\epsilon{=}16$~MeV which is shown in Fig.\ref{memo15}
together with our calculations. The solid histogram in
Fig.\ref{memo15} shows the result with FSI that
reasonably reproduces the data; the dashed histogram indicates
the result without FSI and substantially differs from
the experimental spectrum both in the absolute height
and in shape. This comparison, furthermore, demonstrates
the validity of our approach which is of sufficient simple form to be
used in all data analysis for near threshold reactions.
\section{Summary}
In this work we have proposed a simple method to analyze or
calculate cross sections on near threshold meson production in
$pp$ collisions by dividing out kinematical factors and accounting for
final-state-interactions (FSI) between the nucleons including
approximately also Coulomb corrections. Our analysis of the various
models for FSI has shown that the inverse Jost-function method has
the largest range of applicability, posesses the correct boundary
condition for large excess energies and, furthermore,
only involves the effective range parameters $a_s$ and $r_s$ that can be
taken from a fit to the respective $s$-wave scattering amplitude.
Within this model we have analyzed the available data on $\pi$,
$\eta$, $\omega$, $\eta^\prime$ and $K^+\Lambda$ production and found
that all data are approximately compatible with constant production
matrix elements. This information now in turn can be used to calculate
reaction channels with different final states of the baryons if their
FSI is known. On the other hand, the constant matrix
element hypothesis allows to $measure$ the FSI of baryons that are not
available for scattering experiments. Note, however, that precise data up to
excess energies of $\approx$ 100 MeV will be necessary.
Furthermore, we have shown that a differential data analysis in terms of
Dalitz-plots allows to distinguish effects from final state interactions
and resonance amplitudes if data are available in a sufficiently wide
energy range comparable at least to the width of the resonance amplitude.
|
\section{Introduction}
The influence of the gravitomagnetic field of a rotating compact object
on electromagnetic fields has been studied for some 25 years (Wald 1974,
Ruffini \& Wilson 1975, Blandford \& Znajek 1977).
The coupling of the gravitomagnetic potential with a magnetic field
results in an electromotive force.
Currents driven by this electromotive force may extract rotational
energy from a black hole. This energy could power relativistic jets
by Poynting flux (but see also, e.g., Punsly 1996).
Cast in the language of the 3+1 split of the Kerr metric, Maxwell's equations,
together with the `ingoing wave boundary condition' for electromagnetic
fields at the horizon, led to the {\it Membrane Paradigm}
(Thorne et al. 1986).
Since a black hole does not carry its own magnetic field, not to mention
kGauss fields required for the Blandford-Znajek process to be efficient,
strong magnetic fields must either be accreted into the black hole
from the outer accretion disk, or have to be generated and amplified
in the plasma surrounding the black hole.
The generation of magnetic fields by a battery operating in the plasma
close to a rotating black hole was studied by Khanna (1998b).
It was shown that the gravitomagnetic force may play a crucial
role in the battery.
Khanna \& Camenzind (1996a) studied the possibility of
an axisymmetric gravitomagnetic dynamo (or $\omega\Omega$ dynamo),
in which the coupling between the
gravitomagnetic potential and an electric field is a source for the
poloidal magnetic field. This theoretical result invalidates
Cowling's anti-dynamo theorem (see also N\`u\~nez 1997),
but self-excited growing dynamo modes could not yet be numerically varified
for simple kinematics (Khanna \& Camenzind 1996b). Egi et al. (1998) have
given a criterion for growing modes of the $\omega\Omega$ dynamo, i.e.
that the Poynting flux from close to the horizon
(extracted rotational energy of the hole) be positive.
Recently, Meier (1998) speculated that, in a zero angular momentum flow
into a Kerr black hole, alternatively to the $\omega\Omega$ dynamo, an
$\alpha\omega$ dynamo might operate. My simulations of such
a sceanrio show that, due to the relativistic accretion velocity, an
$\alpha\omega$ dynamo is not very likely.
Section \ref{MHD} gives an introduction to the derivation of MHD
in the 3+1 split of the Kerr metric. The generalized
Ohm's law for an electron-ion plasma is presented in Sec. \ref{gOhm}.
The gravitomgnatic battery (along with the relativistic
equivalent of Biermann's battery) are discussed in Sec. \ref{bat}.
In Sec. \ref{Indeq} the MHD induction equation in the 3+1 split
of the Kerr metric is presented. Applications are the gravitomagnetic
dynamo (Sec. \ref{gmdyn} and \ref{mfstruc}) and, in Sec. \ref{aOd},
the $\alpha\Omega$ dynamo, or the $\alpha\omega$ dynamo, respectively.
Throut the paper I set $G=1=c$.
\section{The MHD description of an electron-ion plasma}\label{MHD}
The formulation of MHD requires the relativistic definition of a plasma
as center-of-mass fluid of its components (Khanna 1998a).
The plasma is assumed to be a perfect fluid and is defined by the sum of the
ion and electron stress-energy tensors, which contain a collisional coupling
term:
\begin{equation}
(\rho_{\rm m}^{\, '} + p^{\, '})W^{\alpha}W^{\beta} + p^{\, '}
g^{\alpha\beta}
\equiv T^{\alpha\beta} = \sum_{x=i,e}
(\rho_{\rm mx}^{\rm x} + p_{\rm x}^{\rm x})
W_{\rm x}^{\alpha}W_{\rm x}^{\beta} + p_{\rm x}^{\rm x}
g^{\alpha\beta} + T^{\alpha\beta}_{\rm x\, coll}\; .
\label{defplas}
\end{equation}
Subscripts $i,e$ refer to ion and electron quantities, respectively.
Superscripts denote the rest-frame in which the quantity is defined,
where $^{\, '}$ refers to the plasma rest-frame.
In the 3+1 split (into hypersurfaces of constant Boyer-Lindquist time $t$,
filled with stationary zero angular momentum {\it fiducial observers})
\(T^{\alpha\beta} \) splits into the total density of mass-energy $\epsilon$
and momentum density $\vec{S}$
\begin{equation}
\epsilon \equiv (\rho_{\rm m}^{\, '} + p^{\, '} v^2)\gamma^2
\approx \rho_{\rm m}^{\, '}\gamma^2
\qquad
\vec{S} \equiv (\rho_{\rm m}^{\, '}+ p^{\, '})\gamma^2\vec{v}
\approx \rho_{\rm m}^{\, '} \gamma^2\vec{v}
\label{epsSdef}
\end{equation}
and the stress-energy tensor of 3-space with metric
$\buildrel\leftrightarrow\over{h}$
\begin{equation}
\buildrel\leftrightarrow\over{T} \equiv (\rho_{\rm m}^{\, '}+
p^{\, '})\gamma^2 \vec{v}\otimes\vec{v}
+ p^{\, '}\buildrel\leftrightarrow\over{h}
\approx
\rho_{\rm m}^{\, '}\gamma^2 \vec{v}\otimes\vec{v}
+ p^{\, '}\buildrel\leftrightarrow\over{h}\; .
\end{equation}
The approximate expressions hold for a `cold' plasma.
Charge density and current density are given by
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\rm c} \equiv \rho_{\rm ci} + \rho_{\rm ce} =
Z e n_{\rm i}\gamma_{\rm i} - e n_{\rm e}\gamma_{\rm e}
\qquad
\vec{j} \equiv \vec{j}_{\rm i} + \vec{j}_{\rm e} =
Z e n_{\rm i}\gamma_{\rm i}\vec{v}_{\rm i}
- e n_{\rm e}\gamma_{\rm e}\vec{v}_{\rm e}
\; .
\end{equation}
All quantities resulting from the split are measured locally by FIDOs.
\subsection{The generalized Ohm's law in the 3+1 split of the Kerr metric}
\label{gOhm}
In the `cold' plasma limit, the local laws of momentum conservation for
each species can be re-written as equations of motion, which can then be
combined to yield the generalized Ohm's law for an electron-ion plasma
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\vec{j}}{\sigma\gamma_{\rm e}}&\approx&
\vec{E} +\frac{Z n_{\rm i}\gamma_{\rm i}}{n_{\rm e}\gamma_{\rm e}}
\vec{v}\times\vec{B}
-\frac{\vec{j}\times\vec{B}}{e n_{\rm e}\gamma_{\rm e}}
+\frac{\vec{\nabla}(\alpha_{\rm g} p_{\rm e}^{\rm e})}
{e n_{\rm e}\gamma_{\rm e}\alpha_{\rm g} }
+\frac{4\pi\gamma_{\rm e}}{\omega^2_{\rm pe}}\rho_{\rm c}^{\; '}
\vec{g}
+\frac{\rho_{\rm c}{\; '}\gamma\vec{v}}{\sigma\gamma_{\rm e}}
\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{4\pi e(Z n_{\rm i}\gamma_{\rm e}^2
- n_{\rm e}\gamma_{\rm i}^2)}
{\omega_{\rm pe}^2 \gamma_{\rm e}\gamma_{\rm i}^2}
\left(\frac{d(\gamma\vec{v})}{d\tau_{\rm p}}
- \buildrel\leftrightarrow\over{H}\cdot(\gamma^2\vec{v})\right) \; ,
\label{allgOhm}
\end{eqnarray}
with the conductivity \( \sigma = {e^2 n_{\rm e}}/{m_{\rm e}\nu_{\rm c}}\equiv
\omega^2_{\rm pe}/4\pi\nu_{\rm c}\) as measured in the plasma rest frame,
the electron plasma frequency $\omega_{\rm pe}$,
the factor of gravitational redshift $\alpha_{\rm g}$
(with \(\vec{g}=-\vec{\nabla}\ln\alpha_{\rm g}\)) and
the gravitomagnetic tensor field \(\buildrel\leftrightarrow\over{H}\equiv
\alpha_{\rm g}^{-1} \vec{\nabla}\vec{\beta}\, .\)
\(\vec{\beta} = \beta^{\phi}\vec{e}_{\phi}\equiv -\omega\vec{e}_{\phi} \)
is the gravitomagnetic potential, which drags space into differential
rotation with angular velocity $\omega$. Note that, in the single fluid
description, the
gravitomagnetic force drives currents, only if the plasma is charged in its
rest frame. $\tau_{\rm p}$ is the proper time in the plasma rest frame.
The derivation requires the assumption that the species
are coupled sufficiently strong that their bulk accelerations
\begin{equation}
\frac{d(\gamma_{\rm x}\vec{v}_{\rm x})}{d\tau_{\rm x}}\equiv
\left[\frac{\gamma_{\rm x}}{\alpha_{\rm g}}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
+\gamma_{\rm x}\left(\vec{v}_{\rm x}
-\frac{\vec{\beta}}{\alpha_{\rm g}}\right)\cdot\vec{\nabla}\right]
(\gamma_{\rm x}\vec{v}_{\rm x})
\label{bulkacc}
\end{equation}
are synchronized. The same is required for the gravitomagnetic accelerations,
i.e.
\(|\buildrel\leftrightarrow\over{H}\cdot(\gamma_{\rm i}^2\vec{v}_{\rm i}) -
\buildrel\leftrightarrow\over{H}\cdot(\gamma_{\rm e}^2\vec{v}_{\rm e})|
\ll
|\buildrel\leftrightarrow\over{H}\cdot(\gamma_{\rm i}^2\vec{v}_{\rm i})|
\).
If the MHD-assumption of ``synchronized accelerations''
is not made, Ohm's law contains further current acceleration terms,
inertial terms and gravitomagnetic terms (Khanna 1998a), which may be
important for
collisionless reconnection and particle acceleration along magnetic fields.
This topic will be discussed elsewhere.
In the limit of quasi-neutral plasma \((Z n_{\rm i}\approx n_{\rm e})\) and
\(\gamma_{\rm e}\approx\gamma_{\rm i}\approx\gamma\),
Eq.~(\ref{allgOhm}) reduces to
\begin{equation}
\vec{j} \approx
\sigma\gamma(\vec{E} +\vec{v}\times\vec{B})
-\frac{\sigma}{e n_{\rm e}}(\vec{j}\times\vec{B})
+\frac{\sigma}{e n_{\rm e}\alpha_{\rm g}}\vec{\nabla}(\alpha_{\rm g}
p_{\rm e}^{\rm e}) \; ,
\label{allgOhmqn}
\end{equation}
which contains all the terms, familiar from the non-relativistic generalized
Ohm's law, but no gravitomagnetic terms.
\subsection{The gravitomagnetic battery}\label{bat}
The generation of magnetic fields by a plasma battery was originally devised
by Biermann (1950) for stars. He showed that, if the centrifugal force
acting on a rotating plasma does not possess a potential, the charge
separation owing to the electron partial pressure cannot be balanced
by an electrostatic field, and thus currents must flow and a magnetic field
is generated.
In Khanna (1998b) I have re-formulated Biermann's theory in 3+1 split of
the Kerr metric. The base of this battery theory is Ohm's law of
eq.~(\ref{allgOhmqn}). Assuming that electrons and ions have
non-relativistic bulk velocities in the plasma rest frame, superscripts
$i,e,^{\, '} $ can be dropped.
With \(p = p_{\rm i}+ p_{\rm e}= (n_{\rm i}+ n_{\rm e})kT\), the
{\it impressed electric field} (IEF),
\(
\vec{E}^{(i)} = {\vec{\nabla}(\alpha_{\rm g} p_{\rm e})}
/{e n\gamma \alpha_{\rm g}}
\),
can be re-expressed with the aid of the equation of motion for a
`cold' quasi-neutral plasma to yield
\begin{equation}
\vec{E}^{(i)} = \frac{m_{\rm i}}{(Z+1)e }
\left(\gamma\vec{g} +
\buildrel\leftrightarrow\over{H}\cdot(\gamma\vec{v})
-{d(\gamma\vec{v}) \over d\tau}\right)
+\frac{Z \left(\vec{j}\times\vec{B}
+ (\vec{v}\cdot\vec{j})\vec{E}\right) }
{(Z+1) e n \gamma}\; .
\end{equation}
$\tau$ is the proper time in a FIDO frame;
i.e. \(d / d\tau_{\rm p} = \gamma d / d\tau\).
The criterium for magnetic field generation is that
$\vec{\nabla} \times{\alpha_{\rm g}\vec{E}^{(i)}}\ne 0\, .$
Here I restrict the discussion to
the gravitomagnetic IEF $\vec{E}^{(i)}_{\rm gm}\; .$
The function part of \(\alpha_{\rm g}\vec{E}^{(i)}_{\rm gm}\) is
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
\left(\vec{\beta}\cdot\vec{\nabla} + \vec{\nabla}\vec{\beta}\,
\cdot\right)
(\gamma\vec{v}) =
\left(\beta^i(\gamma v^j)_{|i} + \gamma\beta^{i|j} v_i\right)\vec{e}_j
}\nonumber\\
&&= -\gamma v^{\phi}{\tilde \omega}^2\vec{\nabla}\omega
-\omega\left((\gamma v^r)_{,\phi}\vec{e}_r
+ (\gamma v^{\phi})_{,\phi}\vec{e}_{\phi}\right) \; ,
\label{Egm}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\tilde \omega} = (h_{\phi\phi})^{1/2}$ and ${}_|$ denotes the
covariant derivative in 3-space.
In axisymmetry \(\alpha_{\rm g}\vec{E}^{(i)}_{\rm gm}\) is clearly rotational,
unless some freak $\gamma$ should manage to make
\(\gamma v^{\phi}{\tilde \omega}^2\) a function
of $\omega$ alone. Thus the gravitomagnetic force drives a
poloidal current and generates a toroidal magnetic field.
Only if $ v^{\phi}$ is non-axisymmetric, the gravitomagnetic IEF drives
to\-ro\-idal currents. The total IEF \((\alpha_{\rm g}\vec{E}^{(i)}_{\rm gm}
+\alpha_{\rm g}\vec{E}^{(i)}_{\rm class})\) is
likely to rotational in general. This will be quantified for specific
velocity fields elsewhere.
In presence of a weak poloidal magnetic field the Biermann battery is
limited due to
modifications of the rotation law by the Lorentz force, rather than by
ohmic dissipation. Then the contribution of the centrifugal
force to the IEF becomes irrotational already at weak to\-ro\-idal fields
(Mestel \& Roxburgh 1962).
The gravitomagnetic battery term, on the other hand,
is only linearly dependent on $\vec{v}$. The equilibrium field strength
should therefore be higher than for the Biermann battery.
\section{The MHD induction equation in the 3+1 split of the Kerr metric}
\label{Indeq}
In this section I review the axisymmetric dynamo equations in the 3+1 split
of the Kerr metric (Khanna \& Camenzind 1996a).
Ohm's law is assumed to be of the standard form for a
quasi-neutral plasma; Hall-term and IEF are neglected.
Combining Maxwell's equations (Thorne et al. 1986)
with Ohm's law yields the MHD induction equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial t} =
\vec{\nabla} \times\left( (\alpha_{\rm g}\vec{v}\times\vec{B} )
- \frac{\eta}{\gamma}
\left(\vec{\nabla} \times(\alpha_{\rm g}\vec{B})
+ (\vec{E}_{\rm p}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\omega)
{\tilde \omega}\vec{e}_{\hat\phi}\right)
\right) + (\vec{B}_{\rm p}
\cdot\vec{\nabla}\omega){\tilde \omega}\vec{e}_{\hat\phi}\; .
\label{MHDindeq}
\end{equation}
The term standing with the magnetic diffusivity $\eta$ is the current density,
which, via Amp\`ere's law, contains the coupling of the gravitomagnetic field
with the electric field. In axisymmetry this is simply the shear of the
poloidal electric field in the differential rotation of space, $\omega$.
Another
induction term is the shear of the poloidal magnetic field by $\omega$. This
generates to\-ro\-idal magnetic field out of poloidal magnetic field
even in a zero-angular-momentum flow.
\subsection{The gravitomagnetic dynamo}\label{gmdyn}
Introducing the flux $\Psi$ of the poloidal magnetic field and the poloidal
current $T$
\begin{equation}
\Psi = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int\vec{B}_{\rm p}\cdot d\vec{A}
= {\tilde \omega} A^{\hat\phi}
\qquad
T = 2\int\alpha_{\rm g}\vec{j}_{\rm p}\cdot d\vec{A}
= \alpha_{\rm g}{\tilde \omega}
B^{\hat\phi} \; ,
\end{equation}
where $A^{\hat\phi}$ is the to\-ro\-idal component of the vector potential,
eq.~(\ref{MHDindeq}) splits into
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial t} &+& \alpha_{\rm g}
(\vec{v}_{\rm p}\cdot\vec{\nabla})\Psi
-\frac{\eta{\tilde \omega}}{\gamma}
v^{\hat\phi}(\vec{\nabla}\omega\cdot\vec{\nabla}\Psi)
-\frac{\eta{\tilde \omega}^2}{\gamma}\vec{\nabla}\cdot
\left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm g}}{{\tilde \omega}^2}\vec{\nabla}\Psi\right)
\nonumber\\
&=&{} \frac{\eta{\tilde \omega}}{\gamma\alpha_{\rm g}}
\left[ \left( T \vec{v}_{\rm p} -
\frac{\eta}{\gamma}\vec{\nabla} T\right)\times\vec{e}_{\hat\phi}
\right]
\cdot\vec{\nabla}\omega
\label{dtPsi}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial T}{\partial t} &+& \alpha_{\rm g}
(\vec{v}_{\rm p}\cdot\vec{\nabla})T
+\alpha_{\rm g}{\tilde \omega}^2 T
\left(\vec{\nabla}\cdot\frac{\vec{v}_{\rm p}}{{\tilde \omega}^2}
\right)
- \alpha_{\rm g} {\tilde \omega}^2
\vec{\nabla}\cdot\left(\frac{\eta}{\gamma{\tilde \omega}^2}
\vec{\nabla} T\right)
\nonumber\\
&=&\alpha_{\rm g} {\tilde \omega}(\vec{\nabla}\Psi\times
\vec{e}_{\hat\phi})
\cdot\vec{\nabla}\Omega
\; . \label{dtT}
\end{eqnarray}
These equations are the relativistic equivalent of the classical axisymmetric
dynamo equations. It is important to note, however, that {\it no mean-field
approach} was made, but $\Psi$ has source terms anyway. They result from
$\vec{E}_{\rm p}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\omega$.
Obviously, Cowling's anti-dynamo theorem does not hold close to
a rotating black hole. Growing modes of this gravitomagnetic dynamo were
shown to exist for steep gradients of the plasma angular velocity $\Omega$
(N\'u\~nez 1997). According to Egi et al. (1998) growing modes require
that the Poynting flux carrying rotational energy extracted from the hole be
positive.
For simple accretion scenarios, growing modes could not
be found in kinematic numerical simulations (Khanna \& Camenzind 1996b).
If, however,
magnetic field is replenished by an outer boundary condition, the
gravitomagnetic source terms generate closed loops around the black hole.
\subsection{The magnetic field
structure in the accretion disk close to the hole}\label{mfstruc}
In an accretion disk, magnetic fields may be advected into the
near-horizon area, where
gravitomagnetic effects may become important. This can be simulated by
advection/diffusion boundary conditions for $F=\Psi ,\ T$
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial F}{\partial n} + \frac{\gamma |v^{\hat r}|}{\eta}F =
\frac{\partial F_{\rm out}}{\partial n}
+ \frac{\gamma |v^{\hat r}|}{\eta}F_{\rm out}\; ,
\end{equation}
where $\partial /\partial n$ is the derivative along the outer boundary
normal.
Figure~\ref{gmdy} shows the stationary final state of a time-dependent
simulation (with turbulent magnetic diffusivity), in which
$|B_{\rm p,out}| / |B_{\rm t,out}| = 1/50$.
For such a dominantly to\-ro\-idal magnetic field
the gravitomagnetic source terms are strong enough to change the
topology of $\Psi$. This may influence the efficiency of the electromagnetic
extraction of rotational energy from the hole.
\begin{figure}[]
\psfig{width=\textwidth,figure=gmdy.eps,angle=-90}
\caption[ ]{Left: Contours of magnetic flux $\Psi$ showing a quadrupolar
magnetosphere of an accreting, rapidly rotating black hole ($a=0.998M$,
$\alpha_{\rm visc} = 0.25$).
Right: The gravitomagnetic current as source of $\Psi$.
The disk is marked by long-dashed lines. Solid contours correspond to
positive values, short-dashed contours indicate negative values.
The range of contours is given below the boxes. Time is measured in diffusive
timescales (see below). $r_{\rm g}=GM/c^2$.}
\label{gmdy}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The {\boldmath$\alpha\Omega$} dynamo in the Kerr metric}
\label{aOd}
\begin{figure}[]
\psfig{width=\textwidth,figure=aO1.eps,angle=-90}
\caption[ ]{A simulation of an $\alpha\Omega$ dynamo with symmetric initial
current in a quasi-Keplerian accretion disk.
Kerr parameter $a=0.998M$, $\alpha_{\rm visc}=0.065$. Solid contours have
positive values, dashed contours have negative values.
Kinks at the outer edge are artefacts of
transforming data from the spherical grid into a carthesian plot.
Simulation continued in Fig.~\ref{aO2}.
}
\label{aO1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[]
\psfig{width=\textwidth,figure=aO2.eps,angle=-90}
\caption[ ]{The simulation of Fig.~\ref{aO1} has reached a slowly growing,
oscillating eigenmode with a period of $\sim 3\, t_{\rm diff}$. Deviations from
equatorial (anti-)symmetry are probably due to insufficient resolution in
$\theta$-direction. Not shown here: The inclusion of non-linear
$\alpha$-quenching leads to severe symmetry breaking and chaotic behavior.}
\label{aO2}
\end{figure}
In the innermost region of an accretion disk around a black hole there may
also be a turbulent source term of $\alpha$-type. Without any knowledge of
the physical source of the term (convection or magnetic shear instability)
or its mathematical form in the relativistic context,
one can try to assess the physical regime (magnetic diffusivity,
accretion velocity, rotation law) in which growing modes of an
$\alpha\Omega$ dynamo exist. For a simple mean-field ansatz (Khanna \&
Camenzind 1996a) the equations of the kinematic $\alpha\Omega$ dynamo
are identical to Eqs.~(\ref{dtPsi}) and (\ref{dtT}) augmented by the
$\alpha$-source term, $\alpha T$, for the flux and $\eta$ replaced by
$\eta_{\rm turb}$.
In analogy to the expression for $\alpha$ in classical disks, I assume
\begin{equation}
\alpha = ( \alpha_{\rm g} R_o l_0^2 \Omega /H) \; f(z)/f(H/2)
= (3 \alpha_{\rm g} \alpha_{\rm visc} H \Omega)
\; f(z)/f(H/2) \; ,
\label{adyn}
\end{equation}
where $H$ is the disk scale height, $R_o$ is the Rossby number and
$\alpha_{\rm visc}$ is the viscosity parameter of standard accretion disk
theory. The factor $\alpha_{\rm g}$ is added in order to suppress the
source close to the horizon, where the accretion velocity approaches the
speed of light (in properly derived mean-field equations there would
probably be a ``Rossby number'' correlated to the accretion velocity instead).
The vertical dependence of $\alpha$ is modelled with
\(f(z) = \tanh(z) \exp[- (z/H)^2] \).
The turbulent diffusivity is described as
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\rm turb}=\alpha_{\rm visc} H^2 \Omega\, \tilde\omega
/ r\sin(\theta) \; ,
\end{equation}
with a vertical scaling \((\exp[- (z/H)^2] + 0.1)/1.1\).
The boundary condition at $r=10\, r_{\rm g}$ is $\partial\Psi /\partial n
= 0$ and $T=0$.
Figure~\ref{aO1} shows the first part of a simulation with an initial
current $T$, which is symmetric with respect to the equatorial plane, and
$\Psi = 0$. The parameters are the Kerr parameter $a=0.998\, M$,
$\alpha_{\rm visc}=0.065$, and the angular momentum of the accreting plasma
is $99.999 \%$ of the Keplerian value at $r>r_{\rm ms}$ and constant within,
which yields an accretion velocity of $\sim 0.003\, c$ at $r=3\, r_{\rm g}$,
increasing to $c$ at the horizon. The dynamo is in a slowly growing
quadrupolar mode, oscillating with a period of about three diffusive
timescales \(t_{\rm diff} = r_{\rm g}^2 / \eta_0
\approx 2\ 10^5\; \sec\, M_9\, \left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm visc}}{0.1}\right)^{-1}\,
\left({H(r_{\rm h})\over 0.5 r_{\rm g}}\right)^{-2}\).
The same setup, but with lower angular momentum in the accretion disk
($99.9 \%$ of the Keplerian value), which corresponds to a radial velocity
of $\sim 0.03 c$ at $r=3\, r_{\rm g}$, is in a decaying mode,
which demonstrates that accretion impedes dynamo action (Fig.~\ref{aO3}).
\begin{figure}[]
\psfig{width=\textwidth,figure=aO3.eps,angle=-90}
\caption[ ]{Simulation with same setup as above, except that the accretion
velocity at $r\ga 2\, r_{\rm g}$ is 10 times higher.
}
\label{aO3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{{\boldmath$\alpha\omega$} dynamo action in a zero-angular
momentum flow?}\label{aod}
It was mentioned above that the shear of space does also induce a to\-ro\-idal
magnetic field
(cf. eq.~[\ref{MHDindeq}]). In eq.~(\ref{dtT}) this shear term is
obscure, but still there, hidden in
\((\vec{\nabla}\Psi\times\vec{e}_{\hat\phi})\cdot\vec{\nabla}\Omega\propto
\vec{B}_{\rm p}\cdot\vec{\nabla} \Omega = \vec{B}_{\rm p}\cdot\vec{\nabla}
(\alpha_{\rm g} v^{\phi}+ \omega)\).
In a zero-angular-momentum flow $v^{\phi}=0$ (or, equivalently $\Omega =
\omega$)
and thus the current $T$ is solely generated by the shear of space. Moreover,
$\vec{\nabla}\omega$ is significantly steeper than
$\vec{\nabla}\Omega_{\rm K}$, which means that
$\vec{B}_{\rm p}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\omega$ is a strong source term.
Meier (1998) speculated that, alternatively to the gravitomagnetic
dynamo described above, there could be an $\alpha\omega$ dynamo in a
zero-angular momentum accretion flow, with $\alpha$ being due to the magnetic
shearing instability. Such a flow, however, accretes at relativistic velocities
($\ga 0.1 \, c$ at $r=10\, r_{\rm g}$), which should
suppress any dynamo action. This conclusion is supported
by the simulation shown in Fig.~\ref{ao1}. The $\Psi$ and $T$ loops in
the corona are transient and depend on the description of $\eta$ and
$\alpha$ (here described as in Eq.~[\ref{adyn}], but
not suppressed by $\alpha_{\rm g}$ in order
to have an upper estimate of the source term). Parameters are
$\alpha_{\rm visc}=0.003$ and $H(r_{\rm h})=0.8\, r_{\rm g}$.
A wider parameter study is in progress.
\begin{figure}[]
\psfig{width=\textwidth,figure=ao1.eps,angle=-90}
\caption[ ]{Simulation of an $\alpha\omega$ dynamo. The dynamo generates
transient structures in the corona close to the horizon. Within the
disk there are no signs whatsoever of dynamo action. The field and current
are completely determined by the relativistic advection. $T$ is shown in
logarithmic contours.
}
\label{ao1}
\end{figure}
\acknowledgments
This work was partly supported by the Deutsche For\-schungs\-ge\-mein\-schaft
(SFB 328).
|
\section{#1}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\newcommand{\begin{equation}}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\end{equation}}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\begin{eqnarray}}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\end{eqnarray}}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\hspace{0.1cm}}{\hspace{0.1cm}}
\newcommand{\hspace{0.7cm}}{\hspace{0.7cm}}
\newcommand{\theta}{\theta}
\newcommand{\sigma}{\sigma}
\newcommand{\rightarrow}{\rightarrow}
\newcommand{\beta}{\beta}
\newcommand{\bar{z}}{\bar{z}}
\newcommand{\tilde{\zeta}}{\tilde{\zeta}}
\newcommand{\tilde{\zeta}}{\tilde{\zeta}}
\newcommand{\kappa}{\kappa}
\newcommand{\bar{k}}{\bar{k}}
\newcommand{\bar{\imath}}{\bar{\imath}}
\newcommand{\bar{\jmath}}{\bar{\jmath}}
\newcommand{\alpha}{\alpha}
\newcommand{\Delta}{\Delta}
\newcommand{\bar{w}}{\bar{w}}
\newcommand{\bar{x}}{\bar{x}}
\newcommand{\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}}{\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}}
\begin{document}
\topmargin 0pt
\oddsidemargin 5mm
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\newpage
\setcounter{page}{0}
\begin{titlepage}
\begin{flushright}
{\tt DIAS-STP-99-03\\
hep-th/9904119
}
\end{flushright}
\bigskip
\bigskip
\begin{center}
{\Large Renormalization group flow and parallel transport with non-metric compatible connections}
\bigskip
\bigskip
{Brian P. Dolan\footnote{Department of Mathematical Physics, National University of Ireland,
Maynooth, Republic of Ireland
{\it and}\hskip 0.5cm Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 10 Burlington Rd.,
Dublin 4, Republic of Ireland; \hfill\break e-mail: <EMAIL>} and
Alex Lewis\footnote{Department of Mathematical Physics, National University of Ireland,
Maynooth, Republic of Ireland; e-mail: <EMAIL>, supported by Enterprise Ireland grant no. SC/98/739}.}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\end{center}
\normalsize
\bigskip
\bigskip
\begin{center}
{\bf Abstract}
\end{center}
A family of connections on the space of
couplings for a renormalizable field theory
is defined. The connections are obtained
from a Levi-Civita connection, for a metric which
is a generalisation of the Zamolodchikov metric in two
dimensions, by adding a family
of tensors which are solutions of the renormalization group equation
for the operator
product expansion co-efficients. The connections are
torsion free, but not metric
compatible in general. The renormalization group
flows of $N=2$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills
theory in four dimensions and the $O(N)$-model in
three dimensions, in the large $N$ limit,
are analysed in terms of parallel transport under
these connections.
\end{titlepage}
\newpage
In this letter we investigate geometrical properties of the
renormalization group flow in some exactly solved theories.
The renormalization group
flow can be seen as a vector flow in the space of theories, with the
couplings of the theory $g^a$ being coordinates on this space . In
this approach, it has been shown in \cite{dolan1} following a
suggestion in \cite{jo} (see also \cite{ocs,sonoda} that the
renormalization group equations for multi-point correlation
functions, written in a
coordinate covariant form, depend on a
symmetric connection $\Gamma^a_{bc}$ through
a tensor $\tau^a_{bc}$,
\begin{equation}
\tau^a_{bc} = \nabla_b \nabla_c \beta^a - R^a_{cbd}\beta^d,
\label{tauabc}\end{equation}
defined by
the RG equation for a regularized 3-point function
$G_{abc}(p,q,r)=\langle\Phi_a(p)\Phi_b(q)\Phi_c(r)\rangle$
\begin{equation}
\left(\Lambda\frac{\partial}{\partial\Lambda} +{\cal L}_\beta\right)
G_{abc}(p,q,r)=\tau_{ab}^dG_{dc}(p+q,r) + \tau_{bc}^d
G_{da}(q+r,p) + \tau^d_{ac}G_{db}(r+p,q) + \cdots
\label{rgeqn}\end{equation}
where $G_{ab}(p,q)=\langle\Phi_a(p)\Phi_b(q)\rangle$ and the dots denote
contact terms that are only important for large momenta.
However, there is no general rule for finding a
connection. Moreover, since the RG equations only depend on the
connection through the tensor $\tau^a_{bc}$, there is in fact a family
of connections which give the same equations. The approach we take is
therefore to determine the full family of possible connections for
some exactly solvable models, and investigate the geometrical
properties of the RG flow for the most general connection.
For two connections $\Gamma$ and $\tilde\Gamma$ with
covariant derivatives $\nabla$ and $\tilde\nabla$ and curvatures $R$
and $\tilde R$ respectively to both be compatible with eq. (\ref{tauabc})
we must have
\begin{equation}
\nabla_b \nabla_c \beta^a - R^a_{cbd}\beta^d =
\tilde\nabla_b \tilde\nabla_c \beta^a - \tilde{R}^a_{cbd}\beta^d.
\end{equation}
This equation is satisfied if the Lie derivative ${\cal L}_\beta$ of
the difference between the connections vanishes. This enables us to
determine the full family of possible connections if
one connection
$\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^a_{bc}$ is already known: we can
write any connection which is compatible with eq. (\ref{tauabc})
as $\Gamma^a_{bc}=
\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^a_{bc} + {\cal G}^a_{bc}$, where
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_\beta {\cal G}^a_{bc} =
{\cal G}^a_{dc}\partial_b\beta^d +
{\cal G}^a_{bd}\partial_c\beta^d -
{\cal G}^d_{bc}\partial_d\beta^a +
\beta^d\partial_d{\cal G}^a_{bc} =0.
\label{Liedv}\end{equation}
We still have to find a connection $\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^a_{bc}$ to construct the
other possible connections. One solution is to use the Levi-Civita
connection of a metric on the space of couplings. An example of
such a metric
is the
Zamolodchikov metric in $D=2$, which was used in the proof of the
$c$-theorem \cite{zamolodchikov}. More recently, building on ideas
laid out in \cite{ocs}, the geometrical
properties of metrics in $D>2$ have also
been investigated for some models,
including: free field theory \cite{dolan2},
the O(N) model \cite{dolan3} and Seiberg-Witten theory for $SU(2)$
\cite{dolan4}. In all these models, it was found that
some (but not all) of the RG flow lines are geodesics of the
metric. In particular, the lines of crossover between fixed points are
geodesics, and this may be related to irreversibility of the
renormalization group flow.
Since we now have a family of connections which
are equivalent, at least as far
as the renormalization group equations are concerned,
it is natural to ask whether the geodesic
flow of the lines of crossover generalises to auto-parallel flow for
other connections
(a line which is auto-parallel for the Levi-Civita
connection is a geodesic)\footnote{We distinguish between
auto-parallels, which are curves whose tangent vectors remain tangent
vectors under parallel transport along the curve, and geodesics, which
are curves of shortest length. In general, these coincide for the
Levi-Civita
connection only.}.
The auto-parallel
equation for a vector field is $\nabla_{\vec\beta}
\vec\beta = \eta\vec\beta$, where $\eta$ is a function which depends
on the parameterization along the curve.
With a connection $\Gamma=\stackrel{o}{\Gamma} +
{\cal G}$, this becomes
\begin{equation}
\beta^b\frac{\partial\beta^a}{\partial x^b} +
\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^a_{bc}\beta^b\beta^c + {\cal G}^a_{bc}\beta^b\beta^c =
\eta\beta^a.
\label{fulleq}\end{equation}
Our main aim is to see which of the possible connections, if any,
will satisfy
this equation for a given renormalization group trajectory. In
particular, some of the trajectories in the models we will examine in
this letter are geodesics of the metric, so
eq. (\ref{fulleq}) is satisfied
for ${\cal G}=0$. In that case, eq. (\ref{fulleq}) simplifies to the
condition that
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}^a_{bc}\beta^b\beta^c =
\eta'\beta^a,
\label{auto}\end{equation}
where $\eta'$ is another function.
A natural candidate for a metric on the space of couplings is the
two-point correlation functions of the model \cite{ocs}. If
the action $S$ is
linear in the couplings,
\begin{equation}
S = S_0 + \int d^Dx g^a\Phi_a(x)
\end{equation}
then a metric can be defined by
\begin{equation}
G_{ab} = \int d^Dx \langle \tilde\Phi(x)\tilde\Phi(0) \rangle
\label{metric}\end{equation}
where $\tilde\Phi(x)=\Phi(x)-\langle\Phi(x)\rangle$. Although the
individual components of this metric may diverge, the geometry can
still be non-singular.
As our first example, we
consider the $O(N)$ model for large $N$ in 3 dimensions.
This is a model of a scalar field $\vec\varphi$ in
the vector representation
of $O(N)$ with the action
\begin{equation}
S=\int d^3x \left\{ \frac{1}{2} (\nabla\vec\varphi)^2
+\vec{j}\cdot\vec\varphi +\frac{r}{2}\vec\varphi^2
+\frac{u}{4!}(\vec\varphi^2)^2
\right\}
\end{equation}
following \cite{dolan3} we analyse the geometry in terms of three
bare parameters, $\phi ,X,\lambda$, defined by
\begin{equation}
\phi = 4\sqrt\frac{\pi }{N\Lambda}\langle\varphi\rangle,
~~~~~X = \frac{1}{2\Lambda}\int d^3x \langle\varphi^2\rangle,
~~~~~\lambda = \frac{Nu}{48\pi\Lambda}.
\end{equation}
Although these are bare parameters, they are finite as we have a
finite cut-off $\Lambda$, so we can use them
as our coordinates on the space of
couplings (since we are in any case only interested in properties of
the RG flow which are independent of the coordinate system). The beta
functions, which represent a vector flow on this space are
\cite{dolan3}
\begin{equation}
\beta^\phi=-\frac{1}{2}\phi~~~~~\beta^X=-X~~~~~\beta^\lambda =-\lambda.
\label{betas}\end{equation}
In \cite{dolan3} the metric (\ref{metric})
was computed, and
it was found that only one of the renormalization group
trajectories described by these
beta functions is actually a geodesic of the metric - the line
$X=\phi=0$, which is the line of crossover from the Wilson-Fisher
fixed point at $\lambda=\infty$ to the Gaussian fixed point at
$\lambda=0$.
We now want
to see if any of the renormalization group trajectories are
auto-parallel for a connection $\Gamma=\stackrel{o}{\Gamma} +{\cal G}$, where $\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}$ is
the Levi-Civita connection from \cite{dolan3} and ${\cal G}$ is a
solution of eq. (\ref{Liedv}). Using bare rather than renormalized
parameters as coordinates makes it easy to solve eq. (\ref{Liedv}) --
the general solution contains a number of arbitrary functions
which
depend only on the ratios
$X/\lambda$ and $\phi^2/\lambda$, but these ratios are constant along
any of the RG trajectories described by eq. (\ref{betas}), so we can
treat them as just being arbitrary constants, which we write as
$f^i_{jk}$.
The solution can then be written, provided $X$, $\phi$ and
$\lambda$ are non-zero, as
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}^i_{jk} =
\frac{\beta^i}{\beta^j\beta^k}f^{i}_{jk}
\label{ONG}\end{equation}
(no summation on $i$, $j$, $k$).
With this solution, it is clear that for eq. (\ref{fulleq}) to be
satisfied for a trajectory,
the following differences must be constant along the curve:
\begin{equation}
\frac{2}{\phi}\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^\phi_{ij}\beta^i\beta^j-
\frac{1}{\lambda}\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^\lambda_{ij}\beta^i\beta^j=\mbox{constant},
~~~~~~~~\frac{2}{\phi}\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^\phi_{ij}\beta^i\beta^j-
\frac{1}{X}\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^X_{ij}\beta^i\beta^j=\mbox{constant}.
\label{cond}\end{equation}
It can be seen from the
expressions for the components of the Levi-Civita connection given in
Appendix 2 of \cite{dolan2} that this is not true for any of the RG
flow lines except the line of crossover.
Thus none of the flow lines with $\phi$, $X$, and
$\lambda$ all non-zero can be auto-parallel for
any connection.
When one
of $X$, $\phi$ or $\lambda$ is $0$, the solution (\ref{ONG}) has to
be changed by absorbing factors of $X/\lambda$ or $\phi^2/\lambda$
into $f^i_{jk}$ to make it finite, for example if $\lambda\neq 0$ we
can write the solution as
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}^i_{jk} = \lambda^nf^i_{jk}~~~~~~~~n=n_i-n_j-n_k
\label{secondG}\end{equation}
with $n_\phi=\frac12$ and $n_X=n_\lambda=1$.
However, if $X=0$, $\phi=0$ or $\lambda=0$,
eq. (\ref{fulleq}) can only
be satisfied if $\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^X_{ij}\beta^i\beta^j=0$,
$\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^\phi_{ij}\beta^i\beta^j=0$ or
$\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^\lambda_{ij}\beta^i\beta^j=0$ respectively, and the only line
which satisfies these conditions is $X=\phi=0$. Thus none of the other
RG
flow lines can ever be auto-parallel.
Finally, we want to see if the geodesic $X=\phi=0$ is
auto-parallel for other connections (apart from the Levi-Civita
connection).
This means we have to see if eq. (\ref{auto}) is satisfied by
the solution (\ref{secondG}).
For example, if only
$f^\phi_{\phi\phi}$, $f^\lambda_{\lambda\lambda}$ and $f^X_{XX}$ are
non-zero, eq. (\ref{auto}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
-\eta' \phi &=& \lambda^{-1/2}f^\phi_{\phi\phi}\phi^2/2 \nonumber \\
-\eta' \lambda &=& \lambda^{-1}f^\lambda_{\lambda\lambda}\lambda^2 \\
-\eta' X &=& \lambda^{-1}f^X_{XX}X^2 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which clearly is satisfied for $X=\phi=0$.
However this is not true for the most general connection.
For example, if ${\cal G}^X_{\lambda\lambda}=\lambda^{-1}
f^X_{\lambda\lambda}\ne 0$
or ${\cal G}^\phi_{\lambda\lambda}=\lambda^{-3/2}
f^\phi_{\lambda\lambda}\ne 0$
then the line of crossover is not an auto-parallel (since the
corresponding Levi-Civita
connection components vanish in the large $N$ limit, \cite{dolan3}).
The line of crossover is therefore not auto-parallel for the entire family
of connections which can be used in the RG equations, but only for the
class
with ${\cal G}^X_{\lambda\lambda}={\cal G}^\phi_{\lambda\lambda}=0$.
Thus
we find that
introducing the family of non-metric compatible connections
changes the conclusions, compared to the the Levi-Civita case,
as to which renormalization group
flow lines are auto-parallel. There is a large class of connections
for which the line of crossover between the Gaussian and the Wilson-Fisher
fixed points remains auto-parallel, but this is not true of the most general
connection.
Our second example of an RG flow shows that, in general, the family of
connections do change the auto-parallel nature of the geodesic flows
(in the special cases where RG flow is geodesic).
This is 4-dimensional $N=2$ Yang-Mills
theory \cite{sw}. The geometrical properties of this model were
investigated in \cite{dolan4} where two possible metrics were
considered,
and it was found most of the renormalization group flow lines are not
geodesics, but some special lines are geodesics of both metrics. We
now want to see which, if any, of the RG flow lines are auto-parallel
for other connections.
The complex coupling $\tau = \frac{\theta_{eff}}{2\pi} +\frac{4\pi
i}{g^2_{eff}}$ is given as a function of $\tilde{u}=u/\Lambda^2$,
where $u=Tr\langle\varphi^2\rangle$ parameterizes the symmetry breaking,
by
\begin{equation}
\tau = \frac{iK'}{K}+2n
\label{tau}\end{equation}
where $K(k^2)$ is a standard elliptic integral \cite{ww}
with $k^2 =
\frac{2}{\tilde{u}+1}$ and $K'=K(1-k^2)$ and $n$ is an
integer. Various beta functions for
this model have been investigated in \cite{bm,ritz,ckmm}. In
\cite{ckmm} Wilsonian and Novikov, Shifman, Vainshtein,
Zakharov, \cite{NSVZ}, beta functions were considered. Here we
concentrate on the Callan-Symanzik beta functions of \cite{bm,ritz}.
The Callan-Symanzik
beta functions,
$\vec\beta = \beta\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}
+\bar\beta\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar\tau}$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
\beta(\tau) = \lambda
\left.\frac{\partial\tau}{\partial\Lambda}\right|_u =
-2\tilde{u}\frac{d\tau}{d\tilde{u}}\; .
\label{betatau}\end{equation}
This beta function represents a vector flow on a manifold,
parameterized by $\tau$ (or $u$), which has the topology of a sphere
with three punctures. This manifold has three singular points:
$u=\infty$ (the weak coupling limit) and $u=\pm \Lambda^2$ (where there
are extra massless degrees of freedom).
The Seiberg-Witten metric on this manifold in the $u$-coordinates is
\begin{equation}
ds^2=\pi^2 \mbox{Im}(\tau) \left|
\frac{\vartheta_3^4\vartheta_4^4}{\vartheta_2^2}\right|^2
d\tau d\bar\tau =
\frac{1}{\pi^2} \frac{(K'\bar{K} +
\bar{K}'K)}{\sqrt{1+u}\sqrt{1+\bar{u}}}dud\bar{u},
\label{swmetric}\end{equation}
where $\vartheta_i$, $i=2,3,4$ are Jacobi $\vartheta$-functions,
\cite{ww}.
Another metric which can be introduced for this geometry is the
Poincare metric
\begin{equation}
ds^2=\frac{1}{(\mbox{Im}(\tau))^2}d\tau d\bar\tau.
\end{equation}
For both these metrics, the lines
of real $u$ and imaginary $u$ are
geodesics, but the other RG flow lines are not
\cite{dolan4}.
In fact we do not need to know the explicit form of $\beta(\tau)$ to
see if the geodesics will be auto-parallel for any connection: if
we use $u$ and $\bar u$ as coordinates, so that $\vec\beta = \beta
(u)\frac{\partial}{\partial u} +\bar\beta (u) \frac{\partial}{\partial
\bar{u}}$, we only need to know that
$\frac{\partial\beta}{\partial \bar
u}=\frac{\partial\bar\beta}{\partial u}= 0$.
The solution
of eq. (\ref{Liedv}) is then
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal G}^u_{uu} = \frac{1}{\beta}g^u_{uu}(u/\bar{u})
&&
{\cal G}^{\bar u}_{\bar u\bar u} =
\frac{1}{\bar\beta}g^{\bar u}_{\bar{u}\bar{u}}(u/\bar{u})
\nonumber\\
{\cal G}^u_{\bar{u}u} =
\frac{1}{\bar\beta}g^u_{\bar{u}u}(u/\bar{u})
&&
{\cal G}^{\bar u}_{u\bar{u}} =
\frac{1}{\beta}g^{\bar u}_{u\bar{u}}(u/\bar{u}) \nonumber \\
{\cal G}^u_{\bar u\bar u} =
\frac{\beta}{\bar\beta^2}g^u_{\bar{u}\bar{u}}(u/\bar{u})
&&
{\cal G}^{\bar u}{uu} =
\frac{\bar\beta}{\beta^2}g^{\bar u}_{uu}(u/\bar{u}).
\end{eqnarray}
The solution contains arbitrary functions of $u/\bar{u}$,
but these functions are
constant
along the radial lines in the $u$-plane, and we can see from
eq. (\ref{betatau}) that these are just the RG flow lines (in the
$u$-coordinates, $\beta^u=-2u$, $\beta^{\bar u}=-2\bar u$). If we
assume that ${\cal G} = {\cal G}^i_{jk}dx^j\otimes
dx^k\otimes\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}$ is a real tensor and
substitute this solution into eq. (\ref{fulleq}) or (\ref{auto}), we
can see that those equations depend only on one function $g(u/\bar
u)$:
\begin{equation}
g(u/\bar{u}) = g^u_{uu}+g^u_{\bar u u}+g^u_{u\bar u}+g^u_{\bar u\bar
u} ~~~~~ \bar{g}(u/\bar{u}) = g^{\bar u}_{\bar u\bar
u}+g^{\bar u}_{u\bar u}+g^{\bar u}_{\bar u u}+g^{\bar u}_{uu}.
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{fulleq}) then reduces to the condition that
\begin{equation}
\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^u_{uu} u +g(u/\bar u) = \stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^{\bar u}_{\bar u\bar u} \bar u +\bar
g(u/\bar u)
\end{equation}
where for the Seiberg-Witten metric $\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^{\bar u}_{\bar u\bar u} =
\overline{{\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}}^u_{uu}}$ and
\begin{equation}
\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^u_{uu} = \frac{\bar{K}'\partial_u K
+\bar{K}\partial_uK'}{K'\bar{K} +\bar{K}'K} -\frac{1}{2(u+1)}.
\end{equation}
Since $g$ and $\bar g$ are constant along an RG trajectory,
a trajectory can only be
auto-parallel for some choice of $g$ and $\bar g$ if the imaginary part
of $\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^u_{uu}u$ is constant along that trajectory. It can be
shown numerically that this
is only the case for the geodesics, the lines of real and imaginary
$u$, where $\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^u_{uu}u$ is real. All the other RG flow lines are
therefore not auto-parallel for any connection, while the real $u$ line
is auto-parallel provided $g(1)=\bar{g}(1)$ and the imaginary $u$ line
is auto-parallel provided $g(-1)=\bar{g}(-1)$. Thus
the geodesic flow lines
are not auto-parallel for the most general connection (as was the case
in the $O(N)$ model), but they are auto-parallel, for example, if
$\bar{g}(u/\bar u)= g(\bar u/u)$.
Since we did not use the explicit expressions for $\tau$ and $\beta$
above, this result can be applied to any theory in which the beta
function is an analytic function of one complex variable
only. In the case of $N=2$ $SU(2)$
Yang-Mills theory with massless quarks, as in the pure
Yang-Mills theory, the complex coupling $\tau$ depends only on
$u/\Lambda^2$. However, the singularities of the theories with
massless quarks are not all on the real or imaginary $u$ axes - for
example, when the number of flavours $N_f=1$, there are singularities
at $u=-u_0$ and $u=u_0e^{\pm i\pi/3}$. Of course, we cannot tell if
these lines are actually
auto-parallel unless we know whether they are geodesics of the
Seiberg-Witten
metric, but we can say that if they are geodesics of the
Seiberg-Witten metric in these models, they be auto-parallel
for connections with $g(e^{2\pi i/3})=\bar {g}(e^{2\pi i/3})$,
but not for all connections for which
$\bar{g}(u/\bar u)= g(\bar u/u)$, as in the case of the pure Yang-Mills
theory.
In conclusion it has been shown that the renormalization group
equation for the operator expansion co-efficients gives rise
to a family of non-metric compatible connections which are related
to the Levi-Civita connection by
$\Gamma^a_{bc}=
\stackrel{o}{\Gamma}^a_{bc} + {\cal G}^a_{bc}$, where
${\cal L}_\beta {\cal G}^a_{bc} =0$.
In general RG flows which are geodesic for the Levi-Civita connection
are not auto-parallel for all members of the family,
though in the models examined they are for a large sub-class of
connections
(it can be shown that
the same is also true for the
free field models considered in \cite{dolan2}).
In none of the examples examined here is it the case that a RG flow
line which is not geodesic under the Levi-Civita connection
is auto-parallel for some member of the family.
|
\partial{\partial}
\def\rangle{\rangle}
\def\subset{\subset}
\def\simeq{\simeq}
\def\times{\times}
\def\wedge{\wedge}
\def\widehat{\widehat}
\def\widetilde{\widetilde}
\def\alpha{\alpha}
\def\beta{\beta}
\def\delta{\delta}
\def\gamma{\gamma}
\def\kappa{\kappa}
\def\lambda{\lambda}
\def\omega{\omega}
\def\sigma{\sigma}
\def\theta{\theta}
\def\varepsilon{\varepsilon}
\def\varphi{\varphi}
\def\varpi{\varpi}
\def\zeta{\zeta}
\def\Delta{\Delta}
\def\Gamma{\Gamma}
\def\Lambda{\Lambda}
\def\Omega{\Omega}
\def\Sigma{\Sigma}
\def\Theta{\Theta}
\def\mathop{\rm Der}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Der}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Diff}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Diff}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Dom}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Dom}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm End}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm End}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Id}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Id}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Ind}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Ind}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Index}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Index}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Iso}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Iso}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Ker}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Ker}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm loc}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm loc}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm mod}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm mod}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm res}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm res}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Res}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Res}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Sign}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Sign}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Spin}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Spin}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm vol}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm vol}\nolimits}
\font\tenbb=msbm10
\font\sevenbb=msbm7
\font\fivebb=msbm5
\newfam\bbfam
\textfont\bbfam=\tenbb \scriptfont\bbfam=\sevenbb
\scriptscriptfont\bbfam=\fivebb
\def\fam\bbfam{\fam\bbfam}
\def{\bb C}{{\fam\bbfam C}}
\def{\bb F}{{\fam\bbfam F}}
\def{\bb Q}{{\fam\bbfam Q}}
\def{\bb R}{{\fam\bbfam R}}
\def{\bb T}{{\fam\bbfam T}}
\def{\bb Z}{{\fam\bbfam Z}}
\def{\cal A}{{\cal A}}
\def{\cal E}{{\cal E}}
\def{\cal F}{{\cal F}}
\def{\cal G}{{\cal G}}
\def{\cal H}{{\cal H}}
\def{\cal L}{{\cal L}}
\def{\cal M}{{\cal M}}
\def{\cal O}{{\cal O}}
\def{\cal P}{{\cal P}}
\def{\cal U}{{\cal U}}
\def{\cal X}{{\cal X}}
\def\build#1_#2^#3{\mathrel{
\mathop{\kern 0pt#1}\limits_{#2}^{#3}}}
\def\diagram#1{\def\normalbaselines{\baselineskip=0pt
\lineskip=10pt\lineskiplimit=1pt} \matrix{#1}}
\def\hfl#1#2{\smash{\mathop{\hbox to 6mm{\rightarrowfill}}
\limits^{\scriptstyle#1}_{\scriptstyle#2}}}
\def\hfll#1#2{\smash{\mathop{\hbox to 6mm{\leftarrowfill}}
\limits^{\scriptstyle#1}_{\scriptstyle#2}}}
\def\vfl#1#2{\llap{$\scriptstyle #1$}\left\downarrow
\vbox to 3mm{}\right.\rlap{$\scriptstyle #2$}}
\def\limind{\mathop{\oalign{lim\cr
\hidewidth$\longrightarrow$\hidewidth\cr}}}
\def\limproj{\mathop{\oalign{lim\cr
\hidewidth$\longleftarrow$\hidewidth\cr}}}
\def\boxit#1#2{\setbox1=\hbox{\kern#1{#2}\kern#1}%
\dimen1=\ht1 \advance\dimen1 by #1 \dimen2=\dp1 \advance\dimen2 by #1
\setbox1=\hbox{\vrule height\dimen1 depth\dimen2\box1\vrule}%
\setbox1=\vbox{\hrule\box1\hrule}%
\advance\dimen1 by .4pt \ht1=\dimen1
\advance\dimen2 by .4pt \dp1=\dimen2 \box1\relax}
\def\mathop{>\!\!\!\triangleleft}{\mathop{>\!\!\!\triangleleft}}
\catcode`\@=11
\def\displaylinesno #1{\displ@y\halign{
\hbox to\displaywidth{$\@lign\hfil\displaystyle##\hfil$}&
\llap{$##$}\crcr#1\crcr}}
\def\ldisplaylinesno #1{\displ@y\halign{
\hbox to\displaywidth{$\@lign\hfil\displaystyle##\hfil$}&
\kern-\displaywidth\rlap{$##$}
\tabskip\displaywidth\crcr#1\crcr}}
\catcode`\@=12
\baselineskip=14pt
\hsize=118mm
\hoffset=20mm
\vsize=215mm
\voffset=15mm
\def{\cal A}{\cal A}
\def{\cal B}{\cal B}
\def{\cal H}{\cal H}
\def{\cal L}{\cal L}
\def{\cal U}{\cal U}
\font\tenbb=msbm10
\font\sevenbb=msbm7
\font\fivebb=msbm5
\newfam\bbfam
\textfont\bbfam=\tenbb \scriptfont\bbfam=\sevenbb
\scriptscriptfont\bbfam=\fivebb
\def\fam\bbfam{\fam\bbfam}
\def{\bb C}{{\fam\bbfam C}}
\def{\bb N}{{\fam\bbfam N}}
\def{\bb R}{{\fam\bbfam R}}
\def{\bb Z}{{\fam\bbfam Z}}
\def\alpha{\alpha}
\def\beta{\beta}
\def\delta{\delta}
\def\Delta{\Delta}
\def\gamma{\gamma}
\def\Gamma{\Gamma}
\def\lambda{\lambda}
\def\Lambda{\Lambda}
\def\omega{\omega}
\def\Omega{\Omega}
\def\sigma{\sigma}
\def\theta{\theta}
\def\varepsilon{\varepsilon}
\def\varphi{\varphi}
\def\backslash{\backslash}
\def\infty{\infty}
\def\nabla{\nabla}
\def\partial{\partial}
\def\simeq{\simeq}
\def\times{\times}
\def\wedge{\wedge}
\def\langle{\langle}
\def\rangle{\rangle}
\def\forall{\forall}
\def\oplus{\oplus}
\def\otimes{\otimes}
\def\subset{\subset}
\def\widetilde{\widetilde}
\def\rightarrow{\rightarrow}
\def\hookrightarrow{\hookrightarrow}
\def\build#1_#2^#3{\mathrel{
\mathop{\kern 0pt#1}\limits_{#2}^{#3}}}
\def\mathop{>\!\!\!\triangleleft}{\mathop{>\!\!\!\triangleleft}}
\def\vrule height 0.5em depth 0.2em width 0.5em{\vrule height 0.3em depth 0.2em width 0.3em}
\font\tenbb=msbm10
\font\sevenbb=msbm7
\font\fivebb=msbm5
\newfam\bbfam
\textfont\bbfam=\tenbb \scriptfont\bbfam=\sevenbb
\scriptscriptfont\bbfam=\fivebb
\def\fam\bbfam{\fam\bbfam}
\def{\bb C}{{\fam\bbfam C}}
\def{\bb H}{{\fam\bbfam H}}
\def{\bb N}{{\fam\bbfam N}}
\def{\bb R}{{\fam\bbfam R}}
\def{\bb T}{{\fam\bbfam T}}
\def{\bb Z}{{\fam\bbfam Z}}
\def{\cal A}{{\cal A}}
\def{\cal B}{{\cal B}}
\def{\cal E}{{\cal E}}
\def{\cal H}{{\cal H}}
\def{\cal I}{{\cal I}}
\def{\cal K}{{\cal K}}
\def{\cal L}{{\cal L}}
\def{\cal R}{{\cal R}}
\def{\cal S}{{\cal S}}
\def{\cal U}{{\cal U}}
\def\alpha{\alpha}
\def\beta{\beta}
\def\delta{\delta}
\def\lambda{\lambda}
\def\gamma{\gamma}
\def\omega{\omega}
\def\sigma{\sigma}
\def\theta{\theta}
\def\varepsilon{\varepsilon}
\def\varphi{\varphi}
\def\varpi{\varpi}
\def\zeta{\zeta}
\def\Delta{\Delta}
\def\Gamma{\Gamma}
\def\Lambda{\Lambda}
\def\Omega{\Omega}
\def\Sigma{\Sigma}
\def\exists{\exists}
\def\forall{\forall}
\def\infty{\infty}
\def\langle{\langle}
\def\nabla{\nabla}
\def\oplus{\oplus}
\def\otimes{\otimes}
\def\partial{\partial}
\def\rangle{\rangle}
\def\subset{\subset}
\def\simeq{\simeq}
\def\times{\times}
\def\wedge{\wedge}
\def\rightarrow{\rightarrow}
\def\longrightarrow{\longrightarrow}
\def\Rightarrow{\Rightarrow}
\def\leftrightarrow{\leftrightarrow}
\def\hbox{\hbox}
\def\mathop{\rm Aut}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Aut}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Diff}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Diff}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Dom}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Dom}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm End}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm End}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm id}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm id}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Index}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Index}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Inf}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Inf}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Int}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Int}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Ker}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Ker}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Rang}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Rang}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Res}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Res}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Sign}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Sign}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Signe}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Signe}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Spectrum}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Spectrum}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm spin}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm spin}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Spin}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Spin}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Sup}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Sup}\nolimits}
\def\mathop{\rm Trace}\nolimits{\mathop{\rm Trace}\nolimits}
\def\build#1_#2^#3{\mathrel{
\mathop{\kern 0pt#1}\limits_{#2}^{#3}}}
\vglue 2cm
\font\tencsc=cmcsc10
\def\rightarrow{\rightarrow}
\def\otimes{\otimes}
\def\varepsilon{\varepsilon}
\def\delta{\delta}
\def\Delta{\Delta}
\def\otimes{\otimes}
\def\widetilde{\widetilde}
\def\forall{\forall}
\def\sigma{\sigma}
\def\Lambda{\Lambda}
\font\tenbb=msbm10
\font\sevenbb=msbm7
\font\fivebb=msbm5
\newfam\bbfam
\textfont\bbfam=\tenbb \scriptfont\bbfam=\sevenbb
\scriptscriptfont\bbfam=\fivebb
\def\fam\bbfam{\fam\bbfam}
\def{\bb C}{{\fam\bbfam C}}
\def{\cal H}{{\cal H}}
\def\boxit#1#2{\setbox1=\hbox{\kern#1{#2}\kern#1}%
\dimen1=\ht1 \advance\dimen1 by #1 \dimen2=\dp1 \advance\dimen2 by #1
\setbox1=\hbox{\vrule height\dimen1 depth\dimen2\box1\vrule}%
\setbox1=\vbox{\hrule\box1\hrule}%
\advance\dimen1 by .4pt \ht1=\dimen1
\advance\dimen2 by .4pt \dp1=\dimen2 \box1\relax}
\def\vrule height 0.5em depth 0.2em width 0.5em{\vrule height 0.5em depth 0.2em width 0.5em}
\centerline{\tencsc Cyclic cohomology and Hopf algebras}
\vglue 1cm
\centerline{A. Connes and H. Moscovici \footnote{(*)}{This material
is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award No. DMS-9706886.}}
\bigskip \centerline{\it Dedicated to the memory of Mosh\'e Flato}
\vglue 1cm
\noindent{\bf Abstract}
\smallskip
We show by a direct computation that, for
any Hopf algebra with a modulus-like character, the formulas first introduced
in [CM] in the context of characteristic classes for actions of Hopf
algebras, do define a cyclic module. This provides a natural generalization of
Lie algebra cohomology to the general framework of Noncommutative Geometry,
which covers the case of the Hopf algebra associated to
$n$-dimensional transverse geometry [CM] as well as the function algebras
of the classical quantum groups.
\vglue 1cm
\noindent{\bf Introduction}
\medskip
We shall concentrate in this paper on the interplay between two basic concepts of
Noncommutative geometry. The first is cyclic cohomology which plays the
same role in Noncommutative geometry as De Rham cohomology plays in differential geometry.
The second is Hopf algebras whose actions on noncommutative algebras are analoguous
to Lie group actions on ordinary manifolds.
\smallskip
We shall show by a direct and elementary computation that, for
any Hopf algebra with a modulus-like character, the natural
cosimplicial module associated to the subjacent coalgebra structure
can be upgraded to a {\it cyclic module} (or, rather, a module over
the {\it cyclic category} $\Lambda$, cf. [C, III.A]), by invoking both
the product and the antipode. This cyclic module was first introduced
in [CM] in the context of characteristic classes for actions of Hopf
algebras, under a certain condition of existence of sufficiently
nondegenerate actions, which made the verification of the axioms
tautological. The fact that the latter assumption was superfluous has
also been remarked by M.~Crainic [Cr], who recasted our construction in
the framework of the Cuntz-Quillen formalism [CQ].
\vglue 1cm
\noindent{\bf I Cyclic cohomology and the cyclic category}
\medskip
The role of cyclic cohomology in Noncommutative geometry can be understood at several levels.
In its simplest guise it is a construction of invariants of K-theory, extending to the general framework the
Chern-Weil characteristic classes of vector bundles and allowing for concrete computations on Noncommutative spaces.
For starters one should prove for oneself the following simple algebraic statement which extends to higher dimension
the obvious properties of the K-theory invariant provided by a trace $\tau$ on a noncommutative algebra $A$, by means of the equality,
$$
< E \, ,\tau > = \tau(E) \leqno (1)
$$
for any idempotent $E, \, E^2 =E$, $E \in M_q(A)$, where the trace $\tau$ is extended to the algebra $M_q(A)$ of matrices over $A$ by,
$$
\tau ((a_{i,j})) \, = \sum \tau(a_{i,i}) \leqno (2)
$$
To pass from this 0-dimensional situation to, say, dimension 2, one considers a trilinear form $\tau$
on the algebra $A$ which possesses the following compatibility with the algebra structure, reminiscent of the properties of a trace,
$$
\eqalign{\tau (a^1, a^2, a^0) \, = \tau(a^0, a^1, a^2) \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \cr
\tau (a^0a^1, a^2, a^3) \,-\tau (a^0,a^1a^2, a^3) \,+\tau (a^0, a^1, a^2a^3) \, - \tau(a^3a^0, a^1, a^2)
= 0
. \cr
\forall a^j \in A}. \leqno (3)
$$
\smallskip The statement then asserts that for each idempotent $E, \, E^2 =E$, $E \in M_q(A)$, the scalar
$\tau (E, E, E)$ remains constant when
$E$ is deformed among the idempotents of $M_q(A)$.
This homotopy invariance of the resulting pairing between cyclic cocycles of arbitrary dimension (i.e. multilinear forms
on $A$ fulfilling the n-dimensional analogue of (3) ) and K-theory is the starting point of cyclic cohomology.
\smallskip At the conceptual level, cyclic cohomology is obtained as an Ext functor by linearisation of the non-additive
category of algebras and algebra homomorphisms ([C2]) using the additive category of $\Lambda$-modules
where $\Lambda$ is the cyclic category.
\smallskip The cyclic category is a small category which can be defined by generators and relations.
It has the same objects as the small category $\Delta$ of totally ordered finite sets and increasing maps.
Let us recall the presentation of $\Delta$. It has one object $[n]$ for each integer $n$, and is generated by
faces $\delta_i, [n-1] \rightarrow [n]$ (the injection that misses $i$), and degeneracies $\sigma_j,[n+1] \rightarrow [n] $ (the surjection
which identifies $j$ with $j+1$), with the relations,
$$
\delta_j \, \delta_i = \delta_i \, \delta_{j-1} \ \hbox{for} \ i < j \, , \ \sigma_j \, \sigma_i =
\sigma_i \, \sigma_{j+1} \qquad i \leq j \leqno (4)
$$
$$
\sigma_j \, \delta_i = \left\{ \matrix{
\delta_i \, \sigma_{j-1} \hfill &i < j \hfill \cr
1_n \hfill &\hbox{if} \ i=j \ \hbox{or} \ i = j+1 \cr
\delta_{i-1} \, \sigma_j \hfill &i > j+1 \, . \hfill \cr
} \right.
$$
To obtain $\Lambda$ one adds for each $n$ a new morphism $\tau_n, [n] \rightarrow [n]$ such that,
$$
\matrix{
\tau_n \, \delta_i = \delta_{i-1} \, \tau_{n-1} &1 \leq i \leq n , &\tau_n \, \delta_0 =
\delta_n \hfill \cr
\cr
\tau_n \, \sigma_i = \sigma_{i-1} \, \tau_{n+1} &1 \leq i \leq n , &\tau_n \, \sigma_0 =
\sigma_n \, \tau_{n+1}^2 \cr
\cr
\tau_n^{n+1} = 1_n \, . \hfill \cr
} \leqno (5)
$$
The small category $\Lambda$ is in fact best obtained as a quotient of the following
category $E \, \Lambda$. The latter has one object $({\bb Z} , n)$ for each $n$ and the
morphisms $f : ({\bb Z} , n) \rightarrow ({\bb Z} , m)$ are non decreasing maps, $(n,m \geq
1)$
$$
f : {\bb Z} \rightarrow {\bb Z} \ , \ f(x+n) = f(x)+m \qquad \forall \, x \in {\bb Z} \, . \leqno (6)
$$
One has $\Lambda = (E \, \Lambda) / {\bb Z}$ for the obvious action of ${\bb Z}$ by translation.
The original definition of $\Lambda$ (cf. [C2]) used homotopy classes of non decreasing maps
from $S^1$ to $S^1$ of degree 1, mapping ${\bb Z} / n$ to ${\bb Z} / m$ and is trivially equivalent to the above.
\bigskip
Given an algebra $A$ one obtains a module over the small category $\Lambda$ by assigning
to each integer $n \geq 0$ the vector space $C^n$ of $n+1$-linear forms $\varphi (x^0 , \ldots , x^n)$ on $A$,
while the basic operations are given by
$$
\matrix{
(\delta_i \, \varphi) (x^0 , \ldots , x^n) &=& \varphi (x^0 , \ldots , x^i \, x^{i+1} ,
\ldots , x^n) \hfill &i=0,1,\ldots , n-1 \hfill \cr
\cr
(\delta_n \, \varphi) (x^0 , \ldots , x^n) &=& \varphi (x^n \, x^0 , x^1 , \ldots ,
x^{n-1}) \hfill \cr
\cr
(\sigma_j \, \varphi) (x^0 , \ldots , x^n) &=& \varphi (x^0 , \ldots , x^j , 1 , x^{j+1}
, \ldots , x^n) \hfill &j=0,1,\ldots , n \hfill \cr
\cr
(\tau_n \, \varphi) (x^0 , \ldots , x^n) &=& \varphi (x^n , x^0 , \ldots , x^{n-1})
\, . \hfill \cr
} \leqno (7)
$$
In the first two lines $\delta_i : C^{n-1} \rightarrow C^n$. In the third line $\sigma_i :
C^{n+1} \rightarrow C^n$. Note that $(\sigma_n \, \varphi) (x^0 , \ldots , x^n) = \varphi (x^0 ,
\ldots , x^n ,1)$, $(\sigma_0 \, \varphi) (x^0 , \ldots , x^n) = \varphi (x^0 , 1 , x^1 ,
\ldots ,$ $x^n)$.
\smallskip These operations satisfy the relations (4) and (5). This shows that any algebra $A$ gives rise
canonically to a $\Lambda$-module and allows ([C2][L]) to interpret the cyclic cohomology groups $HC^n(A)$ as
$Ext^n$ functors. All of the general properties of cyclic cohomology
such as the long exact sequence relating it to Hochschild cohomology are shared by Ext of general $\Lambda$-
modules and can be attributed to the equality of the classifying space $B\Lambda$ of the small category $\Lambda$
with the classifying space $BS^1$ of the compact one-dimensional Lie group $S^1$.
\vglue 1cm
\noindent{\bf II Characteristic classes for actions of Hopf algebras}
\medskip
Hopf algebras arise very naturally from their actions on noncommutative algebras. Given an algebra $A$, an
action of the Hopf algebra ${\cal H}$ on $A$ is given by a linear map,
$$
{{\cal H}} \otimes A \rightarrow A \ , \ h \otimes a \rightarrow h(a)
$$
satisfying $h_1 (h_2 \, a) = (h_1 \, h_2) (a) \quad \forall \, h_i \in {{\cal H}}, \, a \in A$ and
$$
h(ab) = \sum \, h_{(1)} \, (a) \, h_{(2)} \, (b) \qquad \forall \, a,b \in A \, , \ h \in
{{\cal H}} \, . \leqno (1)
$$
where the coproduct of $h$ is,
$$
\Delta(h)= \, \sum \, h_{(1)} \, \otimes \, h_{(2)} \, \leqno (2)
$$
In concrete examples, the algebra $A$ appears first, together with linear maps $A \rightarrow A$ satisfying
a relation of the form (1) which dictates the Hopf algebra structure. We refer to [CM] for an
application of this construction to the leaf space of foliations.
\medskip\smallskip
\noindent The theory of characteristic classes for actions of ${\cal H}$ extends
the construction ([C3]) of cyclic cocycles from a Lie algebra of
derivations of a $C^*$ algebra $A$, together with an {\it invariant trace}
$\tau$ on $A$.
\smallskip
In order to cover the nonunimodular case which does appear in the simplest examples, we
fix a character $\delta$ of ${\cal H}$ which will play the role of the module of locally compact groups.
\smallskip
We then introduce the twisted antipode,
$$
\widetilde S (y) = \sum \, \delta (y_{(1)}) \, S (y_{(2)}) \ , \ y \in {{\cal H}} \, , \ \Delta \,
y = \sum \, y_{(1)} \otimes y_{(2)} \, . \leqno (3)
$$
One has $\widetilde S (y) = S (\sigma (y))$ where $\sigma$ is the automorphism $\sigma= \, (\delta \otimes 1) \circ \Delta : {{\cal H}} \rightarrow {{\cal H}}$.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Definition 1.}
{\it We shall say that a trace $\tau$ on $A$ is $\delta$-invariant under the action of ${\cal H}$ iff the following
holds,}
$$
\tau (h(a)b) = \tau (a \, \widetilde S (h)(b)) \qquad \forall \, a,b \in A \, , \ h \in
{{\cal H}} \, .
$$
We have shown in ([CM]) that the definition of the cyclic
complex $HC^*_{\delta} ({{\cal H}})$ is uniquely dictated in such a way that the following holds,
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Proposition 2.} ([CM]) {\it Let $\tau$ be a $\delta$-invariant trace
on $A$, then the following defines a canonical map from $HC^*_{\delta} ({{\cal H}})$ to
$HC^* (A)$,
$$
\matrix{
\gamma (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^n) \in C^n (A) \, , \ \gamma (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^n)
(x^0 , \ldots , x^n) = \cr
\cr
\tau (x^0 \, h^1 (x^1) \ldots h^n (x^n)) \, . \cr
}
$$
}
In ([CM]) we needed to assume the existence of enough such actions of ${{\cal H}}$
in order to check that the formulas were actually defining a cyclic module.
We shall show below by a direct and elementary computation that, for
any Hopf algebra with a modulus-like character $\delta$ as above, the construction of [CM]
does yield a cyclic module.
\vglue 1cm
\noindent{\bf III The cyclic module of a Hopf algebra}
\medskip
In this section we shall associate a cyclic complex (in fact a $ \Lambda $-module, where $ \Lambda $ is the cyclic category), to any Hopf algebra together with a character $\delta$ such that the $\delta$-twisted antipode is an involution. The resulting cyclic cohomology appears to be the natural candidate for the analogue of Lie algebra cohomology in the context of Hopf algebras, where both the Hochschild cohomology (also called Sweedler cohomology) or the transposed (also called Harrison cohomology) give too naive results.
\smallskip
Let ${\cal H}$ be a Hopf algebra (over ${\bb C}$) with unit map $\eta : {\bb C}
\rightarrow {\cal H}$, counit $\varepsilon : {\cal H} \rightarrow {\bb C}$ and antipode $S : {\cal H} \rightarrow {\cal H}$,
$$S * I = I * S = \eta \, \varepsilon.$$
We fix a character $\delta : {\cal H} \rightarrow {\bb C}$, which will play the role of the
modular function of a locally compact group. With the usual coproduct
notation
$$
\Delta h = \sum_{(h)} h_{(1)} \otimes h_{(2)} \quad , \quad h \in {\cal H} \, ,
$$
we introduce the $\delta$-twisted antipode
$$
\widetilde S (h) = \sum_{(h)} \delta (h_{(1)}) \ S (h_{(2)}) \quad , \quad h \in
{\cal H} \, . \leqno (1)
$$
The elementary properties of $S$ imply immediately that $\widetilde S$ is an
algebra antihomomorphism
$$
\matrix{
&\widetilde S (h^1 \, h^2) = \widetilde S (h^2) \, \widetilde S (h^1) \quad , \quad \forall \,
h^1 , h^2 \in {\cal H} \cr \cr
&\widetilde S (1) = 1 \, , \hfill \cr
} \leqno (2)
$$
a coalgebra twisted antimorphism
$$
\Delta \, \widetilde S (h) = \sum_{(h)} S (h_{(2)}) \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}) \quad ,
\quad \forall \, h \in {\cal H} \, ; \leqno (3)
$$
and also that it satisfies
$$
\varepsilon \circ \widetilde S = \delta \, . \leqno (4)
$$
By transposing the standard simplicial operators underlying the
\break Hochschild homology complex of an algebra, one associates to ${\cal H}$,
viewed only as a coalgebra, the following natural cosimplicial
module: $\{ {\cal H}^{\otimes n} \}_{n \geq 1}$, with face operators $\delta_i :
{\cal H}^{\otimes n-1} \rightarrow {\cal H}^{\otimes n}$,
$$
\matrix{
&\delta_0 (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n-1}) = 1 \otimes h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n-1}
\, , \hfill \cr \cr
&\delta_j (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n-1}) = h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes \Delta h^j \otimes
\ldots \otimes h^n \, , \ \forall \, 1 \leq j \leq n-1 \, , \hfill \cr \cr
&\delta_n (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n-1}) = h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n-1} \otimes 1
\hfill \cr
} \leqno (5)
$$
and degeneracy operators $\sigma_i : {\cal H}^{\otimes n+1} \rightarrow {\cal H}^{\otimes n}$,
$$
\sigma_i (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n+1}) = h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes \varepsilon (h^{i+1})
\otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n+1} \ , \ 0 \leq i \leq n \, . \leqno (6)
$$
In [CM, \S~7] the remaining two essential features of a Hopf algebra
--{\it product} and {\it antipode} -- are brought into play, to define the
{\it cyclic operators} $\tau_n : {\cal H}^{\otimes n} \rightarrow {\cal H}^{\otimes n}$,
$$
\tau_n (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^n) = (\Delta^{n-1} \, \widetilde S (h^1)) \cdot h^2
\otimes \ldots \otimes h^n \otimes 1 \, . \leqno (7)
$$
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf Theorem 3.} {\it Let ${\cal H}$ be a Hopf algebra endowed with a character
$\delta \in {\cal H}^*$ such that the corresponding twisted antipode $(1)$ is
an involution:
$$
\widetilde{S}^2 = I \, . \leqno (8)
$$
Then ${\cal H}_{\delta}^{\natural} = \{ {\cal H}^{\otimes n} \}_{n \geq 1}$ equipped
with the operators given by $(5)$--$(7)$ defines a module over the
cyclic category $\Lambda$.}
\bigskip
{\it Proof.} One has to check the relations
$$
\matrix{
&\tau_n \, \delta_i = \delta_{i-1} \, \tau_{n-1} \ , \ 1 \leq i \leq n \, ,
\hfill \cr \cr
&\tau_n \, \delta_0 = \delta_n \, , \hfill \cr
} \leqno (9)
$$
$$
\matrix{
&\tau_n \, \sigma_i = \sigma_{i-1} \, \tau_{n+1} \ , \ 1 \leq i \leq n \, ,
\hfill \cr \cr
&\tau_n \, \sigma_0 = \sigma_n \, \tau_{n+1}^2 \, , \hfill \cr
} \leqno (10)
$$
$$
\tau_n^{n+1} = I_n \, . \leqno (11)
$$
It is the latter which poses a technical challenge. To size it up,
let us first look at the case $n=2$.
\medskip
In what follows we shall only use the basic properties of the
product, the coproduct, the antipode and of the twisted
antipode (cf. (1)--(4)). We shall also employ the usual notational
conventions for the Hopf algebra calculus (cf. [S]).
To begin with,
$$
\eqalign{
\tau_2 (h^1 \otimes h^2) = & \ \Delta \, \widetilde S (h^1) \cdot h^2 \otimes 1 = \cr
= & \ \sum \widetilde S (h^1)_{(1)} \, h^2 \otimes \widetilde S (h^1)_{(2)} \cr
= & \ \sum S (h_{(2)}^1) \, h^2 \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^1) \, . \cr
}
$$
Its square is therefore:
$$
\eqalign{
\tau_2^2 (h^1 \otimes h^2) = & \ \sum S (S (h_{(2)}^1)_{(2)} \,
h_{(2)}^2) \, \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^1) \otimes \widetilde S (S (h_{(2)}^1)_{(1)} \,
h_{(1)}^2) \cr
= & \ \sum S (S (h_{(2)(1)}^1) \, h_{(2)}^2) \, \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^1) \otimes
\widetilde S (S (h_{(2)(2)}^1) \, h_{(1)}^2) \cr
= & \ \sum S (h_{(2)}^2) \, (S \circ S) \, (h_{(2)(1)}^1) \, \widetilde S
(h_{(1)}^1) \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, (\widetilde S \circ S) \,
(h_{(2)(2)}^1) \cr
= & \ \sum S (h_{(2)}^2) \ \hbox{\boxit{6pt}{$S(S(h_{(1)(2)}^1)) \,
\widetilde S (h_{(1)(1)}^1)$}} \ \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, \widetilde S (S
(h_{(2)}^1)) \, . \cr
}
$$
The term in the box is computed as follows. With $k = h_{(1)}^1$, one
has
$$
\eqalign{
\sum \, S (S(k_{(2)})) \, \widetilde S (k_{(1)}) = & \ \sum S (S(k_{(2)}))
\, \delta (k_{(1)(1)}) \, S (k_{(1)(2)}) \cr
= & \ \sum S(S(k_{(2)(2)}) \, \delta (k_{(1)}) \, S (k_{(2)(1)}) = \cr
= & \ \sum \delta (k_{(1)}) \, S \left( \sum k_{(2)(1)} \, S (k_{(2)(2)})
\right) \cr
= & \ \sum \delta (k_{(1)}) \, S (\varepsilon (k_{(2)}) \, 1) = \cr
= & \ \sum \delta (k_{(1)}) \, \varepsilon (k_{(2)}) = \delta \left( \sum k_{(1)} \,
\varepsilon (k_{(2)}) \right) \cr
= & \ \delta (k) \, . \cr
}
$$
It follows that
$$
\eqalign{
\tau_2^2 (h^1 \otimes h^2) = & \ \sum S (h_{(2)}^2) \, \underbrace{\delta
(h_{(1)}^1) \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, \widetilde S (S (h_{(2)}^1))} \cr
= & \ \sum S (h_{(2)}^2) \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, \widetilde S (\widetilde S (h^1)) = \cr
= & \ \sum S (h_{(2)}^2) \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, h^1 \, , \cr
}
$$
where we have used first (1) then (8). Thus
$$
\eqalign{
\tau_2^2 (h^1 \otimes h^2) = & \sum S (h_{(2)}^2) \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2)
\cdot 1 \otimes h^1 \cr
= & \ \Delta \, \sum \widetilde S (h^2) \cdot 1 \otimes h^1 \, . \cr
}
$$
In a similar fashion,
$$
\eqalign{
\tau_2^3 (h^1 \otimes h^2) = & \ \sum S (S(h_{(2)}^2)_{(2)}) \, \widetilde S
(h_{(1)}^2) \, h^1 \otimes \widetilde S (S (h_{(2)}^2)_{(1)}) \cr
= & \ \sum S (S(h_{(2)(1)}^2)) \, \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, h^1 \otimes \widetilde S
(S (h_{(2)(2)}^2)) \cr
= & \ \sum S (S(h_{(1)(2)}^2)) \, \widetilde S (h_{(1)(1)}^2) \, h^1 \otimes \widetilde
S (S (h_{(2)}^2)) \cr
= & \ \sum \delta (h_{(1)}^2) \, h^1 \otimes \widetilde S (S (h_{(2)}^2)) = \cr
= & \ \sum h^1 \otimes \widetilde{S}^2 (h^2) = h^1 \otimes h^2 \, . \cr
}
$$
\medskip
We now pass to the general case. With the standard conventions of
notation,
$$
\eqalign{
\tau_n (h^1 \otimes h^2 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^n) = \Delta^{(n-1)} \, \widetilde S (h^1)
\cdot h^2 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^n \otimes 1 \cr
= \sum S (h_{(n)}^1) \, h^2 \otimes S (h_{(n-1)}^1) \, h^3 \otimes \ldots \otimes
S (h_{(2)}^1) \, h^n \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^1) \, . \cr
}
$$
Upon iterating once
$$
\eqalign{
\tau_n^2 (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^n) = & \ \sum S (S(h_{(n)}^1)_{(n)} \,
h_{(n)}^2 )) \, S (h_{(n-1)}^1) \, h^3 \otimes \cr
\otimes & \ S (S (h_{(n)}^1)_{(n-1)} \, h_{(n-1)}^2)) \, S (h_{(n-2)}^1)
\, h^4 \otimes \ldots \cr
\ldots \otimes & \ S (S (h_{(n)}^1)_{(2)} \, h_{(2)}^2)) \, \widetilde S
(h_{(1)}^1) \otimes \widetilde S (S (h_{(n)}^1)_{(1)} \, h_{(1)}^2) \cr
= & \ \sum S (h_{(n)}^2) \, S (S (h_{(n)(1)}^1)) \, S (h_{(n-1)}^1)
\, h^3 \otimes \cr
\otimes & \ S (h_{(n-1)}^2) \, S (S (h_{(n)(2)}^1)) \, S (h_{(n-2)}^1) \,
h^4 \otimes \ldots \cr
\ldots \otimes & \ S (h_{(2)}^2) \, S (S (h_{(n)(n-1)}^1)) \, \widetilde S
(h_{(1)}^1) \otimes \cr
\otimes & \ \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, \widetilde S (S(h_{(n)(n)}^1)) = \cr
= & \ \sum S (h_{(n)}^2) \, S (h_{(n-1)}^1 \, S (h_{(n)}^1)) \, h^3
\otimes \cr
\otimes & \ S (h_{(n-1)}^2) \, S (h_{(n-2)}^1 \, S (h_{(n+1)}^1)) \, h^4
\otimes \ldots \cr
\ldots \otimes & \ S (h_{(2)}^2) \, S (S (h_{(2n-2)}^1 )) \cdot \widetilde S
(h_{(1)}^1) \otimes \cr
\otimes & \ \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, \widetilde S ( S (h_{(2n-1)}^1 )) \, . \cr
}
$$
We pause to note that
$$
\sum h_{(n-1)}^1 \, S (h_{(n)}^1) = \sum h_{(n-1)(1)}^1 \, S
(h_{(n-1)(2)}^1)
$$
equals
$$
\varepsilon \, (h_{(n-1)}^1) \, 1 \, ,
$$
after resetting the indexation. Next
$$
\sum \varepsilon (h_{(n-1)}^1) \, h_{(n-2)}^1
$$
gives $h_{(n-2)}^1$ after another resetting. In turn
$$
\sum h_{(n-2)}^1 \, S (h_{(n-1)}^1)
$$
equals
$$
\varepsilon (h_{(n-2)}^1) \, 1 \, ,
$$
and the process continues.
\smallskip
In the last step,
$$
\eqalign{
& \ \sum S (h_{(n)}^2) \, h^3 \otimes S (h_{(n-1)}^2) \, h^4 \otimes \ldots
\cr
\ldots \otimes & \ S (h_{(2)}^2) \ \hbox{\boxit{6pt}{$S(S(h_{(2)}^1)) \, \delta
(h_{(1)(1)}^1) \, S (h_{(1)(2)}^1)$}} \ \otimes \cr
\otimes & \ \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, \widetilde S ( S (h_{(3)}^1)) \cr
= & \ \sum S (h_{(n)}^2) \, h^3 \otimes S (h_{(n-1)}^2) \, h^4 \otimes \ldots
\otimes S
(h_{(2)}^2) \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, h^1 \cr
= & \ S (h_{(n)}^2) \otimes S (h_{(n-1)}^2) \otimes \ldots \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2)
\cdot
h^3 \otimes h^4 \otimes \ldots \otimes 1 \otimes h^1 \cr
= & \ \Delta^{(n-1)} \, \widetilde S (h^2) \cdot h^3 \otimes h^4 \otimes \ldots \otimes 1 \otimes
h^1 \, , \cr
}
$$
with the boxed term simplified as before.
By induction, one obtains
for any $j = 1, \ldots , n+1$,
$$
\tau_n^j (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^n) = \Delta^{n-1} \, \widetilde S (h^j) \cdot h^{j+1}
\otimes \ldots \otimes h^n \otimes 1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{j-1} \, ,
$$
in particular
$$
\tau_n^{n+1} (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^n) = \Delta^{n-1} \, \widetilde S (1) \cdot h^1 \otimes
\ldots \otimes h^n = h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^n \, .
$$
The verification of the compatibility relations (9), (10) is
straightforward. Indeed, starting with the compatibility
with the face operators, one has:
$$
\eqalign{
\tau_n \, \delta_0 (1 \otimes h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n-1}) = & \ \tau_n (1 \otimes
h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n-1}) = \cr
= & \ \Delta^{n-1} \, \widetilde S (1) \cdot h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n-1} \otimes 1
\cr
= & \ h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n-1} \otimes 1 \cr
= & \ \delta_n (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n-1}) \, , \cr
}
$$
then
$$
\eqalign{
\tau_n \, \delta_1 (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n-1}) = & \ \tau_n \,( \Delta \, h^1
\otimes h^2 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n-1}) \cr
= & \ \sum \tau_n (h_{(1)}^1 \otimes h_{(2)}^1 \otimes h^2 \otimes \ldots \otimes
h^{n-1}) \cr
= & \ \sum \Delta^{n-1} \, \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^1) \cdot h_{(2)}^1 \otimes h^2 \otimes
\ldots \otimes h^{n-1} \otimes 1 = \cr
= & \ \sum S (h_{(1)(n)}^1) \, h_{(2)}^1 \otimes S (h_{(1)(n-1)}^1) \,
h^2 \otimes \ldots \cr
& \ \otimes S (h_{(1)(2)}^1) \, h^{n-1} \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)(1)}^1) \cr
= & \ \sum \varepsilon (h_{(n)}^1) \, 1 \otimes S (h_{(n-1)}^1) \, h^2 \otimes \ldots
\cr
& \ \otimes S (h_{(1)}^1) \, h^{n-1} \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^1) \cr
= & \ 1 \otimes S (h_{(n-1)}^1) \, h^2 \otimes \ldots \otimes S (h_{(1)}^1) \,
h^{n-1} \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^1) \cr
= & \ \delta_0 \, \tau_{n-1} \, (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n-1}) \, , \cr
}
$$
and so forth.
Passing now to degeneracies,
$$
\eqalign{
& \ \tau_n \, \sigma_0 (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n+1}) = \varepsilon (h^1) \, \tau_n
(h^2 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n+1}) = \cr
= & \ \varepsilon (h^1) \, S (h_{(n)}^2) \, h^3 \otimes \ldots \otimes S (h_{(2)}^2)
\, h^{n+1} \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, , \cr
}
$$
and on the other hand
$$
\eqalign{
& \ \sigma_n \, \tau_{n+1}^2 (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n+1}) = \cr
= & \ \sigma_n \left( \sum S (h_{(n+1)}^2) \, h^3 \otimes \ldots \otimes S
(h_{(2)}^2) \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, h^1 \right) \cr
= & \ \sum \varepsilon (\widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, h^1) \, S (h_{(n+1)}^2) \, h^3
\otimes \ldots \otimes S (h_{(2)}^2) \cr
= & \ \varepsilon (h^1) \sum \delta (h_{(1)}^2) \, S (h_{(n+1)}^2) \, h^3 \otimes
\ldots \otimes S (h_{(2)}^2) \cr
= & \ \varepsilon (h^1) \, S (h_{(n)}^2) \, h^3 \otimes \ldots \otimes S (h_{(2)}^2)
\, h^{n+1} \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^2) \, . \cr
}
$$
In the next step
$$
\eqalign{
& \ \tau_n \, \sigma_1 (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n+1}) = \varepsilon (h^2) \,
\tau_n (h^1 \otimes h^3 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n+1}) \cr
= & \ \varepsilon (h^2) \cdot \Delta^{n-1} \, \widetilde S (h^1) \cdot h^3 \otimes \ldots
\otimes h^{n+1} \otimes 1 \, , \cr
}
$$
while on the other hand
$$
\eqalign{
& \ \sigma_0 \, \tau_{n+1} (h^1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h^{n+1}) = \cr
& \ \sigma_0 (S (h_{(n+1)}^1) \, h^2 \otimes \ldots \otimes S (h_{(2)}^1) \,
h^{n+1} \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^1)) \cr
= & \ \varepsilon (h^2) \cdot \varepsilon (h_{(n+1)}^1) \cdot S (h_{(n)}^1) \, h^3
\otimes \ldots \otimes S (h_{(2)}^1) \, h^{n+1} \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^1) \cr
= & \ \varepsilon (h^2) \cdot S (h_{(n-1)}^1) \, h^3 \otimes \ldots \otimes S
(h_{(2)}^1) \, h^{n+1} \otimes \widetilde S (h_{(1)}^1) \, , \cr
}
$$
and similarly for $i = 2, \ldots n$.~\vrule height 0.5em depth 0.2em width 0.5em
\bigskip
The cohomology of the $(b,B)$-bicomplex corresponding to the cyclic
module ${\cal H}_{\delta}^{\natural}$ is, by definition, the {\it cyclic cohomology}
$H \, C_{\delta}^* ({\cal H})$ of ${\cal H}$ relative to the modular character
$\delta$.
\bigskip
\noindent When ${{\cal H}} = {{\cal U}} ({\bf G})$ is the envelopping algebra of a Lie
algebra, there is a natural interpretation of the Lie algebra cohomology,
$$
H^* ({\bf G} , {\bb C}) = H^* ({{\cal U}} ({\bf G}) , {\bb C})
$$
where the right hand side is the Hochschild cohomology with coefficients in
the ${{\cal U}} ({\bf G})$-bimodule ${\bb C}$ obtained using the augmentation. In general,
given a Hopf algebra ${{\cal H}}$ one can dualise (this is the construction of the Harrison complex),
the construction of the Hochschild
complex $C^n ({{\cal H}}^* , {\bb C})$ where ${\bb C}$ is viewed as a bimodule on ${{\cal H}}^*$
using the augmentation, i.e. the counit of ${{\cal H}}^*$. This gives the above
operations: ${{\cal H}}^{\otimes (n-1)} \rightarrow {{\cal H}}^{\otimes n}$, defining a cosimplicial
space.
\smallskip
When applied to the Hopf algebra ${{\cal H}}$ of functions on an affine algebraic group,
this dual-Hochschild or Harrison cohomology gives
simply the vector space of invariant twisted forms and ignores the group cohomology.
The second assertion of the following proposition shows that the cyclic cohomology
$H \, C_{\delta}^* ({{\cal H}})$, gives a highly nontrivial answer, thanks precisely to the action of the $B$ operator ([CM]).
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Proposition 4.} ([CM]) 1) {\it The periodic cyclic cohomology $H \, C_{\delta}^*
({{\cal H}})$, for ${{\cal H}} = {{\cal U}} ({\bf G})$ the envelopping algebra of a Lie
algebra ${\bf G}$ is isomorphic to the Lie algebra homology $H_* ({\bf G} ,
{\bb C})$ where ${\bb C}$ is a ${\bf G}$-module using the module $\delta$ of $G$.}
\noindent 2) {\it Let ${{\cal H}} = {{\cal U}} ({\bf G})_*$ be the Hopf algebra of polynomials in the coordinates
on an affine simply connected nilpotent group $G$. The periodic cyclic cohomology $H \, C_{\delta}^* ({{\cal H}})$, is isomorphic
to the Lie algebra cohomology of ${\bf G}$
with trivial coefficients.}
\smallskip
\noindent We refer to [CM] for the proof which was also reproduced in [Cr].
\medskip
Finally we should point out that the existence of a twisted antipode
$\widetilde S$ of square one is still a partial unimodularity condition on a Hopf
algebra.
It was crucial for the results of [CM] that this
condition is actually fulfilled for the Hopf algebra associated to
$n$-dimensional transverse geometry of foliations. Moreover, as we shall
see now, it is also fulfilled by the most popular quantum groups.
First, recall that if ${\cal H}$ is {\it quasi-triangular}
(also called {\it braided} ), with universal $R$-matrix $R$,
then (see e.g. [K])
$$
S^2 (x) = u \, x \, u^{-1} \, \, , x \in {\cal H}
$$
with
$$
u = \sum \, S ( R^{(2)}) \, R^{(1)} \ , \quad \varepsilon (u) = 1
$$
and
$$
\Delta \, u = (R_{21} \, R)^{-1} \, (u \otimes u) \, .
$$
\noindent If in addition $u \, S(u) = S(u) \, u$, which is central,
has a central square root $\theta$, such that
$$
\Delta (\theta) = (R_{21} \, R)^{-1} \, (\theta \otimes \theta) \ , \quad
\varepsilon (\theta) = 1 \ , \quad S(\theta) = \theta \, ,
$$
then ${\cal H}$ is called a {\it ribbon} algebra.
Any braided Hopf algebra ${\cal H}$ can be canonically embedded in a
ribbon algebra (cf. [RT]):
$$
{\cal H} (\theta) = {\cal H} \, [\theta] / (\theta^2 - u \, S(u))
$$
If ${\cal H}$ is a ribbon algebra, then
$$
\delta = \theta \, u^{-1} \, ,
$$
is a group-like element:
$$
\Delta \, \delta = \delta \otimes \delta \ , \quad \varepsilon (\delta) = 1 \ ,
\quad S(\delta) = \delta^{-1} \, .
$$
Defining
$$
\widetilde S = \delta \cdot S \, ,
$$
one obtains a twisted antipode which satisfies the property
${\widetilde S}^2 = 1 \, .$
\noindent Indeed,
$$
\matrix{
{\widetilde S}^2 (x) &= &\delta \, S (\delta \, S (x)) = \delta \, S^2 (x) \,
\delta^{-1} \hfill \cr
&= &\delta \, u \, x \, u^{-1} \, \delta^{-1} = \theta \, x \, \theta^{-1} = x
\, , \hfill \cr
}
$$
because $\theta$ is central.
\medskip
By dualizing the above definitions one obtains the notion of a
{\it cobraided}, resp. {\it coribbon} algebra. Among the most
prominent examples of coribbon algebras are the function
algebras of the classical quantum groups $GL_q (N)$, $SL_q (N)$, $SO_q (N)$,
$O_q (N)$ and $Sp_q (N)$.
For a coribbon algebra ${\cal H}$, the analogue of
the above {\it ribbon group-like element} $\delta$ is
the {\it ribbon character} $\delta \in {\cal H}^*$. The corresponding
twisted antipode
$${\widetilde S} = \delta * S \, , $$
satisfies again the condition ${\widetilde S}^2 = 1$.
\vglue 1cm
\noindent {\bf References}
\bigskip
\item{[C1]} A.~Connes, {\it Noncommutative Geometry}, London-New York,
Academic Press, 1994.
\medskip
\item{[C2]} A. Connes : Cohomologie cyclique et foncteur $Ext^n$. {\it C.R. Acad. Sci.
Paris}, Ser.I Math {\bf 296} (1983).
\medskip
\item{[C3]} A. Connes : $C^*$ alg\`ebres et g\'eom\'etrie differentielle. {\it C.R. Acad. Sci.
Paris}, Ser.~A-B {\bf 290} (1980).
\medskip
\item{[CM]} A.~Connes and H.~Moscovici, Hopf Algebras, Cyclic
Cohomology and the Transverse Index Theorem, {\it Commun. Math.
Phys.} {\bf 198} (1998), 199-246.
\medskip
\item{[Cr]} M.~Crainic, Cyclic Cohomology of Hopf Algebras and a
Noncommutative Chern-Weil Theory, {\it Preprint} QA/9812113.
\medskip
\item{[CQ]} J.~Cuntz and D.~Quillen, Cyclic homology and singularity,
{\it J. Amer. Math. Soc.} {\bf 8} (1995), 373-442.
\medskip
\item{[K]} C.~Kassel, {\it Quantum Groups}, Springer-Verlag, 1995.
\medskip
\item{[L]} J.L.~Loday, {\it Cyclic Homology}, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,
New York, 1998.
\medskip
\item{[RT]} N. Yu.~Reshetikhin and V. G.~Turaev, Ribbon graphs and their
invariants derived from quantum groups,
{\it Commun. Math. Phys.} {\bf 127} (1990), 1-26.
\medskip
\item{[S]} M.E.~Sweedler, {\it Hopf Algebras}, W.A.~Benjamin, Inc.,
New York, 1969.
\bye
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
The Lagrange points $L_4$ and $L_5$ are stable in the restricted
three body problem (e.g., Danby 1988). However, the long-term survival
of Trojans around the Lagrange points of the planets in the presence
of perturbations from the remainder of the Solar System is a difficult
and still unsolved problem (e.g., \'Erdi 1997). Jovian Trojan
asteroids have been known since the early years of this century, while
a number of Saturnian moons (e.g., Dione and Helene, Tethys and
Calypso, Tethys and Telesto) also form Trojan configurations with
their parent planet. However, whether there exist Trojan-like bodies
associated with the other planets has been the matter of both
observational activity (e.g., Tombaugh 1961, Kowal 1971) and intense
theoretical speculation (e.g., Weissman \& Wetherill 1974, Mikkola \&
Innanen 1990, 1992). The answer to this problem came in 1990, with
the discovery of 5261 Eureka, the first Trojan around Mars (see
Mikkola et al. 1994 for details). The last few months of 1998 have
seen further remarkable progress with the discovery of one certain
Martian Trojan, namely 1998 VF31, as well as two further candidates,
namely 1998 SD4 and 1998 QH56 (see the {\it Minor Planet Electronic
Circulars 1998-W04, 1998-R02, 1998-S20 } and the {\it Minor Planet
Circular 33085}). The suggestion that 1998 QH56 and 1998 VF31 might be
Martian Trojans was first made by G.V. Williams.
These recent discoveries raise very directly the following questions.
Are there any more Martian Trojans? If so, where should the
observational effort be concentrated? Of course, the first question
can only be answered at the telescope, but the resolution of the
second question is provided in this {\it Letter}. By integrating
numerically an ensemble of inclined and in-plane orbits in the
vicinity of the Martian Lagrange points for 25 and 60 million years
respectively, the stable r\'egimes are mapped out. On re-simulating
and sampling the ensemble of stable orbits, the probability density of
Martian Trojans as a function of longitude and inclination can be
readily obtained. If a comparatively puny body such as Mars possesses
Trojans, the existence of such objects around the larger terrestrial
planets also merits very serious attention. There are Trojan orbits
associated with Venus and the Earth that survive for tens of millions
of years (e.g., Tabachnik \& Evans 1998). If objects populating such
orbits exist, they must be small else they would have been found by
now.
\section{MARTIAN TROJANS}
Saha \& Tremaine (1992, 1994) have taken the symplectic integrators
developed by Wisdom \& Holman (1991) and added individual planetary
timesteps to provide a fast code that it is tailor-made for long
numerical integrations of low eccentricity orbits in a nearly
Keplerian force field. In our simulations, the model of the Solar
System consists of the eight planets from Mercury to Neptune, together
with test particles starting near the Lagrange points. The effect of
Pluto on the evolution of Martian Trojans is quite negligible. Of
course, the Trojan test particles are perturbed by the Sun and planets
but do not themselves exert any gravitational forces. The initial
positions and velocities of the planets, as well as their masses, are
provided by the JPL Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE405 and the
starting epoch is JD 2440400.5 (28 June 1969). All our simulations
include the most important post-Newtonian corrections, as well as the
effects of the Moon. Individual timesteps are invaluable for this
work, as orbital periods are much smaller in the Inner Solar System
than the Outer. For all the computations described in this Letter,
the timestep for Mercury is $14.27$ days. The timesteps of the planets
are in the ratio $1:2:2:4:8:8:64:64$ for Mercury moving outwards, so
that Neptune has a timestep of $2.5$ years. The Trojan particles all
have the same timestep as Mercury. These values were chosen after some
experimentation to ensure the relative energy error has a peak
amplitude of $\approx 10^{-6}$ over the tens of million year
integration timespans. After each timestep, the Trojan test particles
are examined to see whether their orbits have become hyperbolic or if
they have entered the planet's sphere of influence (defined as $r_{\rm
s} = a_{\rm p} M_{\rm p}^{2/5}$ where $a_{\rm p}$ and $M_{\rm p}$ are
the semimajor axis and mass of the planet). If so, they are
terminated. In methodology, our calculations are very similar to the
magisterial work on the Trojan problem for the four giant planets by
Holman \& Wisdom (1993). The earlier calculations of Mikkola \&
Innanen (1994, 1995) on the Trojans of Mars for timespans of between
tens of thousands and 6 million years have also proved influential.
Our integrations of Trojan orbits are pursued for durations ranging
from 25 to 60 million years, the longest integration periods currently
available. Nonetheless, the orbits have been followed for only a tiny
fraction of the age of the Solar System ($\sim 4.5$ Gigayears), so it
is wise to remain a little cautious about our results.
Figure 1 shows the results of our first experiment. Here, the orbits
of 1080 Trojan test particles around Mars are integrated for 25
million years. The initial inclinations of the test particles (with
respect to the plane of Mars' orbit) are spaced every $2^\circ$ from
$0^\circ$ to $90^\circ$ and the initial longitudes (again with respect
to Mars) are spaced every $15^\circ$ from $0^\circ$ to
$360^\circ$. The starting semimajor axes and the eccentricities of the
Trojans are the same as the parent planet. Only the test particles
surviving till the end of the 25 million year integration are marked
on the Figure. The survivors occupy a band of inclinations between
$10^\circ$ and $40^\circ$ and longitudes between $30^\circ$ and
$120^\circ$ (the $L_4$ Lagrange point) or $240^\circ$ and
$330^\circ$ (the $L_5$ point). On the basis of 4 million year
timespan integrations, Mikkola \& Innanen (1994) claim that stable
Martian Trojans have inclinations between $15^\circ$ and $30^\circ$
and between $32^\circ$ and $44^\circ$ with respect to Jupiter's orbit.
Our longer integrations seem to suggest a more complex
picture. Mikkola \& Innanen's instability strip between $30^\circ$ and
$32^\circ$ can be detected in Figure~1, but only for objects near
$L_4$ with initial longitudes $\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$} 60^\circ$. In particular, this
instability strip does not exist around $L_5$ and here Trojans with
starting inclinations $30^\circ < i < 32^\circ $ seem to be stable --
as is also evidenced by the recent discovery of 1998 VF31. Marked on
the figure are the instantaneous positions of the two certain Martian
Trojans, namely 5261 Eureka (marked as a red circle) and 1998 VF31 (a
green circle), as well as the two candidates 1998 QH56 (a blue circle) and 1998
SD4 (a yellow circle). It is delightful to see that the two securely
established Trojans lie within the stable zone, which was computed by
Tabachnik \& Evans (1998) before the discovery of 1998 VF31. In fact,
they live deep within the heart of the zone, suggesting that they may
even be primordial. The two candidates (1998 QH56 and 1998 SD4) lie
closer to the rim. Let us finally note that Trojans starting off in
or near the plane of Mars' orbit are unstable. This has been confirmed
by an extensive survey of in-plane Martian Trojans. On integrating 792
test particles with vanishing inclination but with a range of
longitudes and semimajor axes, we found that all are unstable on
timescales of $60$ million years. Martian Trojans with low
inclinations are not expected.
It is useful to an observer hoping to discover further Trojans to
provide plots of the probability density. Accordingly, let us
re-simulate the stable zones with much greater resolution. This is
accomplished by placing a total of 746 test particles every $1^\circ$
in initial inclination and every $5^\circ$ in initial longitude so as
to span completely the stable regions. This ensemble of orbits is then
integrated and the orbital elements are sampled every 2.5 years to
provide the plots displayed in Figure 2. The upper panel shows the
meshed surface of the probability density as a function of both
inclination to the invariable plane and longitude with respect to the
planet. The asymmetry between the two Lagrange points is evident. The
lower panels show the projections of the meshed surface onto the
principal planes -- in particular, for the inclination plot, we have
shown the contribution at each Lagrange point separately. There are a
number of interesting conclusions to be drawn from the plots. First,
as shown by the dotted line, the probability density is bimodal at
$L_4$. It possesses a flattish maximum at inclinations between
$15^\circ$ and $30^\circ$ and then falls sharply, before rising to a
second maximum at $36^\circ$. At $L_5$, all inclinations between
$15^\circ$ and $40^\circ$ carry a significant probability, though the
smaller inclinations in this band are most favored. It is within
these inclination windows that the observational effort should be most
concentrated. Second, the probability density is peaked at longitudes
of $\sim 60^\circ$ ($L_4$) and $\sim 300^\circ$ ($L_5$). The
most likely place to observe one of these Trojans is indeed at the
classical locations of the Lagrange points. This is not intuitively
obvious, as any individual Trojan is most likely to be seen at the
turning points of its longitudinal libration. There are two reasons
why this effect is not evident in our probability density
plots. First, our figures refer to an ensemble of Trojans uniformly
populating the stable zone. So, the shape of the stable zone also
plays an important role in controlling the position of the maximum of
the probability density. Second, the positions of the Lagrange points
themselves are oscillating and so the turning points of the
longitudinal libration do not occur at the same locations, thus
smearing out the enhancement effect.
Table 1 lists the orbital elements of the two secure Martian Trojans
and the two candidates, as recorded by the Minor Planet Center. From
the instantaneous elements, it is straightforward to simulate the
trajectories of the objects. Figure 3 shows the orbits plotted in the
plane of longitude (with respect to Mars) versus semimajor axis. As
the figures illustrate, both 5261 Eureka and 1998 VF31 are stable and
maintain their tadpole character (see e.g., Garfinkel 1977) for
durations of 50 million years. Based on preliminary orbital elements,
Mikkola et al. (1994) integrated the orbit of 5261 Eureka and found
that its longitudinal libration was large, quoting $297^\circ \pm
26^\circ$ as the typical range in the longitudinal angle. Our orbit
of 5261 Eureka, based on the latest orbital elements, seems to show a
smaller libration of $285-314^\circ$. The remaining two objects that
have been suggested as Martian Trojans, 1998 QH56 and 1998 SD4, both
enter the sphere of influence of Mars -- in the former case after
$\sim 500\,000$ years, in the latter case after $\sim 100\,000$
years. Although the orbits are Mars crossing, their eccentricities
remain low and their inclinations oscillate tightly about mean values
until the Mars' sphere of influence is entered. It is possible that
these objects were once Trojans and have been ejected from the stable
zones, a possibility that receives some support from their locations
in Figure 1 at the fringes of the stable zones. Of course, another
possibility is that they are ejected asteroids from the Main Belt.
The fact that both confirmed Martian Trojans lie deep within the
stable zones in Figure 1 suggests that these objects may be
primordial. If so, we can get a crude estimate of possible numbers by
extrapolation from the number of Main Belt asteroids (c.f., Holman
1997, Evans \& Tabachnik 1999). The number of Main Belt asteroids
$N_{\rm MB}$ is $N_{\rm MB} \mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$} \Sigma_{\rm MB} A_{\rm MB} f$, where
$A_{\rm MB}$ is the area of the Main Belt, $\Sigma_{\rm MB}$ is the
surface density of the proto-planetary disk and $f$ is the fraction of
primordial objects that survive ejection (which we assume to be a
universal constant). Let us take the Main Belt to be centered on
$2.75$ AU with a width of $1.5$ AU. The belt of Martian Trojans is
centered on $1.52$ AU and has a width of $ \mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$} 0.0025$ AU. If the
primordial surface density falls off inversely proportional to
distance, then the number of Martian Trojans $N_{\rm MT}$ is
\begin{equation}
N_{\rm MT} \mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$} \Bigl( {2.75\over 1.52} \Bigr) \Bigl( {1.52 \times 0.0025
\over 2.75 \times 1.5} \Bigr) N_{\rm MB}
\approx 0.0016 N_{\rm MB}
\end{equation}
The number of known Main Belt asteroids with diameters $\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$} 1$ km is
$\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$} 40000$, which suggests that the number of Martian Trojans is
$\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$} 50$.
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
Motivated by the recent discovery of a new Mars Trojans (1998 VF31) as
well as further possible candidates (1998 QH56, 1998 SD4), this paper
has provided maps of the stable zones for Martian Trojans and
estimates of the numbers of undiscovered objects. For Mars, the
observational effort should be concentrated at inclinations satisfying
$15^\circ < i < 30^\circ$ and $32^\circ < i < 40^\circ$ for the
$L_4$ Lagrange point and between $15^\circ$ and $40^\circ$ for
$L_5$. These are the spots where the probability density is
significant (see Figure 2), though the lower inclinations in these
bands are slightly more favored than the higher. Trojans in or close
the orbital plane of Mars are unstable. Crude estimates suggest there
may be as many as $\sim 50$ undiscovered Martian Trojans with sizes
$\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$} 1$ km . The orbits of 5261 Eureka and 1998 VF31 remain
Trojan-like for durations of at least 50 million years. The other
candidates, 1998 QH56 and 1998 SD4, are not currently Trojans, though
it is conceivable that they may once have been. Both objects will
probably enter the sphere of influence of Mars after $\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$} 0.5$
million years.
\acknowledgments
NWE is supported by the Royal Society, while ST acknowledges financial
help from the European Community. We wish to thank John Chambers,
Luke Dones, Seppo Mikkola, Prasenjit Saha and Scott Tremaine for many
helpful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful for the
remarkable service to the academic community provided by the Minor
Planet Center. The anonymous referee helpfully provided improved
orbital elements for the Trojan candidates for our integrations.
|
\section{Introduction}
We have carried out an absorption study in the 21 cm line of atomic
hydrogen in 25 directions
in the Galaxy. These directions have been selected from previous
optical absorption studies in the lines of singly ionized calcium (CaII)
and neutral sodium (NaI).
In this paper, we describe the observations and present the data obtained
by us.
A discussion of the results and the conclusions drawn from the study
are in the accompanying paper (Rajagopal, Srinivasan and
Dwarakanath 1998; paper II).
Our observations were primarily intended to study the velocities of the
HI absorption features, their linewidths, and in combination with
existing HI emission measurements obtain the spin temperature of the absorbing gas.
Our study was motivated by the following questions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] How are interstellar clouds seen in optical absorption related
to those seen in HI absorption and emission ?
\item[(ii)] What is the nature of the relatively fast clouds so commonly
seen in the absorption lines of NaI and CaII ?
\end{itemize}
To clarify these and related issues we briefly summarize the salient
historical background.
Some of the earliest information about the Interstellar Medium (ISM) came
from observations of optical absorption in the H and K ($\lambda\lambda 3933, 3968{\rm\AA}$)
lines of CaII, and the D$_1$ and D$_2$ ($\lambda\lambda 5889, 5895{\rm\AA}$) lines of
NaI towards bright stars. Adams (1949)
made an extensive study of the absorption lines of CaII towards
nearly 300 O and B stars.
These observations
were later extended to the D lines of NaI (Routly and Spitzer 1952; Hobbs 1969),
and to high latitude stars (M\"{u}nch and Zirrin 1961).In the simplest model, these
lines were attributed
to interstellar gas in the form of clouds.
The existence of a {\em hot intercloud medium} was conjectured by Spitzer (1956)
and the theoretical basis for a two-phase model followed ( Field 1965; Field, Goldsmith
and Habing 1969).
Independently, a global picture of the ISM emerged from radio
observations of the 21 cm HI line (Clark, Radhakrishnan and Wilson 1962; Clark 1965;
Radhakrishnan et. al. 1972).
These and later studies have established that an important constituent
of the ISM are cool diffuse clouds in pressure equilibrium with a warmer intercloud medium.
The notion of interstellar ``clouds'' was thus invoked to explain both
optical and radio observations. {\em But one was left speculating as to whether
the two populations were the same.} Surprisingly the answer to the above question still remains incomplete.
Many properties of the two populations seem to differ. In particular the
number of clouds per kiloparsec (Blaauw 1952; Radhakrishnan and
Goss 1972; Hobbs 1974; Radhakrishnan and Srinivasan 1980), and the velocity distributions
deduced from optical and radio observations, respectively, do not agree. The latter
discrepancy is discussed
in more detail in a subsequent section.
In this study, we have attempted a direct comparison by doing HI absorption measurements
towards the bright stars themselves. Of course, this can
be done only in those lines of sight (towards stars studied previously) where there
are strong enough radio sources. We were actually able to do this in about 25 directions.
From this data we obtain the velocities of the
absorbing gas, and in combination with previous emission measurements in the
same directions, the spin temperature of the HI gas in the very entities seen
in optical absorption. This is the first attempt at such a direct comparison.
Identifying the optical absorption lines with 21 cm absorption features is particularly
important because of a long standing puzzle.
Optical absorption along many lines of sight reveal two sets of absorption
features. One set occur at near zero (low) velocities and another at higher
velocities with respect to the local standard of rest. The faster
clouds have measured velocities well in excess of the radial
component of Galactic rotation one could attribute to them.
In a classic study of Adams' data, Blaauw (1952) clearly showed the existence
of a high velocity tail extending upto as high as 100 \kms in the distribution
of random velocities of the optical
absorption features. Thus the existence of a high velocity population of clouds
was firmly established.
There was also a hint that these ``fast''
clouds may belong to a different population.
They exhibited the
well known Routly-Spitzer effect (Routly and Spitzer 1952) \ie the
NaI to CaII ratios in these clouds were significantly lower than those
in the lower velocity clouds.
In the decade following the discovery of the 21 cm line attempts were
made to detect the gas seen in optical absorption.
These involved measuring HI emission
in the direction of stars which show optical absorption features in their
spectra in order to compare the HI spectra with the CaII and NaI spectra
(Takakubo 1967; Habing 1968, 1969;
Goldstein and MacDonald 1969; Goniadzki 1972; Heiles 1974 and others).
Habing's study in
particular targeted
selected stars to attempt a direct face off. The results of these early
studies threw up another intriguing fact. The low velocity features appeared
to be well correlated in HI emission and optical absorption, \ie whenever
the optical spectra showed a low velocity absorption feature (v$<$ 10 \kms),
there was HI emission
at the corresponding velocity. However, the high velocity features were in general
{\em absent} in HI emission down to low limits (T$_b <$ 1 K). This
seemed to be the case in all directions in the sky.
The typical beam sizes in the early experiments to measure HI emission were $\sim$ 0.5$^\circ$.
The angular size of the absorbing gas could have been much smaller leading to
considerable beam dilution. This could be the reason why the clouds were not detected in HI emission.
This exemplifies the difficulties in
comparing the features seen in optical absorption with arc-second
resolution with those seen in radio emission using a comparatively
large beam. This is one of the major factors which led us to attempt
an HI {\it absorption study}. The resolution achieved is of the same order
as in optical absorption enabling a surer comparison.
Despite the failure of the early emission measurements to detect the
``fast'' clouds there is some indication for a population of high velocity clouds
from an independent HI absorption study, though this is far from being
firmly established.
Radhakrishnan and Srinivasan (1980) from a detailed
analysis of the 21 cm absorption profile towards the Galactic centre
suggested that the peculiar velocities of HI clouds cannot be understood
in terms of a single Gaussian distribution with a dispersion of about 5 $-$
7 \kms, the velocity distribution for ``standard'' HI clouds.
There was an indication of a second population of weakly
absorbing clouds with a velocity dispersion $\sim 35$ \kms.
But this has not been confirmed by other studies. Our study is an
attempt to address this important but neglected problem.
\section{Scope of the present observations}
We chose 25 stars towards which both low and high
velocity absorption features have been seen (from CaII or NaI
atoms or both). Two of the stars HD 14134 and 14143 happen to be in the same field
(in our radio observations) and hence we have
measured absorption in only 24 fields. The positions of all the selected stars
as projected on the plane
of the Galaxy are shown in Fig 1. The Galactic spiral arms shown in this
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\epsfig{file=galplot.ps,width=12.5cm}}
\end{center}
\caption[Positions of our sample of stars, projected on the Galactic plane]{24 of our
sample of
25 stars (HD 119608 lies outside the region shown) are shown
as dots on the contour plot of the
Galactic spiral arms from Taylor and Cordes. The squares show the local OB
associations from Blaauw (1985). The Sun is at 8.5 kpc from the Galactic center.
The object with dense contours to the left of the sun is the Gum Nebula.
The outer arm shown is the Perseus
arm, while the inner one is the Sagittarius arm. The three stars bunched together well
inside the Perseus arm are HD 14134, 14143 and 14818. The Perseus OB1 cluster is seen close
to them. The two stars seen projected on the Sagittarius arm are HD 166937 and 159176.
These fields show
high velocity HI absorption.}
\end{figure*}
figure are from the electron density model by Taylor and Cordes (1993). In 13 of
these directions
HI emission measurements had been
carried out earlier by Habing (1968,1969). Most of the fields studied by Habing were
chosen at $|\rm b|$ $>$ 20 $^{\circ}$ to avoid complicated HI emission arising in the plane.
Four stars, however, have $|\rm b|$ $<$ 10$^{\circ}$ and were selected since they
show CaII velocities well outside the limits of Galactic rotation
at the estimated distances. Out of the remaining 12 fields, 3 have been
investigated by Goniadzki (1972) for HI emission and one by Takakubo (1967).
The rest of the fields have not been investigated in the radio.
However, we have been able to get the brightness temperatures and
column densities of HI in these directions also from the Leiden-Green Bank
survey (Burton 1985).
In the observations described in this paper
we have obtained HI absorption spectra towards a radio source whose line
of sight is close to that of the
star in each of the 24 fields.
We have been able
to identify fairly strong radio sources (in most cases $\gsim$ 50 mJy at 21 cm) within
30' to 40' of the star in every field. In more than
half the fields the radio sources are within 10' and several within 5' of the star
in question. If the cloud is halfway to the star, then given a 10' separation between
the star and the radio source one will sample a cloud of size less than 2 pc even
for the farthest stars in the sample which are
about 2 kpc away. This is well within the range of accepted sizes for standard
clouds (Spitzer 1978).
In some fields we
had to arrive at a compromise between the minimum cloud size we could sample
(\ie the proximity of the projected position of the background source to the star)
and the optical depth sensitivity we could achieve. The latter constrains
us to fairly strong radio sources for reasonable integration times.
This flux density requirement limits the number of sources that one can find
close to the star and hence the trade off. Most of the background sources
selected are from the NRAO/VLA Sky Survey (Condon et al. 1996). We aimed at
an optical depth
sensitivity of $\tau$ = 0.1 and have done better than that in several cases.
The worst case limit on the optical depth is 0.4.
\section{Observations and data analysis}
We obtained the absorption spectra using the Very Large Array (VLA\footnote{The VLA
is operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). The NRAO is a facility
of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated
Universities, Inc.})
in the
$\sim$ 1 km and $\sim$ 11 km configurations
with a synthesized beam size of 44'' and 4'', respectively, at 21 cm.
The observations were carried out
with a total bandwidth of 1.56 MHz using both polarizations
and 128 channels.
We used 0134+329 as the primary flux calibrator. For each
source we observed a nearby secondary calibrator to do a phase and
bandpass calibration. The calibrator was observed with the frequency
band shifted by 1.5 MHz, corresponding to a velocity shift $\sim$
300 km s$^{-1}$. This shift in velocity is sufficient to move the band away
from any Galactic feature which might affect the bandpass calibration.
Typically, each of these calibrators were observed for $\sim$ 10 minutes.
The typical strengths of these calibrator sources being $>$ 1 Jy, 10 minutes of
integration time was sufficient to achieve a signal-to-noise ratio
greater than that on the source by a factor of 2.
After on line Hanning smoothing over 2 channels, the frequency resolution
obtained was $\sim$ 12 kHz
which corresponds to a velocity resolution of $\sim$ 2.5 \kms.
The integration time on
each source was chosen to give an optical depth sensitivity
of \mbox{$\tau \sim$ 0.1}, and ranged from a few minutes to more than an hour.
In all a total of \mbox{$\sim$ 30} hours were spent on the sources, split over
several sessions of observing.
The analysis was carried out using the Astronomical Image Processing System
(AIPS) developed by the
National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). The first step
was to make continuum images of each field and examine them for bright
sources, including the target source.
Our observations coincided with the
ongoing NRAO/VLA Sky Survey (in the B and D configurations) and
most of our observations were carried out during the daytime. Hence we had
to contend with moderate to strong levels of interference over most of the band
owing to which approximately 10\% of the data was lost.
The next stage involved removing the continuum level from all channels. The
task used for this was UVLIN. The continuum level to be removed
is determined from a linear fit to the visibility levels in selected channels,
which are chosen
to be free of interference as well as any spectral features. Finally the image cubes were
made. The imaging was typically done over an area of 512 by 512 pixels. In some cases
several cubes were synthesised for different areas to cover all the
sources of interest in the field.
The spectra towards each of the sources were analysed with the Groningen Image Processing
System (GIPSY; van der Hulst et al. 1992).
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{.9}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|c|c|r|}\hline
Field & d & l$^{{\tiny II}}$, b$^{{\tiny II}}$ & $\theta$ & V$_{lsr} $ & $\tau$ & V$
_{Gal}$\\ \hline\hline
{} & pc & & arcmin & \kms & & {\scriptsize km s$^{-1}$}\\ \hline
14143$^*$& 2000 & 135, $-$4& 10.0& $-$52.8, $-$50.3, $-$46.1,& 0.09& $-$25 \\
& & & & $-$11.2, $-$8.2& & \\
14818& 2200& 136, $-$4& 10.0& $-$55.8, $-$14.0, $-$3.7& 0.05& $-$25 \\
21278& 190& 148, $-$6& 37.0& 2.8& 0.08& $>$0 \\
21291& 1100& 141, 3& 36.0 & $-$31.2, $-$7.0, $-$4.9& 0.07& $-$10 \\
24912& 46& 160, $-$13& 2.2& 4.3, 6.0, $-$82.0& 0.39& $-$5 \\
25558& 220& 185, $-$33& 26.0& 8.1& 0.10& $<$0\\
34816& 540& 215, $-$26& 40.0& 6.0, 8.0& 0.10& $<$0 \\
37742& 500& 206, $-$16& 15.0& 9.5& 0.03& 5\\
38666& 300& 237, $-$27& 21.5& none& 0.02& 5 \\
41335& 300& 213, $-$13& 3.0& 1.0, 10.0& 0.04& $>$0 \\
42087& 1200& 188, 2& 42.0, 32.0& 4.4, 6.5, 12.4& 0.13& $-$5 \\
93521& 2000& 183, 62& 27.0& none& 0.11& $<$0 \\
119608& 3400& 320, 43& 16.0& $-$5.4& 0.09& $-$20 \\
141637& 170& 346, 21& 11.0& 0.5, $-$0.2& 0.28& $\sim$0\\
148184& 150& 358, 21& 0.82& 3.4& 0.26& $\sim$0\\
156110& 720& 71, 36& $<$10.0& 2.2& 0.18& 5 \\
159176& 1180& 356, 0& 5.3& $-$20.8, $-$74.0& 0.28& $\sim$0 \\
166937& 1200& 10, $-$2& 5.0, 7.0& 34.6, 47.2, 35.7& 0.39& 5 \\
175754& 680& 16, $-$10& $<$10.0& 6.8& 0.09& 10 \\
199478& 2000& 88, 1& 8.0& 5.0 to $-$75.0& 0.21& $-$7 \\
205637& 250& 32, $-$45& 18.4& none& 0.30& 5 \\
212978& 520& 95, $-$15& 12.0& 0.3, $-$12.3& 0.04& $-$5 \\
214680& 780& 97, $-$17& 12.0& $-$4.8, 1.4& 0.28& $-$5 \\
220172& 750& 68, $-$63& 2.9& none& 0.33& 10 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[Summary of HI absorption.]
{Summary of HI absorption: Column 1 gives the HD number of the
star. Columns 2 and 3 show the distance to the star (as listed in the Sky Catalogue
2000.0, Vol 1, Hirshfield and Sinnott 1982) and its galactic coordinates, respectively.
Column 4 gives the angular separation of the star from the radio
source(s) towards
which absorption has been detected. Column 5 lists the
HI absorption velocities (LSR).
Columns 6 shows
the detection limit in $\tau$ (towards the
strongest source in the field).
Column 7 shows the approximate radial component of the Galactic rotation velocity at the
distance to the star. $<$ 0 and $>$ 0 are used to indicate velocities with magnitude less
than 5 \kms.\\
{\footnotesize The stars 14134 and 14143 are in the {\em same} field referred to above
as 14143$^*$.}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{.9}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|c|}\hline
\setcounter{table}{1}
Field & V$_{lsr}$(optical, all) & V$_{lsr}$(HI, coincident)& V$_{Gal}$&Ref \\ \hline\hline
{} & \kms & \kms & \kms & \\ \hline
14143$^*$& $-$62.3, $-$46.8, $-$6.3& $-$46.1, $-$50.3, $-$11.2& $-$25 & M \\
& $-$65.3, $-$50.8, $-$10.3& & & \\
14818& $-$42.6, $-$33.6, $-$6.6& $-$3.7& $-$25 & M \\
21278& $-$0.2, 48.6& 2.8& $>$0 & A \\
21291& $-$34.0, $-$7.5& $-$31.2, $-$7.0, $-$4.9& $-$10 & M \\
24912& 4.7, 20.7& 4.3& $-$5& A\\
25558& 10.1, 19.0& 8.1& $<$0 & A \\
34816& $-$14.0, 4.14& 6.0& $<$0 & A \\
37742& $-$21.0, 3.6& none & 5 & A \\
38666& 1.0, 20.2& no absorption& 5 & MZ \\
41335& $-$20.8, 0.2& 1.0& $>$0 & A \\
42087& $-$37.7, $-$4.8, 10.2& 12.4& $-$5 & A \\
93521& $-$55.0, $-$34.0, $-$10.3, 6.8& no absorption& $<$ 0 & MZ \\
119608& 1.3, 22.4& none & $-$20 & MZ \\
141637& $-$22.0, 0.0& 0.5, $-$0.2& 0 & B \\
148184& 14.2, 2.2& 3.4& 0 & A \\
156110& $-$19.7, 0.4& 2.2& 5 & MZ \\
159176& 3.5, $-$22.5& $-$20.8& 0 & A \\
166937& $-$5.5, 5.9, 25.3, 41.1& 5.4, 47.2, 35.7& 5 & A \\
175754& $-$73.0, 5.9, 29.5& 6.8& 10 & A \\
199478& $-$2.1, 8.7, 42.3, 61.2& 3.8 (blend) & $-$7 & A \\
205637& $-$13.9, 1.8& no absorption& 5 & A \\
212978& $-$73.0, 0.6& 0.3& $-$5 & A \\
214680& $-$23.7, $-$14.7, 0.1& 1.4& $-$5 & A \\
220172& $-$21.5, $-$0.8, 13.5& no absorption& 10 & MZ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[Summary of coincident velocities.]{Summary of coincident velocities: Column
2 lists the LSR velocities of all the optical absorption features seen in each
line of sight (most of the listed velocities are
from CaII observations). Velocities of the matching HI absorption features are given in
column 3.
Column 4 shows the radial component of the Galactic rotation velocity at the distance
to the star.
Column 5 has the
reference for the optical absorption velocities
which are from A: Adams (1949), B: Buscombe and Kennedy (1962), M: M\"{u}nch (1957) and
MZ: M\"{u}nch and Zirrin (1961).
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Results}
Table 1 lists the details of all the fields observed.
In most of these fields
there were several radio sources within the primary beam in addition to the
source initially targeted. We have obtained spectra towards these
sources as well if they turned out to be strong enough to detect reasonable
optical depths ($\sim$ 0.1).
Column 1 gives the HD number of the
star. Columns 2 and 3 give the distance to the star (as listed in the SKY 2000 catalogue
of bright stars) and its galactic coordinates, respectively.
Column 4 gives the angular separation of the star from the radio
source(s) towards
which absorption has been detected. Column 5 lists the
HI absorption velocities (LSR).These velocities have been derived by fitting Gaussian profiles
to the absorption features.
Columns 6 shows
the detection limit in $\tau$ (towards the
strongest source in the field).
Column 7 shows the radial component of the Galactic rotation velocity at the
distance to the star.
The optical absorption
velocities are likely to suffer from blending
of features due to lack of resolution. A discussion of this and associated
problems can be found in Welty, Morton and Hobbs (1996). Moreover, the
correction for the solar motion adopted by different authors may
differ leading to errors of $\sim$ 1 \kms (see for example Blaauw, 1952).
In some cases, we have smoothed
the absorption spectra to a resolution of 5 \kms to facilitate the convergence of the
gaussian fit. Narrow absorption features
are known to have widths less than this (Crovisier 1981). We have checked
the unsmoothed data to ensure that there are no serious effects of blending
in the estimates for velocities for the features discussed below. However,
crowding in velocities inevitably causes some of the absorption widths
to be suspect. The formal error in the fitting procedure for our HI absorption
velocities is in most cases $\sim$ 1 \kms or less. The errors
add to \lsim 2 \kms.
However, it must be stated that the blending of features in both optical and radio
could easily lead to larger errors than this formal value. {\it Hence we consider
a feature in the optical spectrum as ``coincident'' with one seen
in HI absorption or emission if the magnitude of the difference in velocities
is less than 3 \kms}.
This is roughly the
same criterion adopted by Habing (1969) and Howard et al. (1963) for comparing
HI emission profiles with optical absorption.
Table 2 lists the ``matching'' features \ie HI absorption features whose velocities
agree with the velocity of the optical absorption feature.
Column 2 shows the LSR velocities of all the optical absorption features seen in each
line of sight (most of the listed velocities are
from CaII observations). Velocities of the matching HI absorption features follow in column 3.
Column 4 shows the radial component of the Galactic rotation velocity at the distance
to the star to facilitate comparison with the optical absorption velocities.
Column 5 has the
reference for the optical absorption velocities
which are from Adams (1949), M\"{u}nch (1957) and
M\"{u}nch and Zirrin (1961). We have used later compilations of these
by Takakubo (1967), Siluk and Silk (1974), and Habing (1969).
We present the HI optical depth towards all the observed fields
at the end of the paper.
The coordinates of the radio source (epoch 1950) towards which the spectrum is
obtained is labelled at the top right of each panel. The HD number of the star
towards which the corresponding optical spectrum is obtained is at the top left.
The star co-ordinates (epoch 1950) are given immediately below this. The star
co-ordinates have not been repeated if there are several radio sources in the same field.
In all the spectra the velocities at which optical absorption is seen is indicated
by arrows on the velocity axis (top).
The conclusions we draw from these observations and a detailed discussion of the
implications for the models of the ISM are presented
in paper II.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
We wish to thank Adriaan Blaauw for extensive discussions which led to this
investigation. His continued interest and critical comments have been
invaluable to us. We are also indebted to Hugo van Woerden for guiding us
through the literature pertaining to the early HI observations by the Dutch group.
|
\section{Introduction}
According to the hierarchical clustering scenario, clusters of galaxies
are formed through subcluster mergers. The influence of cluster merger
on the intracluster medium (ICM) has been investigated in detail through
the comparison between hydrodynamic/N-body simulations and X-ray
observations. The simulations predict that the collision of large
clusters gives rise to distorted X-ray contours and high temperature gas
(e.g. Schindler, M\"{u}ller 1993; Burns et al. 1994; Ishizaka, Mineshige
1996; Roettiger et al. 1997; Ricker 1998; Takizawa 1999). Recent X-ray
observations have confirmed that many clusters have the complex
structure predicted by the simulations (e.g. Fujita et al. 1996; Honda
et al. 1996; Knopp et al. 1996; Donnelly et al. 1998;
Markevitch et al. 1999). On the other hand, the influence of merger on
the galaxies in the clusters is not understood. Since cluster merger
drastically changes the environment of the galaxies, especially static
and ram-pressure on the galaxies, in a short time ($\ltsim 10^9$ yr), we
can expect that it causes observable change in star formation rate (SFR)
of the galaxies. However, it is not obvious whether cluster merger
increases or decreases SFR of the galaxies as follows. Cluster merger
rapidly raises the static and ram-pressure from ICM. As a result,
interstellar medium (ISM) of the galaxies is expected to be compressed
and star formation activity may be triggered (e.g. Evrard. 1991; Wang et
al. 1997). In fact, in several merging clusters, there are galaxies
having the abnormal spectrum which reflects recent star formation
(e.g. Caldwell et al. 1993; Wang et al. 1997), although Tomita et
al. (1996) find that this is not the case for a merging cluster A168. On
the contrary, cluster merger may reduce SFR of the galaxies because
ram-pressure strips their ISM away. Thus, in order to investigate the
effect of pressure on galaxies, SFR of galaxies must be quantitatively
estimated. Using the simple model of molecular cloud evolution, Fujita,
Nagashima (1999) have quantitatively estimated the SFR of a disk galaxy
under the pressure from ICM. However they consider only a radially
infalling galaxy; they do not predict the evolutions of all galaxies in
the cluster.
In this letter, we investigate the evolution of SFR of disk galaxies
when two clusters collide and merge. Moreover, we calculate the color
distribution of the galaxies in the clusters. We only consider the
effect of pressure from ICM; we do not consider the effect of tidal
force from cluster potential and other galaxies for simplicity, although
it may cause starburst (Bekki 1999). This is because it is difficult to
calculate the intermittent influence of tidal force on the internal
structures of hundreds of galaxies.
\section{Models}
We consider the merger of two typical clusters. In order to calculate
the evolution of ICM, we use the smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH)
method (Monaghan 1992). We treat ions and electrons separately based on
the model of Takizawa (1999), although the two-temperature nature does
not affect the SFR of galaxies significantly. Collisionless particles
corresponding to dark matter and galaxies are also considered. The
initial conditions for ICM and collisionless particles are the same as
those of Run B in Takizawa (1999) except for the radii of the two
clusters, $r_{\rm out}$. Since we assume that $r_{\rm out}$ is ten times
the core radius, which is two times larger than that in Takizawa (1999),
the total masses of the two clusters are also larger. Their masses are
$8\times 10^{14}$ and $2\times 10^{14}\rm\; M_{\odot}$. The gas fraction
of the clusters is 0.1, which is supported by recent observations if
$H_0\sim 75\rm\: km\; s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}$ (e.g. Ettori, Fabian 1999). The
results in the next section are not sensitive to the fraction within the
range of recent observational results. At $t=0$, the separation of the
two clusters is 3.3 Mpc. We randomly pick out 125 particles from the
collisionless particles (100 for the larger cluster and 25 for the
smaller cluster) as disk galaxies. We calculate the orbits of these
`galaxies' and the pressure from the surrounding ICM.
The effects of static and ram-pressure on the SFR of disk galaxies are
estimated by the model of Fujita (1998) and Fujita, Nagashima (1999). In
this model, the SFR is derived by calculating the evolution of each
molecular cloud using the relations for a vilialized cloud. We think
that the model is superior to the approach based on the Schmidt law
(Schmidt 1959), which has dominated in this field. This is because while
the latter gives the same SFR regardless of the pressure of ISM for a
fixed density, the former does not. Moreover the latter does
not discriminate between HI gas and molecular clouds. The model adopted
here treats them separately, although we sometimes call them together
interstellar medium (ISM). Note that the SFR derived through the model
adopted here is less sensitive to pressure variation compared to that
through the model based on Schmidt law in which the density of ISM is
assumed to be proportional to the pressure.
The condition of ram-pressure stripping is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:strip}
&\rho_{\rm ICM}v_{\rm rel}^2 \nonumber\\
>& 2\pi G \Sigma_{\star} \Sigma_{\rm HI} \nonumber\\
=& v_{\rm rot}^2 R^{-1} \Sigma_{\rm HI} \label{eq:grav2} \nonumber\\
=& 2.1\times 10^{-11}{\rm dyn\: cm^{-2}}
\left(\frac{v_{\rm rot}}{220\rm\; km\: s^{-1}}\right)^2
\nonumber\\
& \times \left(\frac{R}{10\rm\; kpc}\right)^{-1}
\left(\frac{\Sigma_{\rm HI}}{8\times 10^{20}
m_{\rm H}\;\rm cm^ {-2}}\right) \label{eq:grav3}\:,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_{\rm ICM}$ is the density of ICM, $v_{\rm rel}$ is the
velocity of a galaxy relative to the surrounding ICM, $G$ is the
gravitational constant, $\Sigma_{\star}$ is the gravitational surface
mass density, $\Sigma_{\rm HI}$ is the surface density of the HI gas,
$v_{\rm rot}$ is the rotation velocity, and $R$ is the characteristic
radius of the galaxy (Gunn, Gott 1972; Fujita, Nagashima 1999). Abadi et
al. (1999) numerically confirm that this analytic relation provides a
good approximation. After this condition is satisfied, the formation of
molecular cloud is assumed to stop; the gas ejected from stars and
supplied from destroyed molecular clouds {\it directly} flows into ICM.
Note that ISM in the central region of a galaxy ($\ltsim 2$ kpc) is not
stripped because of large gravitational force. However, the mass is
generally far smaller than the total mass of ISM (e.g. Struck-Marcell
1991). Thus, we ignore its contribution to the star formation activity
of the galaxy.
If a stripped galaxy reaches the outer part of the cluster, the galaxy
may recover ISM. Since Fujita, Nagashima (1999) do not take account of
recovery of ISM, we adopt the condition of recovery,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:ret}
&\rho_{\rm ICM}v_{\rm rel}^2 \nonumber\\
< & \frac{16}{v_{\rm rel}} \frac{S}{\pi R^2}v_{\rm rot}^2 \nonumber\\
= & 2.0\times 10^{-11} {\rm dyn\; cm^{-2}}
\left(\frac{v_{\rm vel}}{500\rm\; km\; s^{-1}}\right)^{-1}
\nonumber\\
& \times
\left(\frac{S}{6\rm\; M_{\odot}\;yr^{-1}}\right)
\left(\frac{R}{10\rm\; kpc}\right)^{-2}
\left(\frac{v_{\rm rot}}{220\rm\; km\; s^{-1}}\right)^{2}
\:,
\end{eqnarray}
where $S$ is the gas supply from stars and destroyed molecular clouds
(Takeda et al. 1984). Although this analytic expression assumes
spherical symmetry and may not be exact in the case of a disk galaxy,
the following results do not significantly alter even if we change the
coefficient of the right hand of relation (\ref{eq:ret}) by a factor of
five. After the galaxy satisfies this condition, gas ejected from stars
is trapped in the potential well of the galaxy, and molecular cloud
formation is resumed.
We start to calculate the SFR of the model galaxies at $t=1$ Gyr. The
initial mass of molecular gas and HI column density are $2.5\times
10^9\rm\; M_{\odot}$ and $8\times 10^{20} m_{\rm H}\;\rm cm^ {-2}$,
respectively. Moreover, we take $S=6\rm\; M_{\odot}\:yr^{-1}$, $R=10$
kpc, and $v_{\rm rot}=220\rm\;km\; s^{-1}$. Although the parameters are
the typical ones for our Galaxy (e.g. Binney, Tremaine 1987), the
following results do not change significantly even if we take the ones
for typical galaxies whose masses are five times smaller. We have
confirmed that the evolutions of the SFR and ISM are not sensitive to
the initial time of the calculation $\gtsim 1$ Gyr after the calculation
starts. Using the obtained SFR and the population synthesis code made
by Kodama, Arimoto (1997), we also investigate the evolution of color of
galaxies.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
Figure 1a shows the X-ray contours and positions of galaxies
at $t=3.6$ Gyr, where the two clusters have just passed each other. The
origin of the figure is the center of gravity of the clusters.
We define a `post-starburst galaxy' (PSB) as the galaxy whose SFR
reduces to less than $1/3$ of that for $10^8 - 10^9$ yr before the
observation time. Figure~1a shows that red ($B-V>0.7$) galaxies and
PSBs are concentrated in the central region of the cluster. These
features are always seen during merger. Although several blue
($B-V<0.7$) galaxies are also seen in the central region, they do not
gather at a specific position. We present the velocity distributions of
blue and red galaxies within $0.5$ Mpc from the center of the merged
cluster at $t=3.6$ Gyr in figure~2.
Since the average velocity of
blue galaxies in this region is $\sim 2500\rm\; km\; s^{-1}$, they pass
each other simultaneously. Note that in figure 2 the average velocity of
red galaxies is $\sim 1800\rm\; km\; s^{-1}$. This reflects that the
blue galaxies at the central region of the cluster are the ones that
can reach the cluster center before they become red although their ISM
is stripped. In figure 1b, we present the state of the cluster after it
is nearly relaxed ($t=5$ Gyr). Segregation of blue and red galaxies is
noticeable. This is quantitatively shown in figure~3.
The number of
blue galaxies in the central region of cluster ($\ltsim 0.7$ Mpc) at
$t=5$ Gyr is smaller than that at $t=3.6$ Gyr. This is
because there are few galaxies rapidly infalling into the center of the
merged cluster at $t=5$ Gyr.
To see the evolution of galaxies in detail, we show the fraction of blue
galaxies and PSBs in figure~4. The evolution of the latter is
calculated only for $t>3$ Gyr to avoid the influence of initial
conditions. The median static and ram-pressures on galaxies are
shown for comparison. They temporarily increase at $t\sim 3.6$ Gyr
when two clusters collide. At that time, the HI gas of most galaxies is
stripped because of the increase of ram-pressure. After that, new
molecular clouds are not produced; the existing ones disappear within
$\sim 10^8$ yr because of consumption by star formation and destruction
by young stars (see Fujita, Nagashima 1999). Since molecular clouds are
used to make stars, the SFR of galaxies and fraction of blue galaxy
decrease as molecular clouds disappear. Although the static and
ram-pressure compress ISM of galaxies and trigger the star formation
activity before the stripping occurs, the duration of activity is short
($\ltsim 0.4$ Gyr); the activity does not affect the color distribution
of galaxies in clusters significantly. Thus, cluster merger does not
trigger, but weakens star formation activity of the galaxies. At $t\sim
4$ Gyr, the two clusters once come apart. The ICM of the two clusters
expands and their relative velocity reduces. Since the average
ram-pressure significantly decreases, the ISM of galaxies recovers and
star formation restarts. Thus, the fraction of blue galaxies returns to
the initial value ($\sim 60$\%). Note that the fraction of blue galaxies
is over 40\% even when clusters are colliding (figure~1). This means
that cluster merger does not significantly affect galaxies in the outer
region of the clusters.
Figure~4 clearly shows that the fraction of PSBs increases from 30\% to
60\%, immediately following the merger. These PSBs are the galaxies
whose SFR decreases because of ram-pressure stripping. In fact, the
fraction of PSBs begins to increase after that of blue galaxies
decreases. However, it may not be easy to use PSBs as the probe of
cluster merger, because they always exist in clusters. This reflects
that some of cluster galaxies have radial orbits and fall into the
center of the cluster regardless of cluster merger. Thus, in order to
know the relation between PSBs and cluster merger observationally, it is
required to compare the PSB fractions of merging clusters with those of
non-merging clusters statistically.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:summary}
We have investigated the effect of pressure on the galaxies when two
clusters merge. We find that because of ram-pressure stripping, star
formation rate of most of galaxy decreases during merger contrary to the
speculation of Evrard (1991) and Wang et al. (1997). Some blue galaxies
can reach the central region of the merging clusters before they become
red because of their high velocities. By observing velocities, these
galaxies would be distinguished from the blue galaxies in which star
formation is triggered by tidal force from the gravitational field of
the cluster because the tidal interaction is effective when a galaxy
moves slowly. Following the decrease of blue galaxy fraction of the
clusters, the fraction of post-starburst galaxies increases. After the two
clusters pass by, star formation restarts in the galaxies because the
ram-pressures decrease. When a quasi-equilibrium state is reached, the
segregation of blue and red galaxies becomes prominent.
\par
\vspace{1pc} \par
This work was supported in part by the JSPS Research Fellowship for
Young Scientists.
\section*{References}
\small
\re Abadi M.G., Moore B., Bower R.G.\ 1999, MNRAS in press
(astro-ph/9903436)
\re Bekki K.\ 1999, ApJL 510, L15
\re Binney, J., Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics
\re Burns J.O., Roettiger K., Ledlow M., Klypin A.\ 1994, ApJL 427,
L87
\re Caldwell H., Rose J.A., Sharples R.M., Ellis R.S., Bower R.G.\
1993, AJ 106, 473
\re Donnelly R.H., Markevitch M., Forman W., Jones C., David L.P.,
Churazov E., Gilfanov M.\ 1998, ApJ 500, 138
\re Ettori S., Fabian A.C.\ 1999, MNRAS in press (astro-ph/9901304)
\re Evrard A.E.\ 1991, MNRAS 248, 8p
\re Fujita Y.\ 1998, ApJ 509, 587
\re Fujita Y., Koyama K., Tsuru T., Matsumoto H.\ 1996, PASJ 48, 191
\re Fujita Y., Nagashima M., 1999, ApJ in press (astro-ph/9812378)
\re Gunn J.E., Gott J.R. 1972, ApJ 176, 1
\re Honda H., Hirayama M., Watanabe M., Kunieda H., Tawara Y.,
Yamashita K., Ohashi T., Hughs, J.P., Henry, J.P.\ 1996, ApJL 473,
L71
\re Ishizaka C., Mineshige S.\ 1996, PASJ 48, L37
\re Knopp G.P., Henry J.P., Briel U.G.\ 1996, ApJ 472, 125
\re Kodama T., Arimoto N.\ 1997, A\&A 320, 41
\re Markevitch M., Sarazin C.L., Vikhlinin A.\ 1999, ApJ, in press
(astro-ph/9812005)
\re Monaghan J.J.\ 1992, ARA\&A 30, 543
\re Ricker P.M.\ 1998, ApJ 496, 670
\re Roettiger K., Loken C., Burns J.O.\ 1997, ApJS 109, 307
\re Schindler S., M\"{u}ller E.\ 1993, A\&A 272, 137
\re Schmidt M.\ 1959, ApJ 344, 685
\re Struck-Marcell 1991, ApJ, 368, 348
\re Takeda H., Nulsen P.E.J., Fabian A.C.\ 1984, MNRAS 208, 261
\re Takizawa M.\ 1999, ApJ in press (astro-ph/9901314)
\re Tomita A., Nakamura F.E., Takata T., Nakanishi K., Takeuchi T.,
Ohta K., Yamada T.\ 1996, AJ 111, 42
\re Wang Q.D., Ulmer M.P., Lavery R.J.\ 1997, MNRAS 288, 702
\label{last}
\newpage
\begin{figure}
\centering \epsfig{figure=f1a.eps, width=8cm}
\caption{(a)
The X-ray surface
brightness and the positions of galaxies at $t=3.6$ Gyr. The crosses and
filled circles indicate red ($B-V>0.7$) and blue ($B-V<0.7$) galaxies,
respectively. Open circles indicate post-starburst galaxies.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering \epsfig{figure=f1b.eps, width=8cm}
\vspace{3mm}
\footnotesize{Fig. 1.. (b)
Same as in figure 1 but for $t=5$ Gyr.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering \epsfig{figure=f2.eps, width=8cm} \caption{
Histogram showing the distribution of velocity relative to the space
coordinate at $t=3.6$ Gyr. The galaxies within 0.5 Mpc from the
origin are picked out.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering \epsfig{figure=f3.eps, width=8cm} \caption{
Histogram showing the distribution of distance from the origin.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering \epsfig{figure=f4.eps, width=8cm} \caption{
The fraction of blue galaxies $f_b$ and post-starburst
galaxies $f_{\rm PSB}$. The median static pressure $\langle
P_{\rm stat} \rangle$ and ram-pressure $\langle P_{\rm ram}
\rangle$ are also presented.}
\end{figure}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
String theory is a promising candidate of quantum gravity and the
theory of spacetime. It is therefore an interesting question to study
the properties of spacetime in string theory.
A number of uncertainty relations have been proposed in relation to
string theory. See, for example, \cite{douglas,liyon1}
for a review of the subject and for further references.
It was first proposed \cite{early}
that a modified version of the canonical Heisenberg uncertainty relation
\begin{equation}
\delta X\delta P\geq 1+l_s^2\delta P^2,
\end{equation}
governs the high energy behavior of string theory.
This relation implies
the existence of a minimal scale $\delta X\sim l_s$ \cite{early}.
Another uncertainty relation is the one proposed by
Yoneya \cite{Yon}
\begin{equation} \label{TX}
\delta T\delta X\geq l_s^2.
\end{equation}
He further suggested that the spacetime uncertainty relation
can be one of the fundamental principles underlying
the nonperturbative string theory,
and can also be one of the guiding principles for constructing
a covariant formulation of M theory \cite{Yon}.
In this paper, we propose a new kind of uncertainty relation
\begin{equation} \label{ours}
\delta X^0\delta X^1\cdots\delta X^p\geq g_s l_s^{p+1}
\end{equation}
for the worldvolume of a D$p$-brane. Here $X^i$ are the D-brane
worldvolume coordinates. We also propose a similar kind of
uncertainty relations for the M-branes.
It is well known that in string theory different probes
could
see slightly different spacetime geometries.
So it is natural to expect that the uncertainty principle
can be different for different probes, as it is manifest in
our proposed relations (\ref{ours}).
Note that (\ref{ours}) is involved only with the longitudinal
directions on a D-branes, that is, the D-brane worldvolume.
Another uncertainty relation involving both longitudinal
and transverse directions for a D-brane was proposed
by Yoneya
and collaborators
\cite{liyon1,Yon,yoneya}.
He proposed that if one interprets $T$ and $X$
as the longitudinal and transverse coordinates of a D-brane,
(\ref{TX}) can also be understood as an uncertainty relation
for a D-brane.
In the brane world scenario \cite{bw},
it is argued that we could be living on a D-brane.
It is thus of great interest to determine
the form of uncertainty relations on a D-brane worldvolume,
which will be interpreted as the uncertainty relation
for the four dimensional spacetime on which we are trapped.
Since it is also known that a D-brane worldvolume becomes
noncommutative \cite{CDS,DH} in the presence of a nontrivial background
$B_{NS-NS}$ field in the direction of the brane,
it is natural to ask what kind of uncertainty relation follows
this worldvolume noncommutativity \cite{SJ,CH}.
In this paper we first show how to obtain
the uncertainty relation for a D1-brane
by integrating out quantum fluctuations of the background field.
Then we use various dualities in string theory and M theory
to extend the uncertainty relation to other D-branes and
strings or membranes.
Putting all the old and new dualities together, we find a web
of spacetime uncertainty relations associated with
all the branes in string theory or M theory.
The organization of this paper is as follow. In sec.\ref{open},
we first extend the previous results \cite{CDS,DH,CH}
about the noncommutativity of D-brane by generalizing the background to
the first nontrivial (yet manageable) order, with a curved background
metric $g_{\mu \nu}$ and a nontrivial NS-NS 2-form field.
Then we argue in sec.\ref{noncomm} that these commutation relations
give rise to uncertainty relations on the D-brane worldvolume.
While the precise form of the uncertainty relations
cannot be easily fixed this way,
one can use the dualities of string theory and M theory to constrain
the form of the uncertainty relations.
Guided by this idea, we propose in sec.\ref{ur}
worldvolume uncertainty relations for D-branes,
M2-branes, M5-branes, as well as fundamental strings.
We check that they are consistent with
various dualities of string theory and M theory.
Finally we make a few remarks in sec.\ref{remarks}.
\section{Noncommutativity from open string quantization}\label{open}
It was first proposed by Connes, Douglas and Schwarz \cite{CDS},
and by Douglas and Hull \cite{DH}, that the Matrix model
compactified on a torus with the NS-NS $B$ field background
should be described by a field theory living on a noncommutative space.
This conjecture has been verified in various ways
(see, e.g. \cite{NCT}).
In particular, it was pointed out in \cite{AAS} that this can be seen
by quantizing an open string ending on a D-brane.
Based on the intimate relation between compactified Matrix models
and D-brane worldvolume theories, Hauffman and Verlinde \cite{HV}
also suggested that the low energy effective theory
for a D-brane compactified on a torus with $B$ field background
should also live on a noncommutative space.
Following \cite{AAS}, the quantization of the open string ending on a D-brane
with a constant ${\cal F}=B-F$ field background
in flat spacetime was carried out in \cite{CH}.
An agreement with previous works was obtained but the framework
and results of \cite{CH} were more general.
In this section we generalize further the previous work
to a curved background and non-constant ${\cal F}$ field.
The derivation is in parallel with \cite{CH}.
For an open string with an end-point sticking
to a D$p$-brane with $U(1)$ field strength $F$ in
a $B$-field background, the bosonic part of its action
can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{action}
S_B= {1 \over 4\pi\alpha'} \int_{\Sigma} d^2\sigma
\left[ \eta^{\alpha\beta}g_{\mu\nu} \partial_\alpha X^{\mu}\partial_\beta X^{\nu}+
\epsilon}\def\vare{\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta} {\cal F}_{\mu\nu}\partial_\alpha X^{\mu}\partial_\beta X^{\nu} \right],
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}=B-F
\end{equation}
is the modified Born-Infeld field strength on the D-brane,
$F=dA$ and $A_i,\ i=0,1,\cdots, p$, is the $U(1)$ gauge potential
living on the D$p$-brane.
We use the convention $\eta^{\alpha\beta}=\mbox{diag}(-1,1)$
and $\epsilon^{01}=1$ as in \cite{CH}.
Note that ${\cal F}$ is invariant under the gauge transformations
\begin{equation}
A\rightarrow A+d\Lambda, \quad B\rightarrow B,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
B\rightarrow B+d\Lambda, \quad A\rightarrow A+\Lambda.
\end{equation}
The equations of motion are
\begin{equation} \label{EOM}
g_{\mu \kappa} (\ddot{X}^\kappa + \Gamma^\kappa{}_{\mu \nu} \dot{X^\mu}
\dot{X^\nu}) -
g_{\mu \kappa} ({X''}^\kappa + \Gamma^\kappa{}_{\mu \nu} {X'}^\mu
{X'}^\nu) + H_{\mu\nu\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}\dot{X}^{\nu}{X'}^{\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}=0,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\Gamma^{\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}}_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda\kappa}
(\partial_{\mu}g_{\kappa\nu}+\partial_{\nu}g_{\mu\kappa}-\partial_{\kappa}g_{\mu\nu})
\end{equation}
is the Riemannian connection for the metric and
\begin{equation}
H_{\mu\nu\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}=\partial_{\mu}{\cal F}_{\nu\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}+\partial_{\nu}{\cal F}_{\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda\mu}+
\partial_{\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}{\cal F}_{\mu\nu},
\end{equation}
that is, $H=d{\cal F}$. In fact, since $dF=0$, $H=dB$.
The boundary conditions are
\begin{equation} \label{BC}
X^{'\nu} g_{\nu i} +\dot{X}^{\nu} {\cal F}_{\nu i} =0
\quad \mbox{for} \;\; i=0,1,\cdots,p,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
X^a=x_0^a
\quad \mbox{for} \;\; a=p+1,\cdots,9,
\end{equation}
at $\sigma=0,\pi$, where $x_0^a$ gives the position of the D$p$-brane.
For convenience we have chosen the spacetime coordinates
in such a way that $x_0^a$ are constant on the D$p$-brane.
We will use the indices $(i,j,\cdots)$ for directions
parallel to the brane ($i=0,1,\cdots,p$) and the indices
$(a,b,\cdots)$ for directions transverse to the brane
($a=p+1,\cdots,9$).
We will choose the coordinates such that $g_{ia}=0$
on the D-brane for convenience.
The momentum density is
\begin{equation}
2 \pi \alpha' P_{\mu}= \dot{X}^{\nu}g_{\nu\mu} +X^{'\nu}{\cal F}_{\nu\mu} .
\end{equation}
For a constant background (${\cal F}=$constant) in a flat spacetime
($g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}$),
one can solve the equations of motion and boundary conditions
exactly and carry out the canonical quantization \cite{CH}.
The final result is
\begin{equation} \label{XX1}
[X^i,X^j]= \pm 2\pi i\alpha'(M^{-1}{\cal F})^{ij},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{M}
M_{ij}=\eta_{ij}-{\cal F}_i{}^k{\cal F}_{kj},
\end{equation}
and $X^i$ is the spacetime coordinates of the open string at
the two end-points $\sigma=0,\pi$.
The indices are lowered or raised by the spacetime metric $\eta$.
While this result does not need a compactification,
in case the spacetime is compactified on a torus,
the right hand side of (\ref{XX1}) for $F=0$ is
proportional to the dual $B$ field on the dual torus.
It agrees with the results for the BFSS matrix model \cite{CDS}.
For the case of a non-constant ${\cal F}$ on a flat torus and its
relation to deformation quantization, see \cite{GC}.
For a generic background, we are unable to find the most general
solution in parallel of \eq{XX1}.
However it is possible to find a special solution in
a certain approximation of weak field and slow variation.
Consider a deviation from the trivial background ${\cal F}=0$, $g =\eta$
with small ${\cal F}$ and $\partial g$ considered as first order quantities.
We will
consider $\partial \partial g$ as second order and so from the Einstein
equation for the background,
$\partial {\cal F} \sim \partial g$ are also of the first order.
In summary, we will consider $(x, \dot{x}, g)$ as terms of the 0th order,
$({\cal F}, \partial{\cal F}, \partial g)$ as terms of the 1st order,
and $( \partial^{n}{\cal F}, \partial^{n} g), n\geq 2$ as terms of higher orders.
We will only keep terms of the 0th and 1st order consistently.
To solve the equations of motion and boundary conditions,
we use the following ansatz for $X$
\begin{equation} \label{ansatz}
X^{i}=x^{i}(\tau)+y^{i}(\tau)\sigma, \quad X^{a}=x_0^a.
\end{equation}
It is easy to check that this ansatz for the $\sigma$ dependence
is consistent with our approximation.
Substituting \eq{ansatz} into the boundary conditions \eq{BC},
one finds that $y$ is of first order:
\begin{equation} \label{BCy}
y^{i}=-\dot{x}^j ({\cal F} g^{-1}(x))_j{}^i.
\end{equation}
For this ansatz, the equations of motion (\ref{EOM})
give the geodesic equation for $x^i$
\begin{equation}
\ddot{x}^{i}+{\Gamma (x)^{i}}_{jk}\dot{x}^{j}\dot{x}^{k}=0,
\end{equation}
and the free motion for $y$
\begin{equation} \label{y}
\ddot{y}^i=0.
\end{equation}
Eqn.(\ref{y}) is satisfied by (\ref{BCy}) up to 2nd order terms.
The lowest energy modes on a string are thus approximately given by
\begin{eqnarray}
X^{i}&=&x^{i}+ (g^{-1} {\cal F} g^{-1}(x))^{ik} p_k \sigma, \nonumber \\
2\pi \alpha' P_{i}&=& p_i - p_m p_n g^{mj} g^{nk}
(\partial_j{\cal F}_{ki}(x)) \sigma,
\label{XP}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
X^a=x_0^a, \quad P_a=0,
\end{equation}
where we have introduced
\begin{equation}
p_k = \dot{x}^j g_{jk}(x).
\end{equation}
The Poisson bracket for the open string is determined by
the symplectic two-form
\footnote{
We don't need to do the time average prescription here as in \cite{CH};
and if we do it here we will obtain the same result.
}
\begin{equation} \label{Omusu}
\Omega= \int_0^{\pi}d\sigma\delta P_{\mu}\delta X^{\mu}.
\end{equation}
Substituting \eq{XP} into (\ref{Omusu}),
we find
\begin{equation}\label{Om0}
\Omega = \frac{1}{2\alpha'} \delta\bar{p}_{i} \delta\bar{x}^i.
\end{equation}
up to second order terms.
Here $\bar{p}_i$ and $\bar{x}^i$ are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{p}_i &=& p_i - \frac{\pi}{2} p_m p_n g^{mj} g^{nk}
(\partial_j{\cal F}_{ki}(x)), \\
\bar{x}^i &=& x^i + \frac{\pi}{2} (g^{-1} {\cal F} g^{-1}(x))^{ik} p_k.
\end{eqnarray}
We thus obtain the commutation relations \footnote{
Normally, special attention has to be paid to the operator ordering
when we derive commutation relations from Poisson brackets,
so that the Jacobi identity is satisfied if possible.
Fortunately, in the approximation we use here,
the issue of operator ordering does not arise.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
&[\bar{p}_i,\bar{p}_j]=0 , \quad [\bar{x}^i,\bar{x}^j]= 0, \label{xxpp}\\
&[\bar{x}^i,\bar{p}_j]=2 i\alpha' \delta^i_j, \label{xbarp}
\end{eqnarray}
or equivalently, in terms of $x^i$ and $p_j$, it is
\begin{eqnarray}
&[p_i,p_j]= 0, \label{pp} \\
&[x^i,x^j]= 2 \pi i \alpha' (g^{-1}{\cal F} g^{-1})^{ij}, \label{xx} \\
&[x^{i},p_{j}]=2 i\alpha' \delta^i_j +
i \pi \alpha' p_k g^{km} g^{in} (\partial_m {\cal F}_{nj} + \partial_n {\cal F}_{mj}
-\partial_j {\cal F}_{mn}). \label{xp}
\end{eqnarray}
All of these hold only up to 2nd order terms.
It is easy to verify that the commutation relations (\ref{pp})-(\ref{xp})
satisfy the Jacobi identity also up to second order terms.
It is now easy to check that for $\sigma =0, \pi$,
\begin{equation}
[X^{i},X^{j}]=\pm 2 \pi i \alpha' (g^{-1}{\cal F} g^{-1})^{ij},
\label{xx1}
\end{equation}
where the plus (minus) sign corresponds to the end-point $\sigma=0$ $(\pi)$.
This agrees with the result for a constant background (\ref{XX1})
in the leading order.
Furthermore, since the right hand side of (\ref{xx1}) is
a tensor field, this equation is covariant under
general coordinate transformations up to second order terms.
In the static gauge $X^{i}$ is the worldvolume coordinate
for the D-brane, so the D-brane worldvolume appears to be
a noncommutative space.
We propose that in the weak field and slow variation approximation
we considered,
\eq{xx1} gives the commutation relations for
the D-brane spacetime coordinates in a generic background.
Under an S-duality transformation,
a D-string is turned into a fundamental string.
For a D-string, the noncommutativity is governed by (\ref{xx1})
with the NS-NS background ${\cal F}= B - dA$.
The commutation relation for a fundamental string
in the dual theory is thus
\begin{equation} \label{F1CR}
[X^{i},X^{j}]=\pm 2 \pi i g_s' \alpha' (g^{-1}{\cal F}' g^{-1})^{ij},
\end{equation}
where $g_s'= 1/g_s$ is the dual string coupling and
${\cal F}'= B'-dA'$ is the R-R counterpart of ${\cal F}$ in the dual theory.
Since we assumed that $g_s$ is small to derive (\ref{xx1}),
(\ref{F1CR}) is valid only for large $g_s'$.
It would be interesting if one can derive this directly
from string theory.
\section{Noncommutative gauge theory and uncertainty relations}
\label{noncomm}
The noncommutativity \eq{xx1} signifies the existence of
uncertainty relations on the brane. To give a precise
formulation, we first need to explain what we mean by an
uncertainty $\delta X$.
The suitable framework for discussing uncertainty relation
is to employ the language of string field theory \cite{ST}.
Let $\Psi$ be the normalized wave function for the D-brane and define
$(\Delta X^i)^2$ by
\begin{equation}
(\Delta X^i)^2=\int[DX(\xi)]\Psi^{\dagger}(X(\xi))
(X^i(\xi)-\overline{X^i} \; )^2\Psi(X(\xi)),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\overline{X^i}
=\int[DX(\xi)]\Psi^{\dagger}(X(\xi))X^i(\xi)\Psi(X(\xi)).
\end{equation}
In these equations, $\xi=(\xi_0,\cdots,\xi_p)$ denote
the worldvolume coordinates of the D-brane.
The part $[DX(\xi)]$ of the functional measure denotes
an integration over all D-brane configurations.
Obviously these definitions mimic their counterparts in
the familiar case of the quantum mechanics for a point particle.
Applying the standard argument for uncertainty principle to \eq{xx1}
and notice that as a background, ${\cal F} $ is independent of the D-brane
wavefunction $\Psi$, we get
\begin{equation} \label{tt}
\Delta X^i \Delta X^j \geq 2\pi l_s^2 |{\cal F}^{ij}|,
\end{equation}
where ${\cal F}^{ij}=(g^{-1}{\cal F} g^{-1})^{ij}$ and $l_s^2=\alpha'$.
Note that these first quantized quantities depend on $\Psi$
and the
classical
backgrounds. The right hand side of \eq{tt} vanishes
for a trivial classical background ${\cal F}=0$.
However, as explained in \cite{CH}, even for such a
classical
background,
there could be nontrivial uncertainty relations arising from
integrating out the quantum fluctuations.
On expanding the string field $\Psi$ into the component fields ${\cal B}$,
the string field path integral becomes an infinite product
of path integrals over these fields
and the expectation value $\langle \cdot \rangle$
of an operator in string field theory is defined by
\begin{equation} \langle {\cal O} \rangle= {1 \over Z}
\int[D{\cal B}] e^{-S} \: {\cal O}
\quad \mbox{where}\quad
Z =\int[D{\cal B}] e^{-S}.
\end{equation}
For example, ${\cal B}$ includes the metric $g$ and the $B$-field.
It is thus natural to define the desired uncertainty for $X^i$ as
\begin{equation} \label{def}
\delta X^i= \sqrt{\langle (\Delta X^i)^2 \rangle}.
\end{equation}
Using Schwarz inequality, we find
\begin{equation}
(\delta X^i)^2 (\delta X^j)^2 \geq | \langle \Delta X^i \Delta X^j \rangle |^2 .
\end{equation}
Thus
\begin{equation}
\delta X^i \delta X^j \geq 2\pi l_s^2 \langle \; |{\cal F}^{ij}| \; \rangle,
\end{equation}
and it generally reduces to something of the form
\begin{equation} \label{uncer}
\delta X^i \delta X^j \geq f(g_s) \: l_s^2,
\end{equation}
where $f(g_s)$ is some function of $g_s$.
We will try to determine $f$ in the weak coupling limit.
Notice that this form of uncertainty relation
follows more or less from dimensional analysis.
The point of the analysis performed above is to give
a precise definition of the quantities involved
and to show that the right hand side
of (\ref{uncer}) is really nonvanishing.
To see how the $g_s$ dependence comes in, it is instructive
to consider the case of a D-string.
The commutation relation for the worldsheet directions reads
\begin{equation} \label{xx-flat}
[X^0, X^1] = 2\pi i l_s^2 {{\cal F}},
\end{equation}
where
${\cal F}={\cal F}_{01}$ and we have replaced $g_{ij}$ by the flat metric in our
approximation.
We thus need to evaluate
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{Z}\int[D{\cal B}] e^{-S} |{\cal F}| .
\end{equation}
For small $g_s$, we can use the tree level SUGRA action
where $S$ contains a piece
\begin{equation}
S= \frac{1}{g_s^2 l_s^8} \int dB*dB+ \cdots .
\end{equation}
It is convenient to go to a gauge in which ${\cal F}=B$ and by rescaling
\begin{equation}
B = g_s B',
\end{equation}
then for the background $B =0$
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \; |{\cal F}| \; \rangle
&\simeq&\frac{1}{Z_B} \int[DB] e^{-\frac{1}{g_s^2 l_s^8} \int
( \partial B_{01})^2 } |B_{01}| \nonumber\\
&=& g_s
\{\frac{1}{Z'_B}
\int[DB']e^{-\frac{1}{l_s^8}
\int (\partial B'_{01})^2} |B'_{01}| \}, \label{cF}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
Z_B=\int[DB]e^{-\frac{1}{g_s^2 l_s^8}\int(\partial B_{01})^2}, \quad\quad
Z'_B=\int[DB']e^{-\frac{1}{l_s^8}\int(\partial B'_{01})^2}.
\end{equation}
The above term
$\{\cdot\}$ in (\ref{cF}) is independent of $g_s$.
One can further scale $B'_{01}$ by $l_s^4$ so that (\ref{cF})
reads $\langle\;|{\cal F}|\;\rangle \simeq g_s l_s^4 I$, where
$I$ is a path integral with no
apparent dependence on $g_s$ or $l_s$. Because of the absolute sign in
\eq{cF}, it is easy to show that $I$ is non-vanishing and is in fact
divergent. A momentum cutoff at
$\Lambda$ has to be introduced to make sense of $I$
and one finds $I \sim \Lambda^4$ and hence
\begin{equation} \label{D1-0}
\langle\;{\cal F}\;\rangle\simeq g_s l_s^4\Lambda^4.
\end{equation}
The natural cutoff here is $\Lambda\sim l_s^{-1}$ because we have
ignored all stringy corrections of higher order in $\alpha'$
in the SUGRA action.
While the derivation above is not completely rigorous, we consider
the possibility of extending this result consistently to all
other branes and strings via string dualities in the rest of
this paper as a supporting evidence for (\ref{D1-0}).
In principle, there could also be other sources contributing to the
uncertainty other than the NS-NS 2-form gauge field. Here we
considered only the massless mode of SUGRA.
In an approximation better than \eq{xx-flat},
quantum fluctuations of the metric also contribute.
One should also take into account string loop effects
for a generic $g_s$. These can enter in at least two ways:
First, eqn.(\ref{xx1}) was derived from a single string
in the first order approximation;
in general higher order terms and the string loop effects
can modify the commutation
relations for the D-brane worldvolume coordinates \cite{Schom}.
Second, more precisely one should also use the string loop corrected
SUGRA action instead of the tree level one in the above derivation.
Including all these factors,
we expect the uncertainty relation to take the generic form
\footnote{
Uncertainty relations for the D-brane worldvolume has also been discussed
in the context of Liouville string theory \cite{ellis}. There an
uncertainty relation of a form similar to \eq{D1-1} was found, but
with a different dependence ($\sqrt{g_s}$ instead of $g_s$) on the
string coupling.
}
\begin{equation} \label{D1-1}
\delta X^0 \delta X^1 \geq g_s l_s^2 +\cdots,
\end{equation}
up to a numerical factor which will be ignored in this paper; and
the omitted terms are of higher order in $g_s$ and $\alpha'$
due to the above-mentioned higher order corrections.
There could also be a dependence on $\Psi$ in the higher order
corrections.
Obviously one can perform the same derivation for a D$p$-brane with $p>1$
and find the same uncertainty relation between any two directions
on the D-brane.
At this point, one may ask a number of questions.
For example, is it possible to determine explicitly the higher order
corrections in \eq{D1-1}?
How does the above generalize to the case of the other D$p$-brane?
How does the uncertainty relation look like on a D$p$-brane?
What we will do is to find new uncertainty relations by
requiring the uncertainty relations to be consistent with the known
dualities of string theory. This consistency requirement
will be our guiding principle.
\section{Worldvolume uncertainty relations}\label{ur}
In this section, we will propose a form of the uncertainty relations
for D$p$-branes
which is consistent with
dualities of string theory. To strengthen the starting ground
for our argument which leads to the general result,
we first consider the cases of D1 and D0-branes in more detail.
\subsection{D1-branes}
{}From sec.\ref{noncomm}, we find that the uncertainty relation for a
D-string in the small $g_s$ limit in flat spacetime takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{D1}
\delta X^0 \delta X^1 \geq g_s l_s^2.
\end{equation}
Eqn.(\ref{D1}) gives a minimal area
for the D1-brane worldsheet.
An independent support for this result can be obtained by S-duality.
Under S-duality, a D1-brane is interchanged with a fundamental string,
and the string tension interchanged with the D1-brane tension.
Thus the uncertainty relation for a fundamental string should be
\begin{equation} \label{F1}
\delta X^0 \delta X^1 \geq l_s^2.
\end{equation}
This is in fact what people have suggested
based on
properties of string scattering amplitudes;
worldsheet conformal invariance
and other various arguments \cite{Yon1}.
This can also be heuristically argued as follows
(first two references of \cite{Yon1}).
According to the canonical uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics
\begin{equation} \label{Et}
\delta E\delta T\geq 1,
\end{equation}
(where $T$ should be identified with $X^0$,)
if $\delta T$ is small, $\delta E$ will be large.
Since $E\sim 1/\alpha'$ times string length,
it is associated with a large uncertainty
$\delta X^1$ in the string length \cite{DKPS}.
(For this argument to be more rigorous, we need a virial theorem
stating that a certain portion of the energy must be attributed
to the potential energy due to string tension.)
\subsection{D0-branes} \label{D0-brane}
The usual uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics
(\ref{Et}) implies that
\begin{equation}
\delta T\geq\frac{1}{\delta E}\geq\frac{1}{E},
\end{equation}
where we assumed that $E\geq\delta E$.
(This would be the case if $E$ is positive definite.)
In the rest frame of the D0-brane, $E=1/(g_s l_s)$
is the mass of a D0-brane, so we find
\begin{equation} \label{D0}
\delta T\geq g_s l_s,
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the proper time for the D0-brane
worldline.
We can also interpret (\ref{D0}) as follows.
If (\ref{D0}) is not satisfied, the energy of a D0-brane
can be larger than its rest mass and can thus lead to
pair productions of D0 and anti-D0-branes.
One can then imagine a quantum path in which
the created anti-D0-brane annihilates the original D0-brane
so that the created D0-brane survives as the final D0-brane.
In such cases the proper time is ill-defined during
the process of creation and annihilation.
In \cite{DKPS} it was explained that the short distance behavior
of D-branes is described by the low energy physics of
open strings ending on the D-branes.
For D0-branes two different characteristic scales were found.
The first scale is the Planck scale for the 11 dimensional SUGRA,
which is $g_s^{1/3}l_s$ in accordance with the duality between
M theory and type \mbox{\II A\hspace{.2em}} theory.
Assuming $g_s<1$, the Planck scale is smaller than the string
scale $l_s$ which characterizes the uncertainty relation for
fundamental strings.
The Planck scale was found as the characteristic scale of
the $0+1$ dimensional SYM theory, which describes
the low energy theory of D0-branes.
Although the Planck scale is believed to be the minimal scale
in 11D SUGRA, it is not the scale of uncertainty relations
for D0-branes since a smaller characteristic scale $g_s l_s$
was found in \cite{DKPS}.
It is called the ``fine structure'' scale, which can be seen only after
taking into account the correction of the SYM action by the DBI action.
Note that no smaller scale was found in the analysis of \cite{DKPS}.
Although the fine structure scale was obtained as the characteristic
scale in the transverse (spatial) directions,
based on our results above we propose in this paper that
the fine structure scale also sets the minimal length on
a D0-brane
worldline as in (\ref{D0}).
Another support for the claim that (\ref{D0}) gives
the correct uncertainty relation for D0-branes is obtained via T-duality.
If the D1-brane has the uncertainty relation $\delta T\delta X\geq g_s l_s^2$,
then for a D1-brane wrapped on a compactified circle with radius $R$,
\footnote{
Since we assume that the
string couplings are
smaller than $1$, the compactification radius needs to satisfy
$l_s/g'_s>R>g_s l_s$.
}
$\delta X$ can not be larger than $R$, which implies that
$\delta T\geq g_s l_s^2/R$.
By T-duality this is interpreted as a dual D0-brane with the uncertainty
$\delta T\geq g'_s l_s$, where $g'_s=g_s l_s/R$ is the string
coupling constant in the dual theory.
This is exactly what we claimed in (\ref{D0}).
Incidentally we note that in terms of M theory,
$g_s l_s$ is the radius of the compactification
through which the M theory is dual to type \mbox{\II A\hspace{.2em}} theory.
By compactifying M theory on a circle smaller than the Planck scale,
the smaller scale $g_s l_s$ is introduced into the compactified M theory.
This would not be possible if there were an uncertainty relation like
$\delta X\geq l_p$ in the uncompactified M theory.
On the other hand, this is consistent with
the worldvolume uncertainty relations we find for
membranes and 5-branes as in (\ref{urm2}), (\ref{urm5}).
\subsection{D$p$-branes via T-duality} \label{Td}
In the above we have seen that T-duality can be used to derive
uncertainty relation of D0-branes from that of D1-branes.
Here we will generalize the arguments to all D$p$-branes.
For simplicity we first consider the case of a flat background.
We know that a D-string can be obtained from a D2-brane under T-duality.
By wrapping a leg of the D2-brane on the circle, one introduces on the
D2-brane worldvolume an uncertainty of the order
\begin{equation} \label{X2R}
\delta X^2 \sim R,
\end{equation}
since the center of the D-brane can be anywhere on the circle.
It is thus natural to guess that the uncertainty relation on
a D2-brane will involve a product of uncertainties of the form
\begin{equation} \label{D2}
\delta X^0 \delta X^1 \delta X^2 \geq g_s l_s^3,
\end{equation}
which is the product of the uncertainty relation (\ref{D1})
for a D1-brane and (\ref{X2R}) in terms of the dual $g_s$ and $l_s$.
On the other hand, one can also repeat the derivation
of D1-brane uncertainty relation in sec.\ref{noncomm} for D2-branes.
Since $\delta X^i\delta X^j\geq g_s l_s^2 + \cdots $ for all $i\neq j$,
$i,j=0,1,2$, one can derive
$\delta X^0\delta X^1\delta X^2\geq g_s^{3/2}l_s^3 +\cdots $.
This is a weaker condition than (\ref{D2}).
At this moment we do not know how to derive (\ref{D2})
directly from open strings ending on D2-branes
as in the case of D1-branes.
We leave this interesting question for future study.
For a D$p$-brane in general, we propose that
\begin{equation} \label{urdp}
\delta X^0 \delta X^1 \cdots \delta X^p \geq g_s l_s{}^{p+1}
\end{equation}
in flat spacetime.
For a D$p$-brane in curved spacetime, the natural generalization
of the uncertainty relation is just
\begin{equation} \label{Dpur}
\delta V_{(p+1)}\geq g_s l_s^{p+1},
\end{equation}
where $\delta V_{(p+1)}$ is the uncertainty of the D$p$-brane worldvolume,
which is the spacetime volume corresponding to $\delta X^i$.
One can check that \eq{urdp} respects the T-duality of
string theory. To see this, suppose that we start with a D$p$-brane in
a string theory compactified on a circle of radius $R$ with string
coupling $g_s$. We take one of the dimensions of the D$p$-brane, says
$X^p$, to be wrapped on the circle. Since $\delta X^p \sim R$, we get for
the D$(p-1)$-brane,
\begin{equation}
\delta X^0 \delta X^1 \cdots \delta X^{p-1} \geq g_s' l_s{}^p,
\end{equation}
where
$g_s' = g_s l_s/ R$ is the dual string coupling. Thus \eq{urdp} is
consistent with T-duality.
It is interesting to note that \eq{urdp} can be derived from
(\ref{Et}) and
\begin{equation} \label{ev}
\delta E = {\cal T} \delta V_p,
\end{equation}
where ${\cal T} =1/ \; g_s l_s^{p+1}$ is the tension of the D$p$-brane.
Consider an experiment conducted on the D$p$-brane which
is supposed to measure some point-like process. Because of the
nonvanishing spacetime uncertainty relation,
the region of the process would
appear to have a spatial volume uncertainty of
order $\delta V_p$. The associated uncertainty in
energy would have a typical order of \eq{ev} and would be
consistent with the standard $T-E$ type uncertainty relation (\ref{Et}).
However, to really derive
\eq{urdp} from \eq{Et}, one should in principle also include other
possible sources of uncertainties
(e.g. contributions from the oscillation modes)
in \eq{ev}. The fact that one may derive \eq{urdp} by simply using
\eq{ev} suggests that there might be some sort of stringy
virial theorem.
\subsection{Dyonic branes via S-duality}
S-duality is expected to be an exact symmetry of type \mbox{\II B\hspace{.2em}} string
theory. Under an S-duality transformation, a D$p$-brane gets transformed
into an $(m,n)$-$p$-brane for $p =1,5$.
For the purpose of explicit illustrations,
we will spell out the $(m,n)$-string case in details.
$(m,n)$-5-branes can be treated similarly.
Starting with the uncertainty relation for a D-string (\ref{D1}),
we can derive the uncertainty relation for a $(m,n)$-string
by the $SL(2,{\bf Z})$ transformation of S-duality. It is
\begin{equation} \label{urmnstring}
\delta X^0 \delta X^1 \geq l_s^2 \frac{1}{ \sqrt{(m-n \chi)^2 +\frac{n^2}{g_s^2}}},
\end{equation}
where $\chi$ is the axion vacuum expectation value.
Notice that the right hand side is just the inverse of the
tension of the $(m,n)$-string.
In particular, we get (\ref{F1}) as a special case.
\subsection{ M-branes via M/\mbox{\II B\hspace{.2em}} duality}
Just as the D-brane is the end-point of an open string, one can also learn
about the physics of the M5-brane by considering it as the boundary of
an M2-brane (see for example \cite{CS}
for other applications in this direction).
It was shown in \cite{CH} that the M5-brane
worldvolume can also become noncommutative in the presence of
${\cal F}_{ijk}$,
which is a combination of the three-form gauge field
and a worldvolume field strength.
Applying similar considerations as in the string case above, we
propose the following uncertainty relation for the M2-brane and M5-brane,
\begin{eqnarray}
&\delta X^0 \delta X^1 \delta X^2 \geq l_p^3
\quad \mbox{for M2-brane,} \label{urm2} \\
&\delta X^0 \delta X^1 \cdots \delta X^5 \geq l_p^6
\quad \mbox{for M5-brane,} \label{urm5}
\end{eqnarray}
where $l_p$ is the 11-dimensional Planck length.
An uncertainty relation of the same form as
(\ref{urm2}) was proposed in \cite{liyon1}
as a result of (\ref{F1}) due to the M/\mbox{\II A\hspace{.2em}} duality,
but with a different interpretation, which is analogous
to the one they had for (\ref{uryoneya}).
We now show that \eq{urmnstring} is related to the membrane
uncertainty \eq{urm2} by using the
M/\mbox{\II B\hspace{.2em}} duality. It is known \cite{sch,aspin}
that \mbox{\II B\hspace{.2em}} string theory can be obtained from compactifying
M theory on a shrinking 2-torus with radii $R_1, R_{11}$. A
\mbox{\II B\hspace{.2em}} $(m,n)$-string is identified with a membrane wrapped over
the $(m,n)$-cycle on the torus with length
\begin{equation} \label{lmn}
L_{(m,n)} = R_{11} \sqrt{(m-n \tau_1)^2 + n^2 \tau_2^2}.
\end{equation}
Here $\tau = \tau_1 + i \tau_2$ is the modular parameter of the torus and
it is identified \cite{sch,aspin} with the \mbox{\II B\hspace{.2em}} string theory
parameters as
\begin{equation}
\tau_1 =\chi, \quad\quad \tau_2 = 1/g_s.
\end{equation}
Now starting from (\ref{urm2}) and using
\begin{equation}
\delta X^2 \sim L_{(m,n)}
\end{equation}
for the uncertainty for the membrane direction which is wrapped
on a cycle, we obtain immediately \eq{urmnstring}.
Here we used $l_s^2= l_p^3/ R_{11}$.
In fact, since our uncertainty relations can be obtained
mathematically from (\ref{Et}) and (\ref{ev}), the matching
of the brane spectra for dual theories implies that
the uncertainty relations must be consistent with all dualities.
For instance, it is automatically true that the M/\mbox{\II A\hspace{.2em}} duality
also relates (\ref{urm2}) and (\ref{urm5})
to (\ref{F1}) and (\ref{urdp}) for $p=2,4$.
Incidentally, the M/\mbox{\II A\hspace{.2em}} duality also gives rise to
the uncertainty relation
\begin{equation}
\delta X^0\cdots\delta X^5\geq g_s^2 l_s^6
\end{equation}
for the NS5-brane.
\section{Discussions} \label{remarks}
In this paper, we discussed the uncertainty relations for the D-brane
worldvolume. We introduced the notion of a worldvolume
uncertainty and explained how it is defined within the context of
string field theory. We proposed worldvolume uncertainty relations
that are consistent with the various dualities in string theory.
We have also generalized the commutation relation for the
noncommutative gauge theory to a nontrivial background of ${\cal F}$
in the lowest order approximation.
It would be interesting to generalize this result
to the full generality of an arbitrary background.
This could be relevant to the interesting proposal in \cite{JR}.
In the following we remark on several related subjects.
\subsection{Comments on some other uncertainty relations}
\underline{Uncertainty relation of Wigner}
In the classical study of Wigner \cite{Wigner},
the effects of quantum mechanics on the measurability of
the spatial distance was estimated to be given by
\begin{equation} \label{w1}
\delta D \geq \sqrt{T/M_c}.
\end{equation}
Here $T$ is the time scale for the process involved
and $M_c$ is the mass of the clock.
This analysis has recently been strengthened in \cite{Sasa},
which utilizes the existence of a Schwarzschild horizon $R_s$
for any massive object and thus it is necessary that
\begin{equation} \label{w2}
\delta D \geq R_s \sim G M_c.
\end{equation}
Combining with \eq{w1}, one obtains
\begin{equation} \label{w3}
(\delta D)^3 \geq G T.
\end{equation}
Notice that in this analysis,
the precision of the measurement of time is not limited.
The uncertainty relation we proposed is
consistent with these results.
For example, in the brane world
scenario, when $\delta T=0$, our uncertainty relation for a D$3$-brane
says that $\delta D = \infty$, which is stronger than
\eq{w1} or \eq{w3}.
The argument leading to (\ref{w3}) utilizes
the most popular reason for the belief in the existence of
spacetime uncertainty relations. That is, due to quantum mechanics
a large energy is needed to probe a small length scale,
and when the energy is too large a black hole is formed,
which forbids the measurement of distances behind the horizon.
However, in our derivation of the uncertainty relations (\ref{urdp}),
we did not mention anything about event horizon at all.
It remains to be seen how the consideration of black holes
can lead to the determination of uncertainty relations in string theory,
and whether it will lead to new uncertainty relations.
\underline{Uncertainty relation of Yoneya}
Notice that ours uncertainty relations \eq{urdp} are not
of the same type as those proposed in
\cite{liyon1,Yon,yoneya,MS}. These authors proposed uncertainty
relations that involve the transverse coordinates while ours are solely
for the brane world.
For example, in \cite{liyon1,Yon,yoneya}, it was proposed that
\begin{equation} \label{uryoneya}
\delta T \delta X \geq l_s^2
\end{equation}
for a D$p$-brane.
Here $\delta T$ is understood as the uncertainty in the longitudinal
directions on the brane (to be more precise,
$\delta T=|\delta\sigma|$, where $\sigma$ is the worldvolume coordinates in the static
gauge)
and $\delta X$ represents the uncertainty in directions transverse to
the brane.
As it was pointed out in \cite{DKPS}, the short distance regime
of D-branes are probed by open strings. The exchange of a closed
string state between two D-branes, for example, can be viewed
as the creation and annihilation of a pair of open strings
(an open string loop diagram) due to
the modular invariance of string theory.
Therefore, the scattering of D-branes is limited by the uncertainty
of open strings, and (\ref{uryoneya}) is a direct result of (\ref{F1}).
Our uncertainty relation (\ref{urdp}), on the other hand,
is concerned with the uncertainty among longitudinal directions
on the brane, and it has a form different from (\ref{uryoneya}).
In particular ours have a form that
depends on the dimensionality of the brane and have additional
dependence on $g_s$.
\subsection{UV-IR relations, holography and uncertainty relations}
In \cite{yoneya,liyon1}, a generalized conformal symmetry was found for
the D$p$-brane super Yang-Mills action.
It is easy to check that the $(p+1)$-dimensional YM action
with coupling $g_{\mbox{\tiny YM}}$, which is schematically
\begin{equation}
S=\frac{1}{g_{\mbox{\tiny YM}}^2}\int d^{p+1}\sigma((\partial X)^2+X^4),
\end{equation}
is invariant under the following scaling transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
&X^a \rightarrow \lambda}\def\L{\Lambda X^a, \quad
\sigma_i \rightarrow \lambda}\def\L{\Lambda^{-1} \sigma_i, \label{gct1}\\
&g_{\mbox{\tiny YM}}^2 \rightarrow \lambda}\def\L{\Lambda^{3-p} g_{\mbox{\tiny YM}}^2. \label{gct2}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $X^a (a= p+1, \cdots, 9)$ are the transverse scalars, $\sigma_i
(i=0,1,\cdots p)$ are the worldvolume coordinates in the static gauge.
The coupling $g_{\mbox{\tiny YM}}^2$ is related to the string coupling by
\begin{equation} \label{gym}
g_{\mbox{\tiny YM}}^2 =g_s l_s^{p-3}.
\end{equation}
The uncertainty relation (\ref{uryoneya}) is invariant
under this scaling \eq{gct1} together with $g_s \rightarrow \lambda}\def\L{\Lambda^{3-p}
g_s$ and $l_s$ being invariant.
Notice that \eq{gct1} is reminiscent of
the UV-IR distance relation \cite{SW,UVIR}
in the context of AdS/CFT holography \cite{p1,p2,p3}.
Maybe this scaling relation is a generic property for
general holographic dualities \cite{hol1,hol2}.
It was discussed in \cite{liyon1,Min} that the
uncertainty relation \eq{uryoneya} is consistent with
the UV-IR relation and
it was suggested that the uncertainty principle is the underlying
principle that implies the UV-IR relation, which in turn guarantees the
holographic bound \cite{hol2} to be satisfied \cite{SW}.
Since our uncertainty relations are only involved with
the worldvolume uncertainties, the scaling (\ref{gct1})-(\ref{gct2})
does not give any nontrivial implications on our relations.
On the other hand, since our uncertainty relation implies the
existence of a minimal area, it may also be relevant
to the holographic principle and to
the verification of the holographic bound.
It would be interesting if one can see this explicitly.
Another interesting issue is that
based on the UV-IR relation and holographic principle, it is natural
to ask what kind of spacetime property (presumably a spacetime
uncertainty relation) will be implied by the worldvolume uncertainty
relations. We leave these issues for future studies.
\subsection{Characteristic scale}
The scaling transformation (\ref{gct1})-(\ref{gct2}) can also be used
to find the characteristic scale of YM theory.
Let $\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda=g_s^{\frac{1}{p-3}}$, then we scale $g_s\rightarrow 1$ and
$X\rightarrow g_s^{\frac{1}{p-3}}X$.
This means that the Higgs vacuum expectation value
$g_s^{\frac{1}{p-3}}X$ is independent of $g_s$,
and thus the YM characteristic scale is $g_s^{\frac{-1}{p-3}}l_s$.
For $p=0$ this gives the Planck scale $g_s^{1/3}l_s$.
For $p=3$ it is the string scale $l_s$.
For $p>3$ this scale is much larger than the string scale,
but for these cases YM theory is not renormalizable and
it means that we cannot trust it.
As it was mentioned in sec.\ref{D0-brane},
a characteristic scale does not have to be the minimal scale.
For the case of D0-branes, it is the characteristic scale
of the DBI action that turns out to be the minimal scale.
It is thus of interest to work out also the characteristic scale for
the DBI theory for a D$p$-brane.
The DBI action is
\begin{equation}
S=\frac{1}{g_s l_s^{p+1}}\int d^{p+1}\sigma\sqrt{-{\rm det\,}(g+{\cal F})},
\end{equation}
which is invariant under the scaling
\begin{equation}
X\rightarrow \lambda}\def\L{\Lambda X, \quad g_s\rightarrow \lambda}\def\L{\Lambda^{p+1}g_s,
\end{equation}
and an arbitrary scaling of $\sigma$.
Letting $\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda=g_s^{\frac{-1}{p+1}}$, we find $g_s\rightarrow 1$
and $X\rightarrow g_s^{\frac{-1}{p+1}}X$.
This means that $g_s^{\frac{1}{p+1}}l_s$ is the characteristic
scale of the DBI action for the transverse directions.
It happens that this characteristic scale is also the one
determining the minimal volume in our uncertainty relations (\ref{Dpur}).
It is possible that this is also the minimal length scale
for the transverse directions of a D$p$-brane much like the case of
D0-branes discussed in \cite{DKPS}.
Even if both the transverse and longitudinal directions of a D0-brane
are bounded by this scale $g_s l_s$,
(\ref{uryoneya}) is still a stronger condition than just
the product of the two minimal lengths.
In sec.\ref{Td} we also mentioned that (\ref{urdp})
is a stronger condition than a product of (\ref{D1})
for each pair of longitudinal directions.
It seems that in string theory we need a complicated web of
uncertainty relations, which cannot be deduced from
a single master relation, to fully state the uncertainty property
of spacetime.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
C.S.C. thanks G. Amelino-Camelia and A. Bilal for helpful discussions.
He is also grateful to the Department of Physics and the Center for
Theoretical Physics at the National Taiwan University for hospitality
where part of this work was carried out.
P.M.H. and Y.C.K. thank S. Das and particularly M. Li for
helpful discussions. P.M.H. thanks M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari for helpful
remarks. The work of C.S.C. is
supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.
The work of P.M.H. and Y.C.K. is supported in part by
the National Science Council
(NSC 88-2112-M-002-042, NSC 88-2112-M-002-034)
and the Center for Theoretical Physics,
National Taiwan University, Taiwan, R.O.C.
|
\section{Introduction}
In many flows the transition to turbulence proceeds via a sequence of
bifurcations to flows of ever increasing spatial and temporal complexity.
Analytical and experimental efforts in particular on layers
of fluid heated from below \cite{Busse,Kosch}
and fluids between rotating concentric cylinders \cite{Kosch,Swinney}
have lead to the identification and verification of several routes to
turbulence, which typically involve a transition from a structureless
laminar state to a stationary spatially modulated one and then to more
complicated states in secondary and higher bifurcations.
Transitions in shear flows do not seem to follow this pattern
\cite{Grossmann1996}. Typically,
a transition to a turbulent state can be induced for sufficiently large
Reynolds number with finite amplitude
perturbations, just as in a subcritical bifurcation. However, in the
most spectacular cases of plane Couette flow between parallel plates
and Hagen-Poiseuille flow
in a pipe \cite{DR}, there is no linear instability of the laminar profile
for any finite Reynolds number that could give rise to a subcritical
bifurcation. The turbulent state seems to be high dimensional
immediately, without clear temporal or spatial patterns
(unlike the rolls in Rayleigh-B\'enard flow). And the transition seems to
depend sensitively on the initial conditions. Based on these characteristic
features it has been argued that a novel kind of transition to
turbulence different from the well-known three low-dimensional ones
is at work \cite{GG1994}.
Recent activity has focussed on three features of this transition:
the non-normality of the linear eigenvalue problem
\cite{GG1994,BB1988,TTRD1993,wal1,wal2,DM}, the occurence of
new stationary states without instability of the linear profile
\cite{Nagata1990,Nagata1997,CB1997,wal98} and
the fractal properties of the lifetime landscape of perturbations
as a function of amplitude and Reynolds number
\cite{ES1997}. The non-normality of the
linear stability problem implies that even in the absence of exponentially
growing eigenstates perturbations can first grow in amplitude before
decaying since the eigenvectors are not orthogonal.
During the decay other perturbations
could be amplified, giving rise to a noise sustained turbulence
\cite{IF1993}.
The amplification could also cause random fluctuations to grow to a size
where the nonlinear terms can no longer be neglected \cite{wal2,DM}.
Then the dynamics including the nonlinear terms could belong
to a new asymptotic state, different from the laminar profile,
perhaps a turbulent attractor. Presumably, this attractor
would be built around stationary or periodic solution.
Here, the observation of tertiary structures
\cite{Nagata1990,Nagata1997,CB1997,wal98}
comes in since they could form the basis for the turbulent state.
Finally, the observation of fractality in the lifetime distribution
suggests that the turbulent state is not an attractor but rather a repeller:
Infinite lifetimes occur only along the stable manifolds of the
repeller, all other initial conditions will eventually decay. Permanent
turbulence would thus correspond to noise induced excitations onto
a repeller.
In plane Couette flow some of the features described above have been
identified, but only with extensive numerical effort
\cite{Nagata1990,Nagata1997,CB1997,ES1997}. The aim of the
present work is to present a simple model that is based on the
Navier-Stokes equation and captures the essential elements of the
transition. It is motivated in part by the desire to obtain a
numerically more accessible model which perhaps will provide
as much insight into the transition as the Lorenz model
\cite{Lorenz} for the
case of fluids heated from below (presumably at the price of
similar shortcomings).
The two and three degree
of freedom models proposed by various groups
(and reviewed in \cite{BT1997}) to study the effects of
non-normality mock some features of the
Navier-Stokes equations considered essential by their inventors
but they are not derived in some systematic way
from the Navier Stokes equation. The model used here differs from
the one proposed by Waleffe \cite{wal2} in the selection of
modes.
Attempts to built models for shear flows using Fourier modes immediately
reveal an intrinsic difficulty: In the case of fluids heated from below
the nonlinearity arises from the coupling of the temperature gradient
to the flow field so that two wave vectors, ${\bf k}$ and
$2{\bf k}$, suffice to obtain nonlinear couplings.
In shear flows, the nonlinearity has to come from
the coupling of the flow field with itself through the advection term
$({\bf u}\cdot\nabla){\bf u}$. This imposes rather strong
constraints on the wave vectors. At least three wave vectors
satisfying the triangle relation ${\bf k}_1+{\bf k}_2+{\bf k}_3=0$
are required to collect a contribution from the advection term.
A minimal model thus has at least six complex variables. Three of these
decay monotonically to zero, leaving three for a nontrivial dynamics.
In the subspaces investigated (B.E., unpublished),
the most complex behaviour found is
a perturbed pitchfork bifurcation, which may be seen as a precursor
of the observed dynamics: for Reynolds numbers below a critical value,
there is only one stable state. Above that value a pair of stable and
unstable states is born in a saddle-node bifurcation. The stable
state can be excited through perturbations of sufficient amplitude.
The basins of attraction of the two stable states are intermingled,
but the boundaries are smooth.
Thus more wave vectors are needed and they have to couple in a nontrivial
manner to sustain permanent dynamics. The specific set of modes used is
discussed in section \ref{sec_model}. It is motivated by boundary
conditions for
the laminar profile and the observation that wave vectors pointing
to the vortices of hexagons satisfy the triangle conditions in a
most symmetrical manner. Other than that the selected vectors are
a matter of trial and error. In the end we arrive at a model
with 19 real amplitudes, two force terms and 212 quadratic couplings.
Without driving and damping the dynamics is energy conserving, as would be
the corresponding Euler equation (suitably truncated). Moreover, the
perturbation amplitudes can be put together to give complete flow fields.
Thus the model has a somewhat larger number of degrees of freedom,
but the dynamics should provide a realistic approximation to
shear flows.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In section
\ref{sec_model} we present the
model, in particular the selected wave vectors, the equations of motion
and a discussion of symmetries. In section \ref{sec_dynamic}
we focus on the dynamical
properties of initial perturbations as a function of amplitude and
Reynolds number. In section \ref{sec_stationary} we discuss
the stationary states, their
bifurcations and their stability properties. We conclude
in section \ref{sec_conclusion}
with a summary and a few final remarks.
\section{The model shear flow}
\label{sec_model}
Ideal parallel shear flows have infinite lateral extension. Both in
experiment and theory this cannot be realized. We therefore follow
the numerical tradition and chose periodic boundary conditions in the
flow and neutral direction. The flow is confined by parallel walls
a distance $d$ apart. A convenient way to built a low dimensional model
is to use a Galerkin approximation. Solid boundaries would require
the vanishing of all velocity components and complicated Galerkin
functions where all the couplings can only be calculated numerically.
However, under the assumption that here as well as in many other situations
the details of the boundary conditions effect the results only
quantitatively but not qualitatively, we can adopt free-free
boundary conditions on the walls and use simple trigonometric
functions as basis for the Galerkin expansion. Similarly, the nature
of the driving (pressure, boundary conditions or volume force) should
not be essential so that we take a volume force proportional to
some basis function (or a linear combination thereof). This still leaves
plenty of free parameters to be fixed below.
\subsection{Galerkin approximation}
We expand the velocity field in Fourier modes,
\beq
\fettu(\fettx,t) = \sum_{\fettk} \fettu(\fettk,t) e^{i\fettk\cdot\fettx}\,.
\eeq
Incompressibility demands
\beq
\fettu(\fettk,t) \cdot \fettk = 0 \,.
\label{incomp}
\eeq
The Navier-Stokes equation for the amplitudes $\fettu(\fettk,t)$ becomes
\bea
\partial_t\fettu(\fettk,t) = &-& i p_\fettk \fettk
- i \sum_{{\bf p}+{\bf q}=\fettk} \left(\fettu({\bf p},t)\cdot {\bf q}
\right) \fettu({\bf q},t) \nonumber\\
&-& \nu \fettk^2 \fettu(\fettk,t) + f_\fettk
\eea
where $p_\fettk$ are the Fourier components of the pressure (divided by
the density), $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity and $f_\fettk$ are the
Fourier components of the volume force sustaining the laminar profile.
There are three constraints on the components $\fettu(\fettk)$:
incompressibility (\ref{incomp}), reality of the velocity
field,
\beq
\fettu(-\fettk) = \fettu(\fettk)^*
\eeq
and the boundary conditions that the flow is limited by two parallel,
impenetrable plates. The ensuing requirement
$u_z(x,y,z)=0$ at $z=0$ and $z=d$ (where $d$ is the separation between plates)
is most easily implemented through
periodicity in $z$ and the mirror symmetry
\beq
\left(\matrix{u_x \cr u_y \cr u_z}\right)
(x,y,-z) =
\left(\matrix{u_x \cr u_y \cr -u_z}\right)
(x,y,z) \,,
\label{mirrorsymm}
\eeq
which in Fourier space requires
\beq
\left(\matrix{u_x \cr u_y \cr u_z}\right)
(-k_x,-k_y,k_z) =
\left(\matrix{u_x^* \cr u_y^* \cr -u_z^*}\right)
(k_x,k_y,k_z) \,.
\eeq
This is not sufficient to fix the coefficients: the dynamics also has to
stay in the relevant subspace, and thus the time derivatives
have to satisfy similar requirements.
\subsection{The wave vectors}
The choice of wave vectors is motivated by the geometry of the flow
and the aim to include nonlinear couplings.
The basic flow shall be a flow in $y$-direction, neutral
in the $x$-direction and sheared in the $z$-direction.
Thus we take the first three wave vectors in $z$-direction,
\beq
\fettk_1 = \left(\matrix{0\cr0\cr1}\right)\,, \qquad
\fettk_2 = \left(\matrix{0\cr0\cr2}\right)\,, \qquad
\fettk_3 = \left(\matrix{0\cr0\cr3}\right) \,.
\eeq
The negative vectors $-\fettk_i$ also belong to the
set but will not be numbered explicitely.
In these units, the periodicity in the $z$-direction is
$2\pi$, so that the separation between the plates is $d=\pi$
because of the mirror symmetry (\ref{mirrorsymm}).
The amplitude $\fettu(\fettk_1)$ will carry the laminar profile and
$\fettu(\fettk_3)$ can be excited as a modification to the laminar profile.
$\fettk_2$ is needed to provide couplings through the nonlinear term.
These three vectors satisfy a triangle identity
$\fettk_1+\fettk_2-\fettk_3=0$, but the nonlinear term vanishes
since they are parallel.
The next set of wave vectors contains modulations in the flow and
neutral direction,
\beq
\fettk_4 = \left(\matrix{1\cr0\cr0}\right)\,, \quad
\fettk_5 = \left(\matrix{1/2\cr\sqrt{3}/2\cr0}\right)\,, \quad
\fettk_6 = \left(\matrix{1/2\cr-\sqrt{3}/2\cr0}\right) \,.
\eeq
Together with $-\fettk_i$ they form a regular hexagon, so that they provide
nontrivial couplings in the nonlinear term. The periodicity in
flow direction is $4\pi/\sqrt{3}$, in the neutral direction it is
$4\pi$.
Finally, this hexagon is lifted upwards with $\fettk_1$
and $\fettk_2$ to form the remaining 12 vectors,
\bea
\fettk_7\;\, &=& \fettk_1 + \fettk_4 \quad\;
\fettk_8\;\, = \fettk_1 + \fettk_5 \quad\;
\fettk_9\; = \fettk_1 + \fettk_6 \cr
\fettk_{10} &=& \fettk_1 - \fettk_4 \quad\;
\fettk_{11} = \fettk_1 - \fettk_5 \quad\;
\fettk_{12} = \fettk_1 - \fettk_6 \cr
\fettk_{13} &=& \fettk_2 + \fettk_4 \quad\;
\fettk_{14} = \fettk_2 + \fettk_5 \quad\;
\fettk_{15} = \fettk_2 + \fettk_6 \cr
\fettk_{16} &=& \fettk_2 - \fettk_4 \quad\;
\fettk_{17} = \fettk_2 - \fettk_5 \quad\;
\fettk_{18} = \fettk_2 - \fettk_6\,.
\eea
The full set $\fettk_i$, $i=1\ldots18$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{wavevectors}.
The Fourier amplitudes $\fettu(\fettk_i)$ have to be orthogonal to
$\fettk_i$ because of incompressibility (\ref{incomp}). If they are
expanded in basis vectors perpendicular to $\fettk_i$, the pressure
drops out of the equations and need not be calculated. We therefore
chose normalized basis vectors
\bea
\fettn(\fettk_i) &=& \left.\left({-k_x k_z\over k_x^2+k_y^2} ,
{-k_y k_z\over k_x^2+k_y^2}, 1\right)^T \right/
\sqrt{1+k_z^2/(k_x^2+k_y^2)} \cr
\fettm(\fettk_i) &=& \left({k_y} ,
{-k_x}, 0\right)^T\left/ \sqrt{k_x^2+k_y^2} \right.\,
\eea
so that $\fettn$, $\fettm$ and $\fettk$ form an orthogonal set of
basis vectors.
For the negative vectors $-\fettk_i$ we chose the basis vectors
$\fettn(-\fettk_i)=\fettn(\fettk_i)$ and
$\fettm(-\fettk_i)=-\fettm(\fettk_i)$.
If the $x$ and $y$ components of $\fettk$ vanish, the above definitions
are singular and replaced by
\beq
\fettn = (1,0,0)^T \qquad \fettm = (0,1,0)^T \,.
\eeq
The amplitudes of the velocity amplitude are now expanded as
\beq
\fettu(\fettk_i,t) = \alpha(\fettk_i,t) \fettn(\fettk_i) +
\beta(\fettk_i,t) \fettm(\fettk_i) \,.
\eeq
The impenetrable plates impose further constraints on the
$\alpha(\fettk_i)$ and $\beta(\fettk_i)$. For $i=1$, $2$ and $3$
the wave vector has no components in the $x$- and $y$-directions,
so that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ have to be real.
For $i=4$, $5$ and $6$ the velocity field cannot have any components in the
$z$-direction, hence $\alpha=0$.
The remaining wave vectors $\fettk_i$ and $-\fettk_i$ with $i=7,\ldots,18$,
a total of 24, divide up into six groups of 4 vectors each,
\beq
\fettk=(k_x,k_y,k_z),\; \fettk' = (-k_x,-k_y,k_z), \; -\fettk \;
\mbox{and}\; -\fettk'\,.
\eeq
The groups are formed by the vectors and their negatives in the pairs
with indices (7,10), (8,11), (9,12), (13,16), (14,17) and (15,18).
The amplitudes of the vectors in the sets are related by
\bea
\alpha(\fettk) &=& \alpha(-\fettk)^* = - \alpha(\fettk')^* \cr
\beta(\fettk) &=& \beta(-\fettk)^* = - \beta(\fettk')^* \,.
\label{bcs}
\eea
Thus the full model has $6 + 6 + 6\times4 = 36$ real amplitudes.
Restricting the flow by a point symmetry around
$\fettx_0= (0,0,\pi/2)^T \,$ eliminates the contributions from
${\bf k}_2$ and some other components, resulting in
a 19-dimensional subspace with nontrivial dynamics
and the following amplitudes:
\bea
\alpha(\fettk_1) &=& y_1 \qquad \beta(\fettk_1) = y_2\cr
\alpha(\fettk_3) &=& y_3 \qquad \beta(\fettk_3) = y_4\cr
\beta(\fettk_4) &=& i y_5 \qquad \beta(\fettk_5) = i y_6 \qquad
\beta(\fettk_6) = i y_7 \cr
\alpha(\fettk_7) &=& y_8 \qquad \beta(\fettk_7) = y_9\cr
\alpha(\fettk_8) &=& y_{10} \qquad \beta(\fettk_8) = y_{11}\cr
\alpha(\fettk_9) &=& y_{12} \qquad \beta(\fettk_9) = y_{13}\cr
\alpha(\fettk_{13}) &=& i y_{14} \qquad \beta(\fettk_{13}) = i y_{15}\cr
\alpha(\fettk_{14}) &=& i y_{16} \qquad \beta(\fettk_{14}) = i y_{17}\cr
\alpha(\fettk_{15}) &=& i y_{18} \qquad \beta(\fettk_{15}) = i y_{19}\,;
\eea
components not listed vanish or are related to the given ones by the
boundary conditions (\ref{bcs}).
A complete listing of the flow fields
${\bf u}_i$ associated with the coefficients $y_i$
such that ${\bf u}=\sum_i y_i {\bf u}_i$
as well as of the equations of motion are available from the authors.
\subsection{The equations of motion}
In this 19-dimensional subspace $y_1\ldots y_{19}$ the equations of
motion are of the form
\beq
\dot y_i = \sum_{j,k} A_{ijk} y_j y_k - \nu K_i y_i + f_i \,.
\eeq
Of the driving force all components but $f_2$ and $f_4$ vanish.
Moreover, if the $f$'s are taken to be proportional to $\nu$,
the resulting laminar profile has an amplitude independent of
viscosity (and thus Reynolds number).
These components give rise to a laminar profile that is a superposition
of a $\cos(z)$ profile (from $f_2$) and a $\cos(3z)$ profile (from
$f_4$).
This allows us to approximate the first two terms
of the Fourier expansion of a linear profile with velocity
$u_y=\pm1$ at the walls,
\beq
\fettu_0= \frac{8}{\pi^2} (\cos z + {1\over 9} \cos 3z)
\, {\bf e}_y \,.
\label{laminar_profile}
\eeq
that can be obtained with a driving $f_2 = 4\nu/\pi^2$ and
$f_4=4\nu/9\pi^2$ (see Fig.~\ref{laminarflows}).
The nonlinear interactions in the Navier-Stokes equation conserve the
energy $E=\frac{1}{2}\int dV \fettu^2$. In the 19-dimensional subspace, the
corresponding quadratic form is
\beq
E = V \left( \sum_{i=1}^{7} y_i^2 + 2 \sum_{i=8}^{19} y_i^2\right)\,.
\eeq
The above equations conserve this form
without driving and dissipation. With dissipation but still without
driving, the time derivative is negative definite, indicating a
monotonic decay of energy to zero.
Finally, we define the Reynolds number using the wall velocity of
the linear profile, $u_0=1$, the half width of the gap,
$D=d/2=\pi/2$ and the viscosity $\nu$,
\beq
Re = u_0 D/\nu = \pi/2\nu \,.
\eeq
The other geometric parameters are a period $4\pi/\sqrt{3}$ in
flow direction and $4\pi$ perpendicular to it.
\subsection{Symmetries}
\label{symmetries}
We achieved the impenetrability of the plates
by requiring the mirror symmetry:
\beq
\left(\matrix{u_x \cr u_y \cr u_z}\right)
(x,y,-z) =
\left(\matrix{u_x \cr u_y \cr -u_z}\right)
(x,y,z) \, .
\eeq
The reduction from 36 to 19 modes was achieved by restricting the
dynamics to a subspace where the flow has the point symmetry around
$\fettx_0= (0,0,\pi/2)^T \,$, a point in the middle of the shear layer,
\beq
\left(\matrix{u_x \cr u_y \cr u_z}\right) (x,y,z+\pi/2)
=\left(\matrix{-u_x \cr -u_y \cr -u_z}\right) (-x,-y,-z+\pi/2) \,.
\eeq
In addition, there are further symmetries that can be used to
reduce the phase space.
There is a reflection on the $y$-$z$-plane,
\beq
T_1:
\left(\matrix{u_x \cr u_y \cr u_z}\right)
(x,y,z) \rightarrow
\left(\matrix{-u_x \cr u_y \cr u_z}\right)
(-x,y,z) \,. \\
\eeq
and two shifts by half a lattice spacing,
\bea
T_2:& &
\left(\matrix{u_x \cr u_y \cr u_z}\right)
(x,y,z) \rightarrow
\left(\matrix{u_x \cr u_y \cr u_z}\right)
(x+2\pi,y,z) \, \\
T_3:&&
\left(\matrix{u_x \cr u_y \cr u_z}\right)
(x,y,z) \rightarrow
\left(\matrix{u_x \cr u_y \cr u_z}\right)
(x+\pi,y+\pi/\sqrt 3,z) \, .
\eea
When applied to the flow these transformations induce changes
in the variables $y_i$ (typically exchanges or sign changes),
but the equations of motion are invariant under these transformations.
Thus, if a certain flow has this symmetry, it leads to constraints
on the variables $y_i$, and if it does not have this symmetry
immediately a new flowfield can be obtained by applying
this symmetry transformation.
We do not attempt to analyze the full symmetry structure here and
confine our discussion to two illustrative examples which are
relevant for the stationary states discussed below.
Demanding invariance of the flow field to the reflection symmetry $T_1$
leads to the following constraints on the variables $y_i$:
\bea
y_1&=&y_3=y_5=y_8=y_{15}=0\nonumber\\
y_6&=&y_7\quad y_{10}=-y_{12} \nonumber\\
y_{11}&=&y_{13}\quad y_{16}=-y_{18}\quad y_{17}=y_{19}.
\eea
The non vanishing components,
$y_2$, $y_4$, $y_6=y_7$, $y_9$, $y_{10}=-y_{12}$,
$y_{11}=y_{13}$, $y_{14}$,
$y_{16}=-y_{18}$, $y_{17}=y_{19}$ thus define a 9 dimensional subspace.
For the combined symmetry $T_1T_2$ we find the constraints
\bea
y_1&=&y_3=y_5=y_8=y_{15}=0\nonumber\\
y_6&=&-y_7\quad y_{10}=y_{12} \nonumber\\
y_{11}&=&-y_{13}\quad y_{16}=y_{18}\quad y_{17}=-y_{19}
\eea
and again a 9 dimensional subspace with non vanishing components
$y_2$, $y_4$, $y_6=-y_7$, $y_9$, $y_{10}=y_{12}$,
$y_{11}=-y_{13}$, $y_{14}$,
$y_{16}=y_{18}$, $y_{17}=-y_{19}$.
The dimensions of the invariant spaces vary from a minimum of
6 (for each a $T_1T_3$ and $T_1T_2T_3$ invariance) and a maximum of
10 (for $T_2T_3$-invariance).
As mentioned, one can classify flows according to their symmetries.
The most asymmetric flows are eightfold degenerate as the
application of the eight combinations of the symmetries
give eight distinct flows.
The laminar flow profile is invariant under all
the linear transformations and is the only member of
the class with highest symmetry. The other stationary
states discussed below fall into
equivalence classes with eight members or four members if they
are invariant under $T_1$ or $T_1T_2$.
\section{Dynamics of perturbations}
\label{sec_dynamic}
A stability analysis shows that the laminar flow profile is linearly
stable for all Reynolds numbers. The matrix of the linearization is
non-normal with a block structure along the diagonal. To bring this
structure out more clearly, it is best to order the equations in the
sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 15, 8, 9, 14, 13, 19, 12, 18, 6, 11, 17,
10, 16.
The matrix of the linearization then is upper diagonal,
with a clear block structure: there are 10 eigenvalues
isolated on the diagonal, three $2\times2$ blocks and one
$3\times 3$ block as well as several couplings between them in the
upper right corner. While some eigenvalues can be complex, all of them
have negative real part as shown in
Fig.~\ref{eigenvallaminar}. For vanishing viscosity,
the eigenvalues become zero or purely imaginary.
Large amplitude perturbations, however, need not decay. Already
in the linear regime the non-orthogonality of the eigenvectors can
give rise to intermediate amplifications into a regime
where the nonlinear terms become important
\cite{GG1994,BB1988,TTRD1993,wal1,wal2}. In a related
study on plane Couette flow \cite{ES1997}
we used the lifetime of perturbations
to get information on the dynamics in a high-dimensional
phase space. As in that case, the amplitude of the velocity
field in the $z$-direction indicates the survival strength of
a perturbation. Linearizing the equations of motion around the
base flow ${\bf u}_0$ gives for the perturbation ${\bf u}'$
the equation
\beq
\partial_t{\bf u}' = - ({\bf u}_0\cdot\nabla){\bf u}' -
({\bf u}'\cdot\nabla){\bf u}_0- \nabla p'
+ \nu \Delta {\bf u}' \,.
\eeq
The second term on the right hand side describes the energy source
for the perturbation, and depends, because of
${\bf u}_0 = u_0(z)\, {\bf e}_y$ and thus
\beq
({\bf u}'\cdot\nabla){\bf u}_0 = u_z' \partial_z u_0(z) {\bf e}_y
\eeq
in an essential way on the $z$-components of the perturbation.
Thus, if the amplitudes $y_8$, $y_{10}$, $y_{12}$, $y_{14}$, $y_{16}$
and $y_{18}$ become too small, the decay of the perturbation cannot
be stopped any more. These modes account also for most of the
off-diagonal block-couplings. A model for sustainable
shear flow turbulence has to include some of these modes.
We chose a fixed initial flow field with a random selection of
amplitudes $y_1,\ldots,y_{19}$, scaled it by an amplitude parameter
$A$ and measured the lifetime as a function of $A$ and
Reynolds number Re. Fig.~\ref{timedependence}
shows the time evolution of such a perturbation
at $Re=400$ with one mode driven and for different amplitudes.
For small $A$ there is an essentially exponential decay, whereas
for larger amplitudes the perturbation swings up to large
amplitude
and shows no sign of a decline at all. The results for
many amplitudes and Reynolds numbers are collected in
Fig.~\ref{landscape} in a landscape plot.
For small Reynolds number and/or small amplitude
the lifetimes of perturbations are short, indicated by the
light areas. For Reynolds numbers around 100 isolated black spots
appear, indicating the occurence of lifetimes larger than
the integration time (which increases with $Re$ so that
$t_{max}/Re = 4\pi$). The spottiness for $Re$ between about 100
and 1000 is due to rapid changes in lifetimes from pixel to
pixel. For Re above 1000 the long lifetimes dominate.
These results are in good agreement with what has been observed in
plane Couette flow. Fig.~\ref{landscape}b shows a similar plot for the case
with two modes driven; it is qualitatively similar, but quantitatively
shifted to higher Reynolds numbers.
In connection with the non-normality of the linearized eigenvalue
problem it has been argued that the upper limit on the
size of perturbations for which the non-linear terms in the dynamics
can be neglected decreases algebraically like $Re^{-\alpha}$. Different
exponents have been proposed, ranging from 1 to 3
\cite{GG1994,wal2,BT1997}. It seems that for large $Re$ (where the
model is actually less reliable because of the limited spatial
resolution) the envelope of the long lived states in the fractal
life time plot decays like $Re^{-1}$.
The sensitive dependence of lifetimes on initial conditions and
parameters is further highlighted in
Fig.~\ref{landscape_magnification} and \ref{lifetimes}.
The first shows the lifetime in the plane of the amplitudes
$y_{16}$ and $y_{17}$ at Reynolds number $Re=400$ with all
other components fixed. There is considerable structure on
many scales. One notes 'valleys' of short lifetimes between
'plateaus' of longer lifetimes and a granular structure within
both. The striations are reminiscent of features seen
near fractal basin boundaries \cite{Ott}.
Fig.~\ref{lifetimes} shows successive magnifications of lifetime
versus amplitude plots at Re=200. Even after a magnification by
$10^{7}$ there is no indication of a continuous and smooth variation
of lifetime with amplitude.
\section{Stationary states}
\label{sec_stationary}
Motivated by the observation of new stationary structures
in plane Couette flow for sufficiently high Reynolds number
\cite{Nagata1990,Nagata1997,CB1997} we
searched for
non-trivial stationary solutions and studied their generation, evolution
and symmetries.
We computed the stationary states with the help of a Monte Carlo
algorithm. The initial conditions for the $y_i$'s
were chosen randomly out of the
interval $[-1/2,1/2]$ and the Reynolds number was chosen randomly
matrixwith an exponential bias for small $Re$ in the interval $[10,10000]$.
With these initial conditions we entered a Newton algorithm.
If the Newton algorithm converged, we followed the
fixed point in Reynolds number as far as possible.
We included about 200000 attempts in the Monte Carlo search.
The stationary states found for a single driven mode
are collected in Fig.~\ref{stationary_single}. No
stationary states (besides the laminar profile) were found for
Reynolds numbers below about 190. Between 190 and about 500 there
are eight stationary states which divide into two groups of
four symmetry related states each. With increasing Reynolds number
more and more stationary states are found and they reach
down to smaller and smaller amplitude. The envelope of all states
reflects the $Re^{-1}$ behaviour found for the borderline where
nonlinearity becomes important. For two driven modes
(Fig.~\ref{stationary_double}) the situation is similar.
The appearance of the branches of the stationary states and
in particular their coalescence near $Re=190$ suggests that the
states are born out of a saddle-node bifurcation. And indeed,
the eigenvalues as a function of $Re$ show two eigenvalues
moving closer together and collapsing at zero for $Re=190.41$
(Fig.~\ref{saddle_node_bif}).
However, these eigenvalues are not the leading ones, so that
one set of states has three unstable eigenvalues, the other
two unstable ones. It is thus a `saddle-node' bifurcation into
unstable states.
With increasing $Re$ more and more stationary states appear,
partly through secondary bifurcations, partly through additional
saddle-node bifurcations. Their number increases rapidly with
Reynolds number (Fig.~\ref{proliferation}) and this increase goes
in parallel with the increase in density of long lived states,
Fig.~\ref{landscape}.
The detailed structure of the bifurcation diagram is rather
complex and has not yet been fully explored. We note here
that the various stationary states may be grouped according
to their symmetries introduced in section \ref{symmetries}
and that we found only stationary states which belong to
equivalent classes with four or eight members.
The stationary states of the classes with four
members are invariant under the
transformation $T_1$ or $T_1T_2$.
In addition, there are forward directed bifurcations
generating two new branches with the
same symmetry properties (eight or four member class) and inverse
bifurcations of two branches belonging to eight member equivalent classes.
We also found a backward directed bifurcation generating branches of
an eight member class, which is born out of a four member class branch.
The scenarios described above are marked
in the bifurcation diagram Fig. \ref{stationary_single}.
\section{Concluding remarks}
\label{sec_conclusion}
The few degrees of freedom shear model introduced here lies
halfway between the simplest models of non-normality and
full simulations. Its dynamics has turned out to be surprisingly rich.
There are a multitude of bifurcations introducing new stationary states
besides the laminar profile, there are secondary bifurcations, and the
distribution of life times shows fractal structures on amazingly
small scales. It seems that as one goes from the low-dimensional
models\cite{TTRD1993,GG1994} via the present one to
full simulations one notes not only an increase in numerical
complexity but also the appearence of
qualitatively new features \cite{EMS1998}.
The simplest models with very few degrees of freedom focus
on the non-normality of the
linearized Navier-Stokes problem and emphasize the amplification
of small perturbations. If the non-linearity is included a
transition to another kind of dynamics, sometimes as simple
as relaxation to a stationary point, is found \cite{BT1997}.
Next in complexity are models like the one presented
here that share with the few degree of freedom models
the amplification and the transition
but the additional degrees of freedom allow for chaos.
When nonlinearities become important the dynamics does not
settle to a fixed point or a limit cycle but continues
irregularly for an essentially unpredictable time.
The time is unpredictable because of the fractal
life time distribution which seems to persist down to
amazingly small scale: tiny variations in Reynolds number
or amplitudes of the perturbation can cause major variations in
life times. This fractal behaviour is the new quality
introduced by the additional degrees of freedom.
Indications for this behaviour are seen in the
experiments by Mullin on pipe flow \cite{Mullin}.
It is interesting to ask just how few degrees of freedom are
necessary to obtain this
behaviour. Reducing our model to the $T_1$ subspace gives one with
just 9 degrees of freedom (comparable in number and
flow behaviour to the ones of Waleffe \cite{wal2}) that still
shows this fractal life time distributions. Further reduction,
as in the four mode model of \cite{wal2}, seems to eliminate them.
The full, spatially extended shear flows share essential
features with the model but add new problems.
Spatially resolved simulations of the present model \cite{wal98}
as well as plane Couette flow with rigid-rigid boundary
conditions \cite{Nagata1990,CB1997}
show the occurence of additional stationary states
at sufficiently high Reynolds number that are unstable.
A novel and as yet unexplained feature in spatially extended
plane Couette flow, which we believe
to be connected to the high dimensionality of phase space,
is the difference between Reynolds numbers where the first
stationary states are born (about 125 in units of half
the gap width and half the velocity difference) and the
ones where experiments begin to see long lived states
(about 300--350) \cite{experiments}.
The fractal life time distributions have obvious
similiarities to chaotic scattering \cite{EA1988,E1988,Ott}.
Drawing on this analogy one would like to identify permanent structures
in phase space away from the laminar profile that could
sustain turbulence. This has partly been achieved by
the search for stationary states. Many have been found but
irritatingly only for Reynolds numbers above about 190 while
long lived states seem to appear much earlier. The solution
to this puzzle must be periodic states and indeed we have found
a few periodic states in a symmetry reduced model at lower
Reynolds numbers, close to the
occurence of the first long lived states. This suggests that
the dynamical system picture that long lived states have
to be connected to persistent structures in phase space
is tenable.
There are several features of the model that can be
studied further. In particular, quantitative characterizations of
the fractal life time distribution, visualizations of the flow
field, a detailed analysis of the primary and secondary bifurcation,
an investigation of the dependence on the aspect ratio of the
periodicity cell are required and look promising. We expect the
lessons to be learned from this simple model to be useful
in understanding the dynamics of full plane Couette and other
shear flows. Work along these directions continues.
|
\section{Introduction}
Complex neutrino mixing for 3 family Dirac neutrinos leads to
CP and T violation effects in neutrino oscillations \cite{UNO}. In
view of the vigorous experimental programme in this field, the
study of CP violation becomes an interesting topic.
The neutrino states of definite flavour $\alpha$, as generated
by well defined weak interaction properties, are related to
neutrino states of definite mass $m_k$ by
\begin{equation}
\nu_\alpha = \sum_k U_{\alpha k} \nu_k
\label{eq:uno}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $U$ is the unitary mixing matrix which, for 3 families,
depends on 3 mixing angles and 1 CP phase.
If the "$\alpha$" state is prepared at $t = 0$, the probability
amplitude that, at time $t$, it is manifested as the "$\beta$" state is
\begin{equation}
A (\alpha \rightarrow \beta ; t) = \sum_k U_{\alpha k} U_{\beta k}^*
exp[- i E_k t]
\label{eq:dos}
\end{equation}
We observe that the time-dependent amplitude contains the interference
of different "$k$" terms, with different weak phases in $U_{\alpha k}
\, U_{\beta k}^*$ and different oscillation phases governed by $E_k$.
These ingredients are necessary and sufficient to generate CP violation
in the oscillation probability.
In Section 2 we discuss the CPT-invariance condition, together with
the CP-odd and T-odd asymmetries. In Section 3 the CP-asymmetry for
3 family neutrino oscillation is considered and the conditions for a
non-vanishing value are obtained. These results will lead to the need
of long-base-line (LBL) experiments for CP studies. In Section 4 the
CP-odd asymmetry is built in this case for hierarchical neutrino masses.
These LBL experiments have to include, however, matter effects and
in Section 5 we show that these matter effects are large and they
constitute an undesired background for CP violation effects. Due to
this fake phenomenon, Section 6 studies T-odd asymmetries which are
free from this problem. Section 7 answers the question related to
the possible Majorana character of neutrinos. Section 8 summarizes
some conclusions and the outlook.
\section{CPT, CP, T}
>From Eq.~(\ref{eq:dos}) the requirement of CPT invariance leads
to the amplitude for conjugate flavour states
\begin{equation}
A (\bar{\alpha} \rightarrow \bar{\beta}; t) = \sum_k U_{\alpha k}^*
U_{\beta k} \, exp[-i E_k t]
\label{eq:tres}
\end{equation}
\noindent
so that we obtain the condition
\begin{equation}
CPT \Rightarrow A (\bar{\alpha} \rightarrow \bar{\beta}; t)
= A^* (\alpha \rightarrow \beta; - t)
\label{eq:cuatro}
\end{equation}
Eq.~(\ref{eq:cuatro}) will be assummed through this work.
CP-invariance is the statement that the probabilities for the
original transition and for its conjugate are equal, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
CP \Rightarrow |A (\alpha \rightarrow \beta; t)|^2 =
|A (\bar{\alpha} \rightarrow \bar{\beta}; t)|^2
\label{eq:cinco}
\end{equation}
T-invariance is the statement that the probabilities for the
original transition and for its inverse are equal, i.e,
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
T \Rightarrow & | A (\alpha \rightarrow \beta ; t)|^2 = | A (\beta
\rightarrow \alpha; t)|^2\\
& |A (\bar{\alpha} \rightarrow \bar{\beta}; t)|^2 =
|A (\bar{\beta} \rightarrow \bar{\alpha}; t)|^2
\end{array}
\label{eq:seis}
\end{equation}
From
these results, we have the corollaries:
i) CP, T Violation effects, i.e, the violation of Eq.~(\ref{eq:cinco}) ,
Eq.~(\ref{eq:seis}), respectively, can take place in Appearance
Experiments only. For Disappearance experiments, $\beta = \alpha$,
Eq.~(\ref{eq:seis}) is automatic and Eq.~(\ref{eq:dos}) implies
\begin{equation}
A^* (\alpha \rightarrow \alpha ; t) = A (\alpha \rightarrow \alpha;
- t)
\label{eq:siete}
\end{equation}
The combination of Eq.~(\ref{eq:siete}) and Eq.~(\ref{eq:cuatro})
leads to the verification of
Eq.~(\ref{eq:cinco}), q.e.d.
As a consequence, no CP or T violation effect can be manifested in reactor
or solar neutrino experiments.
ii) The (numerator of) CP-odd Asymmetry is given by
\begin{equation}
D_{\alpha \beta} \equiv |A (\alpha \rightarrow \beta; t)|^2
- |A (\bar{\alpha} \rightarrow \bar{\beta}; t)|^2
\label{eq:ocho}
\end{equation}
CPT-invariance implies $D_{\alpha \beta} = - D_{\beta \alpha}$
and the use of Eq.~(\ref{eq:dos}) and the Unitarity of the
Mixing Matrix implies $\sum_{\beta \neq \alpha} D_{\alpha \beta}
= 0$. These constraints lead to a unique $D$ for 3 flavours:
\begin{equation}
D_{e \mu} = D_{\mu \tau} = D_{\tau e}
\label{eq:nueve}
\end{equation}
iii) The (numerators of) T-odd Asymmetries are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
T_{\alpha \beta} \equiv | A (\alpha \rightarrow \beta; t)|^2
- | A (\beta \rightarrow \alpha ; t)|^2 = | A
(\alpha \rightarrow \beta ; t)|^2 - | A (\alpha \rightarrow \beta;
-t)|^2 \\
\bar{T}_{\alpha \beta} \equiv | A (\bar{\alpha} \rightarrow \bar{\beta}
; t)|^2
- | A (\bar{\beta} \rightarrow \bar{\alpha} ; t)|^2 = | A
(\bar{\alpha} \rightarrow \bar{\beta} ; t)|^2 - |
A (\bar{\alpha} \rightarrow \bar{\beta};
-t)|^2 \\[2ex]
\end{array}
\label{eq:diez}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where use of Eq.~(\ref{eq:dos}) has been made in the right-hand
side. Eq.~(\ref{eq:diez}) leads to the important conclusion that
\underline{$T_{\alpha \beta}, \bar{T}_{\alpha \beta}$ are odd functions
of time}. One should be aware that Eq.~(\ref{eq:diez}) needs
an hermitian Hamiltonian for the evolution of the system. In fact,
the above conclusion is not valid for the $K^0 \bar{K}^0$ system.
\section{CP-Asymmetry}
The numerator Eq.~(\ref{eq:ocho}) of the CP-odd asymmetries can be
calculated using Eq.~(\ref{eq:dos}) for the amplitudes. In the limit
of ultrarelativistic neutrinos, one obtains
\begin{equation}
D_{\alpha \beta} = \sum_{k >j} I_{\alpha \beta; j k} \sin
\frac{\Delta m_{kj}^2 L}{ 2 E}
\label{eq:once}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $L \simeq t$ is the distance between the source and the detector,
$E$ is the neutrino energy and $\Delta m_{kj}^2 \equiv m_k^2
- m_j^2$. The I's containing mixing angles and the CP phase are given
by
\begin{equation}
I_{\alpha \beta ; jk} = 4 Im [U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}^*
U_{\alpha k}^* U_{\beta k} ]
\label{eq:doce}
\end{equation}
\noindent
which show the rephasing invariance of the observables explicitly.
Suppose that only the highest $m^2$-value is relevant for the
neutrino oscillation experiment, assuming a hierarchy in neutrino
masses. This statement, which can be considered as the definition of a
short-base-line (SBL) experiment, means that the approximations
\begin{equation}
\left.
\begin{array}{c}
\Delta m^2 \simeq \Delta m_{31}^2 \simeq \Delta m^2_{32}\\
\frac{\Delta m^2_{21}}{2 E} L << 1
\end{array}
\right\}
\label{eq:trece}
\end{equation}
\noindent
are fulfilled. In the limit of neglecting terms of order $\frac{
\Delta m_{21}^2}{2 E} L$, the asymmetry Eq.~(\ref{eq:once})
becomes
\begin{equation}
D_{\alpha \beta}^{(SBL)} \simeq (I_{\alpha \beta ; 13}
+ I_{\alpha \beta ; 23}) \sin \frac{\Delta m^2L}{2E}
\label{eq:catorce}
\end{equation}
\noindent
which vanishes due to the cyclic character of the I's:
$I_{\alpha \beta; 23} =
I_{\alpha \beta; 31} =
- I_{\alpha \beta; 13}$.
The lesson learnt from this limit is immediate: the 3 families have to
participate ACTIVELY in order to generate a non-vanishing CP-odd
observable. It is not enough to know that there are 3
non-degenerate neutrinos in Nature
and the presence of mixing among all of them. $\Delta m_{21}^2$ has
to participate.
Furthermore, in order to generate a non-vanishing value for the I's
one needs ALL the mixing angles and the unique CP phase different from
zero \cite{DOS}.
One thus concludes that a significant CP-odd asymmetry needs the
consideration of neutrino oscillations in long-base-line (LBL)
experiments \cite{TRES,CUATRO,CINCO,SEIS}. The meaning of this
requirement is that both $\Delta m^2$'s, i.e., $\Delta m_{31}^2 \simeq
\Delta m_{32}^2$ and $\Delta m_{21}^2$, have to be accessible.
Two comments should be considered to soften the above conclusion: i)
one can choose to keep terms of order $\frac{\Delta m_{21}^2}{2E} L
<<1$ at the expense to search for appearance transitions with very
low probability and enhance the CP-odd ratio which defines the
asymmetry; ii) even if the value of $D_{\alpha \beta}$, and thus
of the CP-odd asymmetry, vanishes under the conditions leading to
Eq.~(\ref{eq:catorce}), the existence of a non-vanishing CP-phase
can be inferred from CP-conserving observables if enough
probabilities are measured. To have information on both $P (\nu_\mu
\rightarrow \nu_\tau)$ and $P (\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_\tau)$ under
controllable conditions, one probably needs the
neutrino facility based on
muon-storage-rings \cite{SIETE}.
\section{CP effects in LBL experiments}
Contrary to the conditions discussed before in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:trece}), we assume in this Section that $L/E$ is
such that
\begin{equation}
\left. \begin{array}{c}
\frac{\Delta m_{31}^2 L}{2E} \sim \frac{\Delta m_{32}^2 L}{2 E}
>> 1\\
\frac{\Delta m_{21}^2 L}{2 E} \sim 1
\end{array} \right\} \label{quince}
\end{equation}
The calculation of the appearance probabilities $\alpha \rightarrow \beta$
then gives
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
P_{\nu_\alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta} = |
U^*_{\beta 1} U_{\alpha 1} + U^*_{\beta 2} U_{\alpha 2}
exp (-i \frac{\Delta m_{21}^2 L}{2E}) |^2 + |U_{\beta 3}|^2
|U_{\alpha 3}|^2\\
P_{\bar{\nu}_\alpha \rightarrow \bar{\nu}_\beta} = |
U_{\beta 1} U^*_{\alpha 1} + U_{\beta 2} U^*_{\alpha 2}
exp (-i \frac{\Delta m_{21}^2 L}{2E}) |^2 + |U_{\beta 3}|^2
|U_{\alpha 3}|^2
\end{array} \label{eq:dieciseis}
\end{equation}
One notices that the heaviest neutrino contributes to these
probabilities only through mixing without any oscillation: this
term is CP-even. What is relevant for the CP asymmetry is the
interference of two amplitudes $k = 1,2$ with diferent weak phases
and different oscillation phases: in going to the CP transformed
transition, the weak phase changes its sign whereas the oscillation
phase remains the same.
The difference of the two probabilities Eq.~(\ref{eq:dieciseis})
gives a CP-odd asymmetry
\begin{equation}
\left. \begin{array}{l}
D_{\alpha \beta}^{(LBL)} \simeq I_{\alpha \beta} \sin
\frac{\Delta m_{21}^2 L}{2 E}\\
I_{\alpha \beta} \equiv I_{\alpha \beta; 12} = 4 Im [U_{\alpha 1}
U_{\beta 1}^* U_{\alpha 2}^* U_{\beta 2}]
\end{array} \right\}
\label{eq:diecisiete}
\end{equation}
It is immediate to realize that, for the 3-neutrino case, one has
\begin{equation}
I_{e \mu} = I_{\mu \tau} = I_{\tau e}
\end{equation}
Bilenky et al. \cite{SEIS} have used present exclusion plots
for $\mu \rightarrow e$ and $\mu \rightarrow \tau $ transitions, together
with amplitude and unitarity bounds, to find allowed values for
$|I_{e \mu}|$ and $|I_{\mu \tau}|$. Maximum values of $10^{-2}$ for
$|I_{e \mu|}$ and around $10^{-1}$ for $|I_{\mu \tau}|$ are accessible.
\section{Matter effects in LBL experiments}
LBL experiments, with source and detector at the earth surface, imply
that neutrinos cross the earth in their travel. It is mandatory to
discuss the matter effect \cite{OCHO,NUEVE,DIEZ}
The effective Hamiltonians for neutrinos and antineutrinos are given
in the flavour basis for 3 families:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
H_\nu = \frac{1}{2E} \left\{ U \left( \begin{array}{lll}
m_1^2 && \\
& m^2_2 &\\
&& m_3^3 \end{array} \right) U^+ + \left(
\begin{array}{lll}
a &&\\
& 0 & \\
& & 0 \end{array} \right) \right\}\\[2ex]
H_{\bar{\nu}} = \frac{1}{2E} \left\{ U^* \left( \begin{array}{lll}
m_1^2 && \\
& m^2_2 &\\
&& m_3^2 \end{array} \right) U^T - \left(
\begin{array}{lll}
a &&\\
& 0 & \\
& & 0 \end{array} \right) \right\}
\end{array}
\label{eq:diecinueve}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where the matter effect for constant density is given by the forward
charged current interaction amplitude with electrons
\begin{equation}
a = G \sqrt{2} N_e 2 E \simeq 2.3 \times 10^{-4} eV^2
(\frac{\rho}{3 gcm^{-3}}) (\frac{E}{GeV})
\label{eq:veinte}
\end{equation}
\noindent
and $N_e$ is the (number) density of electrons. It is interesting
to build the dimensionless quantity
\begin{equation}
\frac{a L}{2 E} \simeq 0.58 \times 10^{-3} (\frac{L}{km})
\label{eq:veintiuno}
\end{equation}
\noindent
which is E-independent! This is in contrast to the E-dependent oscillation
quantity which, for $\Delta m^2$ in the range of the atmospheric neutrino
oscillation solution, gives
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta m^2 L}{2E} \simeq 0.75 \times 10^{-2} (\frac{L}{km} )
(\frac{GeV}{E})
\label{eq:veintidos}
\end{equation}
For neutrino beams with energy $E \sim 10 \, GeV$, as envisaged
by the FermiLab and CERN LBL experiments, the two quantities
Eq.~(\ref{eq:veintiuno}) and Eq.~(\ref{eq:veintidos}) are
comparable and one concludes that large matter effects are expected.
The diagonalization of $H_\nu$ and $H_{\bar{\nu}}$ by unitary
matrices $U'$ and $\bar{U}'$ leads to different
eigenvalues $\tilde{m}_\nu^2$ and $\tilde{m}_{\bar{\nu}}^2$, respectively,
\begin{equation}
H_\nu = U' \frac{\tilde{m}_\nu^2}{2E} U'^+ \quad , \quad
H_{\bar{\nu}} = \bar{U}^{'*} \frac{\tilde{m}_{\bar{\nu}}^2}{2E}
\bar{U}'^T
\label{eq:veintitres}
\end{equation}
One notes that the matter effect $a \neq 0$ provokes fake CP and
CPT violation associated with the interaction with the asymmetric
medium: even the simplest diagonal probability equality for
$\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$ is violated, $P_{\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_e}
\neq P_{\bar{\nu}_e \rightarrow \bar{\nu}_e}$!
With the neutrino mixing in the medium described by $U'$
and $\bar{U}'$, the CP violating I's of Eq. ~(\ref{eq:doce})
are replaced by
\begin{equation}
I_{\alpha \beta ; j k} \Rightarrow \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
I'_{\alpha \beta ; jk} = 4 Im [U'_{\alpha j } U^{'*}_{\beta j}
U^{'*}_{\alpha k} U'_{\beta k} ]\\
\tilde{I}'_{\alpha \beta ; jk} = 4 Im [\bar{U}'_{\alpha j}
\bar{U}^{'*}_{\beta j} \bar{U}^{'*}_{\alpha k}
\bar{U}'_{\beta k} ]
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:veinticuatro}
\end{equation}
\noindent
It is possible to prove
\cite{SEIS} that a real diagonal matter term, as
dictated by the Standard Model in Eq.~(\ref{eq:diecinueve}), implies
the necessary and sufficient condition
\begin{equation}
I_{\alpha \beta; j k} = 0 \Longleftrightarrow I'_{\alpha \beta ;
jk} = \bar{I}'_{\alpha \beta; jk} = 0
\label{eq:veinticinco}
\end{equation}
This means that the identification of non-vanishing $I', \bar{I}'$
in matter is still a true signal of CP-violation in Nature. The CP-odd
asymmetries contain, however, additional terms which are an undesired
background
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c}
P_{\nu_\alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta} = \sum_k |U'_{\beta k}|^2 |U'_{\alpha
k}|^2 + 2 \sum_{k>j} Re [U'_{\alpha j} U^{'*}_{\beta j}
U^{'*}_{\alpha k} U'_{\beta k}] \cos \frac{\Delta \tilde{m}^2_{\nu k j}}{2E}
L\\
+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k > j} I'_{\alpha \beta ;jk} \sin
\frac{\Delta \tilde{m}^2_{\nu k j}}{2E} L\\
P_{\bar{\nu}_\alpha \rightarrow \bar{\nu}_\beta} = \sum_k
|\bar{U}'_{\beta k}|^2 |\bar{U}'_{\alpha
k}|^2 + 2 \sum_{k>j} Re [\bar{U}'_{\alpha j} \bar{U}^{'*}_{\beta j}
\bar{U}^{'*}_{\alpha k}
\bar{U}'_{\beta k}] \cos \frac{\Delta \tilde{m}^2_{\bar{\nu} k j}}{2E}
L\\
- \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k > j} \bar{I}'_{\alpha \beta;jk} \sin
\frac{\Delta \tilde{m}^2_{\bar{\nu} k j}}{2E} L
\end{array}
\label{eq:veintiseis}
\end{equation}
>From Eq.~(\ref{eq:veintiseis}) it is clear that, in matter,
the transition probabilitites of neutrinos and antineutrinos are
different even if CP is conserved, i.e., for $I' = \bar{I}' = 0$
one has $D_{\alpha \beta} \neq 0$. One would need the explicit
separation of the odd functions $\sin \frac{\Delta \tilde{m}^2_{kj}}
{2E}L$ in the oscillation probabilities to measure true CP
violation effects.
\section{T-odd asymmetries}
Since the matter contribution to the effective neutrino and
antineutrino Hamiltonians is real and the matter density is symmetric
along the path of the neutrino beam in terrestrial LBL-experiments,
matter effects are T-symmetric. A non-vanishing value of $T_{\alpha
\beta}$ or $\bar{T}_{\alpha \beta}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:diez}), in matter
can only be due to a fundamental violation of T-invariance. It is
straightforward to obtain these T-odd asymmetries
\begin{equation}
T_{\alpha \beta} = \sum_{k>j} I'_{\alpha \beta; jk} \sin
\frac{\Delta \tilde{m}^2_{\nu k j }}{2E} L \quad ; \quad
\bar{T}_{\alpha \beta} = \sum_{k>j} \bar{I}'_{\alpha \beta, jk}
\sin \frac{\Delta \tilde{m}^2_{\bar{\nu} k j}}{2E} L
\label{eq:veintisiete}
\end{equation}
One needs, however, the joint measurements of $\nu_\mu \rightarrow
\nu_e$ and $\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_\mu$ which probably has to wait
for neutrino factories in muon-storage-ring facilities.
\section{Majorana Neutrinos}
If neutrinos are Majorana particles, the main modification for charged
current neutrino interaction is that the mixing matrix gets replaced
\cite{ONCE} by
\begin{equation}
U^D \rightarrow U^M = U^D P \quad ; \quad P = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
e^{i \alpha_1} &&\\
& e^{i \alpha_2} &\\
&& 1 \end{array} \right)
\label{eq:veintiocho}
\end{equation}
\noindent
with $U^D$ the conventional $U$ complex mixing matrix with 3 mixing angles
and 1 CP-phase. One sees that 2 additional CP-phases come into the game.
Some care is needed because CP-violation through these new phases
means $\alpha_k \neq 0, \frac{\pi}{2}$!
The new phases are, however, not operative as long as we consider Dirac
flavour oscillations for neutrinos propagating through the Green
function \\ $<0|T \{\psi (x) \bar{\psi} (0) \} | 0>$. Their manifestation
would need the study of "neutrino-antineutrino" propagation mediated
by the Green function $< 0|T \{\psi (x) \psi^T (0) \} | 0>$.
Langacker et al. \cite{DOCE} have shown that this conclusion
is valid not only for neutrino oscillations in vacuum but for
flavour oscillations in matter too. The new phases associated with
Majorana neutrinos are not seen in Flavour Oscillations in Matter.
\section{Outlook}
The responses to the questions posed in the Introduction are
summarized now:
- CP,T violation in neutrino oscillation is possible in Appearance
Experiments, for mixing of 3 or more non-degenerate neutrinos.
- Non-vanishing CP, T violating observables need the active
participation of the 3 (different) masses, mixings and CP-phase.
In particular, $\frac{E}{L}$ should be comparable to the smallest
$\Delta m^2$.
- In LBL experiments, there are large matter effects, inducing fake
CP and CPT violation. The identification of true CP violation would
need the explicit separation of odd functions of time.
-Matter Effects are T-symmetric, so that a non-vanishing T-odd
asymmetry in matter is still a signal of fundamental T-violation.
- If neutrinos are Majorana particles, there is no change for
Flavour Oscillations, either in vacuum or in matter.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work has been supported by the Spanish CICYT, under
Grant AEN-96/1718.
|
\section{Introduction}
Following Wigner~\cite{Wigner}, an elementary relativistic quantum
system, an elementary particle with mass $m$ and spin $j$ is in the
mathematical theory described by the space of an unitary irreducible
representation (UIR) of the Poincar\'e group~${\mathcal P}$. From
these UIR, the relativistic quantum fields are constructed
\cite{Weinberg}. More complicated relativistic systems are described
by direct sums of UIR (for ``towers'' of elementary particles) or by
direct products of UIR (for combination of two or more elementary
particles) \cite{Weinberg}. A direct product of UIR may be decomposed
into a continuous direct sum (integral) of irreducible representations
\cite{Joos,Macf}. The UIR are characterized by three invariants
$(m^2, j,\textrm{sign}(p_0))$, where~$j$ represents the spin and the
real number $m$ represents the mass of elementary particle (we
restrict ourselves here to $\textrm{sign}(p_0)=+1$).
The UIR of the Poincar\'e group ${\mathcal P}$ describe stable
elementary particles (stationary systems). There is only a very small
number of truly stable particles in nature and most relativistic (and
also non-relativistic) quantum systems are decaying states (weakly or
electromagnetically), or hadron resonances with an exponential decay
law and finite lifetime $\tau_R=\frac{\hbar}{\Gamma}$ (in their rest
frame) and a Breit-Wigner energy (at rest) distribution. The UIR of
${\mathcal P}$ therefore describe only a few of the relativistic
quantum systems in nature; for the vast majority of elementary
particles listed in the Particle Physics Booklet~\cite{PPB}, the UIR
provide only a more or less approximate description. We want to
present here a special class of (non-unitary) semi-group
representations of $\cal P$ which describe quasistable relativistic
particles.
Phenomenologically, one always takes the point of view that resonances
are autonomous quantum physical entities, and decaying particles are
no less fundamental than stable particles. Stable particles are not
qualitatively different from quasistable particles, but only
quantitatively by a zero (or very small) value of $\Gamma$. Therefore
both stable and quasistable states should be described on the same
footing. This has been accomplished in the non-relativistic case,
where a decaying state is described by a generalized eigenvector of
the (self adjoint, semi-bounded) Hamiltonian with a complex eigenvalue
$z_R=E_R-i\Gamma/2$~\cite{Bohm1} called Gamow vectors. The stable
state vectors with real eigenvalues $E_S$ are the special case with
$\Gamma=0$, i.e., $z_R=E_R-i\Gamma/2\rightarrow E_S$.
In the standard Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics, such
vectors do not exist and one had to employ the Rigged Hilbert Space
(RHS) formulation of quantum mechanics. Dirac's bras and kets are,
mathematically, generalized eigenvectors with real eigenvalues, and
Gamow vectors are generalizations of Dirac kets. They are described by
kets $\psi^G\equiv | z_R^-\rangle\sqrt{2\pi\Gamma}$ with complex
eigenvalue $z_R=E_R-i\Gamma/2$, where $E_R$ and $\Gamma$ are
respectively interpreted as resonance energy and width. Like Dirac
kets, the Gamow kets are functionals of a Rigged Hilbert Space :
\begin{equation}
\Phi_+\subset{\mathcal H}\subset\Phi^\times_+:
\,\,\,\,\,\,
\psi^G\in\Phi^\times_+,
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
and the mathematical meaning of the eigenvalue equation
$H^\times|z_R^-\rangle=(E_R-i\Gamma/2)|z_R^-\rangle$ is:
\begin{equation}
\langle H\psi|z_R^-\rangle
\equiv
\langle\psi|H^\times|z_R^-\rangle=
z_R\langle\psi|z_R^-\rangle
\,\,\,\,\,
\textup{for all}
\,\,\,\,\,
\psi\in\Phi_+.
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
The conjugate operator $H^\times$ of the Hamiltonian $H$ is uniquely
defined by the first equality in~(\ref{eq2}), as the extension of the
Hilbert space adjoint operator $H^\dagger$ to the space of functionals
$\Phi^\times_+$~\footnote{For (essentially) self adjoint $H$,
$H^\dagger$ is equal to (the closure of) $H$; but we shall use the
definition~(\ref{eq2}) also for unitary operators ${\mathcal U}$ where
${\mathcal U}^\times$ is the extension of ${\mathcal U}^\dagger$, but
not of ${\mathcal U}$.}; on the space ${\mathcal H}$, the operators
$H^\times$ and $H^\dagger$ are the same.
The non-relativistic Gamow vectors have the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
They have an asymmetric (i.e., $t\geq 0$ only)
time evolution and obey then an exponential law:
\begin{equation}
\psi^G(t)=\textrm{e}_+^{-iH^\times t}
|E_R-i\Gamma/2^-\rangle=
\textrm{e}^{-iE_R t}
\textrm{e}^{-\Gamma t/2}
|E_R-i\Gamma/2^-\rangle,
\,\,\,\,
\textup{only for}
\,\,\,\,
t\geq0.
\label{eq3}
\end{equation}
There is another Gamow vector
$\tilde\psi^G=|E_R+i\Gamma/2^+\rangle\in\Phi^\times_-$, and another
semigroup $\textrm{e}_-^{-iH^\times t}$ for $t\leq0$ in another RHS
$\Phi_-\subset{\mathcal H}\subset\Phi_-^\times$ (with the same
${\mathcal H}$) with the asymmetric evolution
\begin{equation}
\tilde\psi^G(t)=\textrm{e}_-^{-iH^\times t}
|E_R+i\Gamma/2^+\rangle=
\textrm{e}^{-iE_R t}
\textrm{e}^{\Gamma t/2}
|E_R+i\Gamma/2^+\rangle,
\,\,\,\,
\textup{only for}
\,\,\,\,
t\leq0.
\label{eq4}
\end{equation}
\item
The $\psi^G$ ($\tilde\psi^G$) is derived as a functional at the
resonance pole term located at $z_R=(E_R-i\Gamma/2)$ (at
$z^*_R=(E_R+i\Gamma/2)$) in the second sheet of the analytically
continued S-matrix.
\item
The Gamow vectors have a Breit-Wigner energy distribution
\begin{equation}
\langle^-E|\psi^G\rangle=
i\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma}{2\pi}}\frac{1}{E-(E_R-i\Gamma/2)},
\,\,\,\,
-\infty_{II}<E<\infty,
\label{eq5}
\end{equation}
where $-\infty_{II}$ means that it extends to $-\infty$ on the second
sheet of the S-matrix (whereas the standard Breit-Wigner extends to
the threshold $E=0$).
\end{enumerate}
We want to present here a generalization of these non-relativistic
Gamow vectors to the relativistic case.
In the non-relativistic case the inclusion of the degeneracy quantum
numbers of energy, i.e., the extension of the Dirac-Lippmann-Schwinger
kets
\begin{eqnarray}
&&|E^\pm\rangle=|E\rangle+\frac{1}{E-H\pm i0}V|E\rangle
=\Omega^\pm|E\rangle\nonumber\\[6pt]
&&H|E^\pm\rangle=
E|E^\pm\rangle;
\,\,\,\,
(H-V)|E\rangle=E|E\rangle
\label{eq6}
\end{eqnarray}
to the basis of the whole Galilei group is trivial.
For the two particle scattering states (direct product of two
irreducible representations of the Galilei group~\cite{ref5}) one uses
eigenvectors of angular momentum $(jj_3)$ for the relative motion and
total momentum ${\bbox p}$ for the center of mass motion. Thus
\begin{equation}
|E^{\textrm{\scriptsize tot}}{\bbox p}jj_3(l,s)
\,\,^\pm\rangle=
|{\bbox p}\rangle\otimes|Ejj_3\,\,^\pm\rangle
\label{eq7}
\end{equation}
where $E^{\textrm{\scriptsize tot}}=\frac{{\bbox p}^2}{2m}+E$ (the
Hamiltonian in~(\ref{eq6}) is $H=H^{\textrm{\scriptsize
tot}}-\frac{{\bbox P}^2}{2m}$).
The center-of-mass motion is usually separated by transforming to
the center-of-mass frame, and there one uses in~(\ref{eq6})
\begin{equation}
|{\bbox p}=\bbox{0}\rangle\otimes|Ejj_3\,\,^\pm\rangle
=|E,\bbox{p}=0,jj_3\,\,^\pm\rangle=
|E\,\,^\pm\rangle.
\label{eq8}
\end{equation}
The generalized eigenvectors
\begin{equation}
|Ejj_3\,\,^\mp\rangle\in\Phi^\times_\pm\supset{\mathcal H}\supset\Phi_\pm
\label{eq9}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
H^\times|Ejj_3\,\,^\pm\rangle=
E|Ejj_3\,\,^\pm\rangle,\quad 0\leq E <\infty,
\label{eq10}
\end{equation}
where $E$ runs along the cut on the positive real axis of the 1-st
sheet of the $j$-th partial S-matrix, are the scattering states. The
proper eigenvectors of~(\ref{eq9}) with $E=-|E_n|$ at the poles on the
negative real axis on the 1-st sheet are the bound states
$|E_njj_3\rangle\in\Phi$. By the Galilei transformation one can
transform these vectors to arbitrary momentum ${\bbox p}$; $E$ and
${\bbox p}$ are not intermingled by Galilei transformations.
To obtain the non-relativistic Gamow kets one analytically continues
the Dirac-Lippmann-Schwinger ket~(\ref{eq6}) into the second sheet of
the $j$-th partial S-matrix to the position of the resonance pole
$|z_R=E_R-i\Gamma/2,jj_3\ ^-\rangle$ and obtains the following
representation~\cite{Bohm1}:
\begin{equation}
|z_R=E_R-i\Gamma/2,jj_3\ ^-\rangle=
\frac{i}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty_{II}}^{+\infty}dE
|Ejj_3\ ^-\rangle\frac{1}{E-z_R}.
\end{equation}
A Galilei transformation can boost this Gamow ket to any \textit{real}
momentum~$\bbox{p}$
\[
|{\bbox p},z_R,jj_3\ ^-\rangle=
{\mathcal U}(\bbox{p})|\bbox{0}\rangle\otimes|z_Rjj_3\ ^-\rangle.
\]
However, complex momenta cannot be obtained in this way since the
Galilei transformations commute with the intrinsic energy
operator~$H$.
In the relativistic case the Lorentz transformation -- in particular
Lorentz boosts -- intermingle energy $E^{\textrm{\scriptsize
tot}}=p^0$ and momenta $p^m$, $m=1,2,3$. Thus complex energy or
complex mass also leads to complex momenta. This has led in the past
to consider complicated complex momentum representations of the
Poincar\'e group ${\mathcal P}$. To restrict this unwieldy set of
Poincar\'e group representations we will consider a special class of
``minimally complex'' irreducible representations of ${\mathcal P}$ to
describe relativistic resonances and decaying elementary
particles. Our construction will also lead to complex momenta $p^\mu$,
but in our case the momenta will be ``minimally complex'' in such a
way that the 4-velocities $\hat{p}_\mu\equiv\frac{p_\mu}{m}$ remain
real. This construction was motivated by a remark of
D.~Zwanziger~\cite{zwanzi} and is based on the fact that the
4-velocity eigenvectors $|\hat{\bbox{p}}j_{3}(mj)\rangle$ furnish as
valid a basis for the representation space of ${\mathcal P}$ as the
usual Wigner basis of momentum eigenvectors
$|\bbox{p}j_{3}(m,j)\rangle$. This means every state of an UIR
$(m,j)$, ($\phi\in\Phi\subset{\cal H}(m,j)\subset\Phi^{\times}$, where
$\Phi$ denotes the space of well-behaved vectors and $\Phi^{\times}$
the space of kets for the Hilbert space ${\cal H}(m,j)$ of an UIR),
can be written according to Dirac's basis vector decomposition as
\begin{equation}
\label{2.15a}
\phi=\sum_{j_{3}}\int \frac{d^{3}\hat{p}}{2\hat{p}^{0}}
|\hat{\bbox{p}},j_{3}\rangle\langle j_{3},\hat{\bbox{p}}|\phi\rangle
\end{equation}
where we have chosen the invariant measure
\begin{equation}
\label{measurehat}
d\mu(\hat{\bbox p}) = \frac{d^{3}\hat{p}}{2\hat{p}^{0}}
= {\frac{1}{m^{2}}} \, {\frac{d^{3}p}{2 E({\bbox p})}},
\,\,\,\,\,\, \hat{p}^{0} = \sqrt{1+\hat{\bbox p}^{2}} \, .
\end{equation}
As a consequence of (\ref{measurehat}),
the $\delta$-function normalization of these velocity-basis vectors is
\begin{equation}
\langle \xi , \hat{\bbox p}\,|\,\hat{\bbox p}', \xi' \rangle
= 2 \hat{p}^{0} \delta^{3}(\hat{\bbox p}-\hat{\bbox p}')
\, \delta_{\xi \xi'}\\
= 2 p^{0} m^{2} \delta^{3}
(\bbox{p}-\bbox{p'})\,
\delta_{\xi \xi'} \, .
\label{normalizationhat}
\end{equation}
Here, $|\hat{\bbox{p}},j_{3}\rangle\in \Phi^{\times}$ are the
eigenkets of the 4-velocity operator $\hat{P}_{\mu}=P_{\mu}M^{-1}$
and $\phi_{j_{3}}(\hat{\bbox{p}})=\langle j_{3}\hat{\bbox{p}}|\phi\rangle$
represents the 4-velocity distribution of the vector $\phi$.
The 4-velocity eigenvectors are often
more useful for physical reasoning, because 4-velocities seem to
fulfill to rather good approximation ``velocity super-selection
rules'' which the momenta do not~\cite{ref7}.
The relativistic Gamow vectors will therefore be defined, not as
momentum eigenvectors, but as 4-velocity eigenvectors in the direct
product space of UIR spaces for the decay products of the resonances
$R$. We want to obtain the relativistic Gamow vectors from the pole
term of the relativistic S-matrix in complete analogy to the way the
non-relativistic Gamow vectors were obtained~\cite{Bohm1}. In the
absence of a vector space description of a resonance, we shall also in
the relativistic theory define the unstable particle by the pole of
the analytically continued partial S-matrix with angular momentum
$j=j_R$ at the value
${\mathsf{s}}={\mathsf{s}}_R\equiv(M_R-i\Gamma/2)^2$ of the invariant
mass square variable (Mandelstam variable)
${\mathsf{s}}=(p_1+p_2+\cdots)^2=E_R^2-{\bbox p}_R^2$, where $p_1$,
$p_2$,\ldots are the momenta of the decay products of
$R$~\cite{Eden}. This means that the mass $M_R$ and lifetime
$\hbar/\Gamma_R$ or the complex invariant mass
$w_{R}=(M_{R}-i\Gamma/2)=\sqrt{{\mathsf{s}}_{R}}$, in addition to spin
$j_R$, are the intrinsic properties that define a quasistable
relativistic particle~\footnote{Conventionally and equivalently one
often writes
\[
{\mathsf{s}}_R\equiv
M_\rho^2-iM_\rho\Gamma_\rho=
M_R^2\left(1-\frac{1}{4}
\left(\frac{\Gamma_R}{M_R}\right)^2\right)-iM_R\Gamma_R
\]
and calls
$M_\rho=M_R\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\Gamma_R}{M_R}\right)^2}$
the resonance mass and $\Gamma_\rho=\Gamma_R\left(1-\frac{1}{4}
\left(\frac{\Gamma_R}{M_R}\right)^2\right)^{-1/2}$ its width. For the
$\rho$ meson $\left(\frac{\Gamma_R}{M_R}\right)^2\approx0.03$ and for
most other resonances it is an order of magnitude or more smaller than
this.}.
In order to make the analytic continuation of the partial S-matrix
with angular momentum $j$, we need the angular momentum basis vectors
\begin{eqnarray}
&|\hat{\bbox p}j_3(wj)\rangle=
\int\frac{d^3\hat{p}_1}{2\hat{E}_1}
\frac{d^3\hat{p}_2}{2\hat{E}_2}
|\hat{\bbox p}_1\hat{\bbox p}_2[m_1m_2]\rangle
\langle\hat{\bbox p}_1\hat{\bbox p}_2[m_1m_2]|\hat{\bbox p}j_3(wj)\rangle
\label{eq11}\\
&\mbox{for any $(m_1+m_2)^2\leq w^2<\infty$ \,\,\,\,$j=0,1,\ldots$}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
in the direct product space of the decay products of the resonance $R$
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal H}\equiv
{\mathcal H}(m_1,0)\otimes
{\mathcal H}(m_2,0)=
\int_{(m_1+m_2)^2}^{\infty}
d{\mathsf{s}}
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\oplus{\mathcal H}({\mathsf{s}},j),
\label{eq12}
\end{equation}
where ${\mathsf{s}}=w^{2}$, the Mandelstam variable defined above.
For simplicity, we have assumed here that there are two decay products,
$R\rightarrow\pi_1+\pi_2$ with spin zero, described by the irreducible
representation spaces ${\mathcal H}^{\pi_i}(m_i,s_i=0)$~\footnote{Though
our discussions apply with obvious modifications to the general case of
\[
1+2+3+\cdots\rightarrow R_i\rightarrow
1^\prime+
2^\prime+
3^\prime+\cdots,
\]
these generalizations lead to enormously more complicated equations.}
of
the Poincar\'e group ${\mathcal P}$.
The kets $|\hat{\bbox p}j_3(wj)\rangle$ are eigenvectors of the 4-velocity
operators
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}_\mu=(P^1_\mu+P^2_\mu)M^{-1},\,\,\,\,
M^2=(P^1_\mu+P^2_\mu)({P^1}^\mu+{P^2}^\mu)
\label{eq13}
\end{equation}
with eigenvalues
\begin{equation}
\hat{p}^\mu=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\hat{E}=\frac{p^0}{w}=\sqrt{1+\hat{\bbox p}^2}\\
\hat{\bbox p}=\frac{\bbox p}{w}
\end{array}
\right)
\,\,\,\,\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,\,\,
w^2={\mathsf{s}}.
\end{equation}
In here $\hat{P}^i_\mu$ are the 4-velocity operators in the one
particle spaces
${\mathcal H}^{\pi_i}(m_i,s_i)$ with eigenvalues
$\hat{p}^i_\mu=\frac{p^i_\mu}{m_i}$.
To obtain the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients $\langle \hat{\bbox
p}_{1}\hat{\bbox p}_{2}[m_1,m_2]|\hat{\bbox p}j_{3}(wj)\rangle$
in~(\ref{eq11}), one follows the same procedure as given in the
classic papers~\cite{Wight,Joos,Macf} for the Clebsch-Gordan
coefficients for the Wigner (momentum) basis. This has been done
in~\cite{Ref12}. The result is
\begin{eqnarray}
&\langle\hat{\bbox p}_1\hat{\bbox p}_2[m_1,m_2]|\hat{\bbox p}j_3(wj)\rangle=
2\hat{E}(\hat{\bbox p})\delta^3(\bbox{p}-\bbox{r})\delta(w-\epsilon)
Y_{jj_3}({\bbox e})\mu_j(w^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)
\label{eq15}\\
&\mbox{with}\,\,\,\epsilon^2=r^2=(p_1+p_2)^2,
\,\,\,r=p_1+p_2,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu_j(w^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)$ is a function that fixes the
$\delta$-function ``normalization'' of $|\hat{\bbox
p}j_3(wj)\rangle$. The unit vector ${\bbox e}$ in~(\ref{eq15}) is
chosen to be in the c.m.\ frame the direction of $\hat{\bbox
p}_1^{\textrm{\scriptsize cm}} =-\frac{m_2}{m_1}\hat{\bbox
p}_2^{\textrm{\scriptsize cm}}$.
The normalization of the basis vectors~(\ref{eq11}) is chosen to be
\begin{eqnarray}
&\langle\hat{\bbox p}^\prime j^\prime_3(w^\prime j^\prime)
|\hat{\bbox p}j_3(wj)\rangle=
2\hat{E}(\hat{\bbox p})\delta(\hat{\bbox p}^\prime-\hat{\bbox p})
\delta_{j_3^\prime j_3}\delta_{j^\prime j}
\delta({\mathsf{s}}-{\mathsf{s}}^\prime)
\label{eq16}\\
&\mbox{where}\,\,\,\,
\hat{E}(\hat{\bbox p})=\sqrt{1+\hat{\bbox p}^2}=\frac{1}{w}
\sqrt{w^2+\bbox{p}^2}\equiv
\frac{1}{w}E({\bbox p},w).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
This determines the weight function $\mu_j(w^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)$ to
\begin{equation}
\left| \mu_j(w^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)\right|^{2}=
\frac{2m_1^2m_2^2w^2}{\sqrt{\lambda(1,(\frac{m_1}{w})^2,(\frac{m_2}{w})^2)}}
\label{eq17}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is defined by~\cite{Wight}
\begin{equation}
\lambda(a,b,c)=a^2+b^2+c^2-2(ab+bc+ac).
\label{eq18}
\end{equation}
The basis vectors~(\ref{eq11}) are the eigenvectors of the free
Hamiltonian $H_0=P^1_0+P^2_0$
\begin{equation}
H_0^{\times}|\hat{\bbox p}j_3(wj)\rangle=
E|\hat{\bbox p}j_3(wj)\rangle,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
E=w\sqrt{1+\hat{\bbox{p}}^2}.
\label{eq19}
\end{equation}
The Dirac-Lippmann-Schwinger scattering states are obtained, in
analogy to~(\ref{eq6}) (cf. also~\cite{Weinberg} sect.~3.1) by:
\begin{equation}
|\hat{\bbox p}j_3(wj)^\pm\rangle=
\Omega^\pm|\hat{\bbox p}j_3(wj)\rangle
\label{eq20}
\end{equation}
where $\Omega^\pm$ are the M{\o}ller operators. For the basis vectors
at rest, (\ref{eq20}) is given by the solution of the
Lippmann-Schwinger equation
\begin{equation}
|\bbox{0}j_3(wj)^\pm\rangle=
\left(1+
\frac{1}{w-H\pm i\epsilon}V
\right)
|\bbox{0}j_3(wj)\rangle.
\label{eq21}
\end{equation}
They are eigenvectors of the exact Hamiltonian $H=H_0+V$
\begin{equation}
H|\bbox{0}j_3(wj)^\pm\rangle=
\sqrt{{\mathsf{s}}}|\bbox{0}j_3(wj)^\pm\rangle,
\,\,\,\,
(m_1+m_2)^2\leq {\mathsf{s}}<\infty.
\label{eq22}
\end{equation}
The vectors $|\hat{\bbox p}j_3(wj)^\pm\rangle$ are obtained from the basis
vectors at rest $|\bbox{0}j_3(wj)^\pm\rangle$ by the boost
(rotation-free Lorentz transformation) ${\mathcal U}(L(\hat{p}))$
whose parameters are the 4-velocities $\hat{p}^{\mu}$. The generators
of the Lorentz transformations are the
interaction-incorporating observables
\begin{equation}
P_0=H,
\,\,\,\,
P^m,
\,\,\,\,
J_{\mu\nu},
\label{eq23}
\end{equation}
i.e., the exact generators of the Poincar\'e group (\cite{Weinberg}
sec.\ 3.3). These vectors $|\hat{\bbox p}j_{3}(wj)^{\pm}\rangle$
in (\ref{eq20}), or $|\bbox{0}j_{3}(wj)^{\pm}\rangle$ in (\ref{eq21})
when boosted by ${\mathcal U}(L(\hat{p}))$,
which for the fixed value
$[jw]$ span an irreducible representation space of the Poincar\'e
group with the ``exact generators'', will be used for the definition
of the relativistic Gamow vectors.
The relativistic Gamow kets are obtained by analytically continuing
the Dirac-Lippmann-Schwinger kets~(\ref{eq21}) or~(\ref{eq20}) into
the second (or higher) sheet of the $j_R$-th partial wave S-matrix
$S_{j_R}({\mathsf{s}})$ to the position of the resonance pole at
${\mathsf{s}}_R=(M_R-i\Gamma/2)^2$. This can be done for any value of
$\hat{\bbox p}$ (and $j_3$), e.g., for $\hat{\bbox p}={\bbox 0}$. In
complete analogy to the non-relativistic case one obtains the
relativistic kets
\begin{equation}
|\hat{\bbox p}j_3({\mathsf{s}}_Rj_R)^{-}\rangle=
\frac{i}{2\pi}
\int_{-\infty_{II}}^{+\infty_{II}}d{\mathsf{s}}
|\hat{\bbox p}j_3({\mathsf{s}} j_R)^{-}
\rangle\frac{1}{{\mathsf{s}}-{\mathsf{s}}_R}.
\label{eq24}
\end{equation}
The Lorenz transformations $\Lambda$ are represented by unitary
operators ${\mathcal U}(\Lambda)$:
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal U}(\Lambda)|\hat{\bbox p}j_3({\mathsf{s}}_R j_R)^{-}\rangle=
\sum_{j_3^\prime}D^{j_{R}}_{j_{3}^{\prime}j_{3}}
({\mathcal R}(\Lambda,\hat{p}))
|\bbox{\Lambda}\hat{\bbox{p}}j_3^\prime({\mathsf{s}}_R j_R)^{-}\rangle,
\label{eq25}
\end{equation}
where ${\mathcal R}(\Lambda,\hat{p})=L^{-1}(\Lambda \hat{p})\Lambda
L(\hat{p})$ is the Wigner rotation. In particular for the rotation
free Lorentz boost
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal U}(L(\hat{p}))
|\hat{\bbox p}={\bbox 0},j_3({\mathsf{s}}_R j_R)^{-}\rangle=
|\hat{\bbox p}j_3({\mathsf{s}}_R j_R)^{-}\rangle
\label{eq26}
\end{equation}
because the boost is a function of the real $\hat{p}^\mu$ and not
of the complex $p^\mu$:
\begin{equation}
L^\mu_{\hphantom{\mu}\nu}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{p^0}{m}&-\frac{p_n}{m}\\
\frac{p^k}{m}&\delta^k_n-\frac{\frac{p^k}{m}\frac{p_n}{m}}{1+\frac{p^0}{m}}
\end{array}
\right),
\,\,\,\,
L(\hat{p})
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1\\
0\\
0\\
0
\end{array}
\right)
=\hat{p}.
\label{eq27}
\end{equation}
The relativistic Gamow kets~(\ref{eq24}) are generalized eigenvectors
of the invariant mass squared operator $M^2=P_\mu P^\mu$ with
eigenvalue ${\mathsf{s}}_R$
\begin{equation}
\langle\psi^-|M^2|\hat{\bbox p}j_3({\mathsf{s}}_Rj_R)^{\,\,\,\,-}\rangle=
{\mathsf{s}}_R\langle\psi^-|\hat{\bbox p}j_3
({\mathsf{s}}_Rj_R)^{\,\,\,\,-}\rangle
\quad \text{for every } \psi^-\in\Phi_+\subset
{\mathcal H}\subset\Phi^\times_+.
\label{eq28}
\end{equation}
To prove~(\ref{eq28}) from~(\ref{eq24}), and also to
obtain~(\ref{eq24}) from the pole term of the S-matrix one needs to
use the properties of the Hardy class space $\Phi_+$. The continuous
linear combinations of the 4-velocity kets (\ref{eq24}) with an
arbitrary 4-velocity distribution function
$\phi_{j_{3}}(\hat{\bbox{p}})\in {\cal S}$ (Schwartz space),
\[
\psi^{\rm G}_{j_{R}{\mathsf{s}}_{R}}=
\sum_{j_{3}}\int \frac{d^{3}\hat{p}}{2\hat{p}^{0}}
|\hat{\bbox{p}}j_{3}({\mathsf{s}}_{R},j_{R})^{-}
\rangle \phi_{j_{R}}(\hat{\bbox{p}}),
\]
also represents relativistic Gamow states with the complex
mass ${\mathsf{s}}_{R}=(M_{R}-i\Gamma/2)^{2}$ and have
the representation~(\ref{eq24}).
This then implies, much like in the RHS theory of non-relativistic
Gamow vectors, that the time translation of the decaying state is
represented by a semigroup, e.g., at rest,
\begin{equation}
\textrm{e}^{-iH\tau}
|\hat{\bbox p}=\bbox{0},j_3({\mathsf{s}}_R j_R)^{-}\rangle=
\textrm{e}^{-im_R\tau}
\textrm{e}^{-\Gamma\tau/2}
|\hat{\bbox p}=\bbox{0},j_3({\mathsf{s}}_R j_R)^{-}\rangle
\,\,\,\,
\text{for }\tau\geq0\,\,\,\textrm{only}
\label{eq29}
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is time in the rest system.
Thus relativistic Gamow states are representations of ${\mathcal P}$
with spin $j_R$ and complex mass
${\mathsf{s}}_R=(M_{R}-i\Gamma/2)^2=m_\rho^2-im_\rho\Gamma_\rho$, for
which the Lorentz subgroup is unitarily represented. They are obtained
from the resonance pole of the relativistic partial S-matrix
$S_{j_R}({\mathsf{s}})$, have an exponential time evolution at rest
with lifetime $\hbar/\Gamma$ and have -- due to their association to
the S-matrix pole and to the Hardy class spaces -- a Breit-Wigner
energy distribution
\begin{equation}
a_j=\frac{Bm\Gamma}{{\mathsf{s}}-(m-i\frac{\Gamma}{2})^2},
\,\,\,\,
-\infty_{II}<{\mathsf{s}}<+\infty_{II}.
\label{eq30}
\end{equation}
These are all features which one may welcome or accept for states that
are to describe relativistic resonances. In addition, they have a
semigroup time evolution expressing a fundamental quantum mechanical
arrow of time.
We gratefully acknowledge support of the Welch Foundation and of CoNaCyT
(Mexico).
|
\section{#1}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\sect{Introduction\label{intro}}
The introduction of quantum algebras by Jimbo \cite{ji} and Drinfeld
\cite{d1} lead to many remarkable developments in diverse areas of mathematical
physics. One such was in the field of knot theory whereby a connection
between the Yang-Baxter equation and the
braid group was quickly established. The quantum algebras, being
examples of quasi-triangular Hopf algebras, provide very systematic
means to find solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation which in turn gives
rise to representations of the braid group. Through a Markov trace
formulation defined on each braid group representation,
an invariant polynomial can then be computed for the knot
or link associated with the closure of the braid \cite{r,t,wda,zgb}.
Extensions to accomodate the case of quantum superalgebras can be found
in \cite{lgz,z}.
Around the same time as the appearance of quantum algebras
was Jones's discovery of a new polynomial invariant \cite{jo},
an evaluation of
which may be undertaken through the simplest quantum algebra
$U_q(sl(2))$ in its minimal
(two-dimensional) representation.
After this breakthrough researchers proceeded to obtain
generalizations with the notable examples being the HOMFLY \cite{h}
and Kauffman \cite{k} invariant polynomials.
What soon became apparent
was that the series of link polynomials associated with the fundamental
representations of the (non-exceptional) quantum algebras and superalgebras
coincided with the two-variable
invariants developed in the wake of the discovery of Jones.
More precisely, the invariants associated with the fundamental
representations of the $U_q(gl(m|n))$ (which includes $U_q(gl(n))$)
series belong to the class of HOMFLY
invariants while those of the $U_q(osp(m|2n))$ (including both
$U_q(o(m))$ and $U_q(sl(2n))$) series
are of the Kauffman invariant type \cite{t,z}.
It is important to emphasize, however, that by going to higher
representations new results are obtainable. In particular, the type I
quantum superalgebras consisting of $U_q(gl(m|n))$ and $U_q(osp(2|2n))$
admit one-parameter families of typical representations which give rise
to two-variable link invariants in a natural way \cite{dkl,glz,lg}.
The work of Reshetikhin and Turaev \cite{rt} introduced further
the notion of a
ribbon Hopf algebra as a particular type of quasi-triangular Hopf
algebra. All the quantum algebras fall into the class of ribbon Hopf
algebras. The algebraic properties of ribbon Hopf algebras is such that
an extension to produce invariants of oriented tangles is permissible.
A tangle diagram is analogous to a link diagram with the possibilty of
having free ends. An associated invariant takes the form of a tensor
operator acting on a product of vector spaces.
As a generalization of Hopf algebras Drinfeld proposed the concept of
quasi-Hopf algebras \cite{Dri90} whereby co-associativity of the co-algebra
structure is not assumed.
Any quasi-Hopf algebra generally belongs to an equivalence class where
each member is related to the others by twisting \cite{Dri90}.
The potential for applications of these structures
in the study of integrable systems is vast.
They
underly elliptic quantum algebras
\cite{Enr97,Fel95,Fod94,Fro97,Jim97,Zha98} which play an important
role in obtaining solutions to the dynamical Yang-Baxter equations
\cite{Arn97,Bab96} and also twisting lies at the core of
the construction of multiparametric
quantum spin chains \cite{flr}.
In the context of knot theory, Altschuler and Coste \cite{ac}
have identified the corresponding ribbon quasi-Hopf algebras as the
necessary underlying algebraic structure to study tangle invariants
(including closed link invariants).
Here we wish to make two important observations to this field of study.
First, we will show that the class of ribbon quasi-Hopf algebras is
closed under twisting; i.e a twisted ribbon quasi-Hopf algebra is again
a ribbon quasi-Hopf algebra. Secondly, we assert that the link
polynomials computed from any finite dimensional representation of a
quasi-Hopf algebra are invariant with respect to twisting.
Importantly, this implies that link polynomials obtained from twisting
the usual quantum algebras give us nothing new. In this respect, one
cannot find twist generalizations of the HOMFLY and Kauffman invariants.
For a very special class of twists this result has already been noted by
Reshetikhin \cite{r1}, in which case the twisted quantum algebra is again
a ribbon Hopf algebra. Here we will prove the twisting invariance in
full generality.
The paper is structured as follows. We begin by presenting the
definition of a quasi-Hopf algebra. Next we show how representations of
the braid group are obtained from a representation of any quasi-Hopf
algebra. The third section deals with defining an appropriate Markov
trace on each braid group element which then affords a means to obtain a
link invariant. Finally, we demonstrate that the Markov trace is
invariant under any twisting.
\sect{Quasi-Hopf Algebras}
Let us briefly recall the defining relations for
quasi-Hopf algebras \cite{Dri90}.
\begin{Definition}\label{quasi-bi}:
A quasi-Hopf algebra is a unital associative algebra $A$
over a field $K$ which is equipped with algebra homomorphisms $\epsilon:
A\rightarrow K$ (co-unit), $\Delta: A\rightarrow A\otimes A$ (co-product),
an invertible element $\Phi\in A\otimes A\otimes A$
(co-associator), an
algebra anti-homomorphism $S: A\rightarrow A$ (anti-pode) and
canonical elements $\alpha,~\beta\in A$, satisfying
\begin{eqnarray}
&& (1\otimes\Delta)\Delta(a)=\Phi^{-1}(\Delta\otimes 1)\Delta(a)\Phi,~~
\forall a\in A,\label{quasi-bi1}\\
&&(\Delta\otimes 1\otimes 1)\Phi \cdot (1\otimes 1\otimes\Delta)\Phi
=(\Phi\otimes 1)\cdot(1\otimes\Delta\otimes 1)\Phi\cdot (1\otimes
\Phi),\label{quasi-bi2} \label{pent}\\
&&(\epsilon\otimes 1)\Delta=1=(1\otimes\epsilon)\Delta,\label{quasi-bi3}\\
&&(1\otimes\epsilon\otimes 1)\Phi=1,\label{quasi-bi4}\\
&& m\cdot (1\otimes\alpha)(S\otimes 1)\Delta(a)=\epsilon(a)\alpha,~~~\forall
a\in A,\label{quasi-hopf1}\\
&& m\cdot (1\otimes\beta)(1\otimes S)\Delta(a)=\epsilon(a)\beta,~~~\forall a\in A,
\label{quasi-hopf2}\\
&& m\cdot (m\otimes 1)\cdot (1\otimes\beta\otimes\alpha)(1\otimes S\otimes
1)\Phi^{-1}=1,\label{quasi-hopf3}\\
&& m\cdot(m\otimes 1)\cdot (S\otimes 1\otimes 1)(1\otimes\alpha\otimes
\beta)(1\otimes 1\otimes S)\Phi=1.\label{quasi-hopf4}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{Definition}
Here $m$ denotes the usual product map on $A$: $m\cdot (a\otimes b)=ab,~
\forall a,b\in A$. Note that since $A$ is associative we have
$m\cdot(m\otimes 1)=m\cdot (1\otimes m)$.
For all elements $a,b\in A$, the antipode satisfies
\begin{equation}
S(ab)=S(b)S(a).
\end{equation}
The equations (\ref{quasi-bi2}), (\ref{quasi-bi3}) and (\ref{quasi-bi4}) imply
that $\Phi$ also obeys
\begin{equation}
(\epsilon\otimes 1\otimes 1)\Phi=1=(1\otimes 1\otimes\epsilon)\Phi.\label{e(phi)=1}
\end{equation}
Applying $\epsilon$ to definition (\ref{quasi-hopf3}, \ref{quasi-hopf4})
we obtain, in view
of (\ref{quasi-bi4}), $\epsilon(\alpha)\epsilon(\beta)=1$.
By applying $\epsilon$ to
(\ref{quasi-hopf1}), we have $\epsilon(S(a))=\epsilon(a),~\forall a\in A$.
A distinguishing feature of quasi-Hopf algebras is that they are in
general not co-associative; i.e
$$(1\otimes\Delta)\cdot\Delta\neq (\Delta\otimes 1)\cdot\Delta. $$
Thus for a given co-product the action extended to the $n$-fold tensor
product space is not uniquely determined. Throughout we will adopt the
convention to define a left co-product $\Delta_L$ which acts on the tensor
algebra $A^{\ot n}$ according to
$$\Delta_L(a\ot b\ot ....\ot c)=\Delta(a)\ot b\ot ....\ot c. $$
We then recursively define the action
\begin{equation} \Delta^{(n)}=\Delta_L.\Delta^{(n-1)} \label{act} \end{equation}
with $\Delta^{(1)}=\Delta,\,\Delta^{(0)}=I$.
The category of quasi-Hopf algebras
is invariant under a kind of gauge transformation known as twisting.
Let $(A,\Delta,\epsilon,\Phi)$
be a quasi-Hopf algebra, with $\alpha,\beta, S$ satisfying
(\ref{quasi-hopf1})-(\ref{quasi-hopf4}), and let $F\in A\otimes A$
be an invertible element satisfying the co-unit properties
\begin{equation}
(\epsilon\otimes 1)F=1=(1\otimes \epsilon)F.\label{e(f)=1}
\end{equation}
Throughout we set
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Delta_F(a)=F\Delta(a)F^{-1},~~~\forall a\in A,\label{twisted-d}\\
&&\Phi_F=F_{12}(\Delta\otimes
1)F\cdot\Phi\cdot(1\otimes\Delta)F^{-1}F_{23}^{-1}\label{twisted-phi}
\end{eqnarray}
where the subscripts above refer to the embedding of the elements in the
triple tensor product space. Then
\begin{Theorem}\label{t-quasi-hopf}:
$(A,\Delta_F,\epsilon,\Phi_F)$ defined by (\ref{twisted-d},
\ref{twisted-phi}) together with
$\alpha_F,\beta_F, S_F$ given by
\begin{equation}
S_F=S,~~~\alpha_F=m\cdot(1\otimes\alpha)(S\otimes 1)F^{-1},~~~
\beta_F=m\cdot(1\otimes\beta)(1\otimes S)F,\label{twisted-s-ab}
\end{equation}
is also a quasi-Hopf algebra. Throughout, the element $F$ is referred to as
a twistor.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{Definition}\label{quasi-quasi}: A quasi-Hopf
algebra $(A,\Delta,\epsilon,\Phi)$ is called quasi-triangular if there
exists an invertible element ${\cal R}\in A\otimes A$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Delta^T(a){\cal R}={\cal R}\Delta(a),~~~~\forall a\in A,\label{dr=rd}\\
&&(\Delta\otimes 1){\cal R}=\Phi^{-1}_{231}{\cal R}_{13}\Phi_{132}{\cal R}_{23}\Phi^{-1}_{123},
\label{d1r}\\
&&(1\otimes \Delta){\cal R}=\Phi_{312}{\cal R}_{13}\Phi^{-1}_{213}{\cal R}_{12}\Phi_{123}.
\label{1dr}
\end{eqnarray}
We refer to ${\cal R}$ as the universal R-matrix.
\end{Definition}
Throughout, $\Delta^T=T\cdot\Delta$ with $T$ being the twist map
which is defined by
\begin{equation}
T(a\otimes b)=b\otimes a;
\end{equation}
and $\Phi_{132}$ {\it etc} are derived from $\Phi\equiv\Phi_{123}$
with the help of $T$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Phi_{132}=(1\otimes T)\Phi_{123},\nonumber\\
&&\Phi_{312}=(T\otimes 1)\Phi_{132}=(T\otimes 1)
(1\otimes T)\Phi_{123},\nonumber\\
&&\Phi^{-1}_{231}=(1\otimes T)\Phi^{-1}_{213}=(1\otimes T)
(T\otimes 1)\Phi^{-1}_{123},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and so on.
It is easily shown that the properties (\ref{dr=rd})-(\ref{1dr})
imply the Yang-Baxter type equation,
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}_{12}\Phi^{-1}_{231}{\cal R}_{13}\Phi_{132}{\cal R}_{23}\Phi^{-1}_{123}
=\Phi^{-1}_{321}{\cal R}_{23}\Phi_{312}{\cal R}_{13}\Phi^{-1}_{213}{\cal R}_{12},
\label{quasi-ybe}
\end{equation}
which is referred to as the quasi-Yang-Baxter equation.
\begin{Theorem}\label{t-quasi-quasi}: Denoting by the set
$(A,\Delta,\epsilon,\Phi,{\cal R})$ a
quasi-triangular quasi-Hopf algebra, then $(A, \Delta_F, \epsilon, \Phi_F, {\cal R}_F)$
is also a quasi-triangular quasi-Hopf algebra, with the choice of
$R_F$ given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}_F=F^T {\cal R} F^{-1},\label{twisted-R}
\end{equation}
where $F^T=T\cdot F\equiv F_{21}$. Here $\Delta_F$ and $\Phi_F$ are given
by (\ref{twisted-d}) and (\ref{twisted-phi}), respectively.
\end{Theorem}
Let us specify some notations, where we adopt a summation convention
over all repeated indices. Throughtout the paper,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Phi= X_i\otimes Y_i\otimes Z_i,~~~~
\Phi^{-1}= \bar{X}_i\otimes\bar{Y}_i\otimes\bar{Z}_i,\nonumber\\
&&F= f_i\otimes f^i,~~~~F^{-1}= \bar{f}_i\otimes \bar{f}^i,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal R}=a_\nu\otimes b_\nu,~~~~{\cal R}^{-1}=c_\nu\otimes d_\nu,\nonumber\\
&&(1\otimes\Delta)\Delta(a)=\sum a_{(1)}\otimes\Delta(a_{(2)})=\sum
a^R_{(1)}\otimes a_{(2)}^R\otimes a^R_{(3)},\nonumber\\
&&(\Delta\otimes 1)\Delta(a)=\sum \Delta(a_{(1)})\otimes a_{(2)})=\sum
a^L_{(1)}\otimes a_{(2)}^L\otimes a^L_{(3)}, \nonumber \\
&&(\Phi^{-1}\ot I).(\Delta\ot I\ot I)\Phi= A_i\ot B_i \ot C_i \ot D_i,
\nonumber \\
&&(\Delta\ot I\ot I)\Phi^{-1}.(\Phi\ot I)= K_i\ot L_i\ot M_i\ot N_i
.\label{notation}
\end{eqnarray}
A important type of twistor is that due to Drinfeld \cite{Dri90}. For any
quasi-Hopf algebra $A$ observe that the actions
$$(S\ot S)\cdot\Delta^T,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\Delta^T\cdot S^{-1}$$
both determine algebra anti-homomorphisms. It follows that
$$\Delta'\equiv (S\ot S)\cdot\Delta^T\cdot S^{-1}$$
gives rise to an algebra homomorphism and thus a co-product action on
$A$. Drinfeld showed that the actions $\Delta$ and $\Delta'$ are related by a
twistor; i.e.
$$\Delta(a)=\f^{-1}\left((S\ot S)\Delta^T(S^{-1}(a))\right) \f~~~~~~~~\forall
a\in A$$
where
$$ \f= (S\ot S)\Delta^T(X_i).\gamma.\Delta\left(Y_i\beta S(Z_i)\right) $$
and
\begin{equation} \gamma= S(B_i)\alpha C_i\ot S(A_i)\alpha D_i. \label{gamma} \end{equation}
It is also useful to define
\begin{equation} \delta= K_i\beta S(N_i)\ot L_i \beta S(M_i). \label{delta} \end{equation}
Then the following relations can be shown to hold
$$\Delta(\alpha)=\f^{-1}\gamma,~~~~~~~~~\Delta(\beta)=\delta\f.$$
A quasi-Hopf algebra is said to be of trace type if
there exists an invertible
element $u\in A$ such that
\begin{equation}
S^2(a)=u au^{-1},~~~~\forall a\in A.\label{s2a=u}
\end{equation}
In the case $A$ is quasi-triangular with R-matrix as in (\ref{notation})
we have \cite{ac}
\begin{Theorem}\label{u-operator}: The operator defined by
\begin{equation}
u= S\left(Y_i\beta S(Z_i)\right)S(\beta_\nu)\alpha a_\nu X_i \label{u}
\end{equation}
satisfies (\ref{s2a=u}). Moreover the inverse is given by
\begin{equation}
u^{-1}= S^{-1}(X_i)S^{-1}(\alpha d_\nu)c_\nu
Y_i\beta S(Z_i).\label{u-1}
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
An important relation satisfied by $u$ is
\begin{equation} S(\alpha)u=S(b_\nu)\alpha a_\nu \label{imp} \end{equation}
which we will need later.
The significance of trace type quasi-Hopf algebras is that they afford a
systematic means to construct Casimir invariants. We have the following
result from \cite{gzi}.
\begin{Theorem}\label{trace-inv}: Let $\pi$ be the representation
afforded by the finite-dimensional $A$-module $V$. Suppose
$\eta=\mu_i\otimes \nu_i\otimes \rho_i\in A\otimes {\rm End}V\otimes A$
obeys
\begin{equation}
(1\otimes\pi\otimes 1)(1\otimes\Delta)\Delta(a)\cdot\eta=\eta\cdot
(1\otimes\pi\otimes 1)(1\otimes\Delta)\Delta(a),~~~~\forall a\in A,
\label{eta}\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation}
{\rm tr}\left(\nu_i\pi\left(\beta S(\rho_i)S(\alpha)u\right)\right)\mu_i
\end{equation}
is a central element. Similarly if $\bar{\eta}=\bar{\mu}_i\otimes
\bar{\nu}_i\otimes\bar{\rho}_i\in A\otimes {\rm End}V\otimes A$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\bar{\eta}\cdot(1\otimes\pi\otimes 1)(\Delta\otimes 1)\Delta(a)=
(1\otimes\pi\otimes 1)(\Delta\otimes 1)\Delta(a)\cdot\bar{\eta},~~~~\forall
a\in A
\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation}
\sum {\rm
tr}\left(\bar{\nu}_i\pi\left(u^{-1}S(\beta)S(\bar{\mu}_i)\alpha\bar{\nu}_i\right)
\right)\bar{\rho}_i
\end{equation}
is a central element.
\end{Theorem}
As a consequence of the above we have
\begin{Corollary}: Suppose $\omega=\sum \omega_i\otimes \Omega^i\in A\otimes{\rm
End}V$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
(1\otimes\pi)\Delta(a)\cdot\omega=\omega\cdot(1\otimes\pi)\Delta(a),~~~~\forall a\in A.
\end{equation}
Then (\ref{eta}) implies that
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau(\omega)&=&{\rm tr}\left(\Omega^i\pi\left(Y_k\beta S(\bar{Z}_j
Z_k) S(\alpha)u\bar{Y}_j
\right)\right)\bar{X}_j\omega_i X_k\nonumber\\
\label{trace-o-inv}
\end{eqnarray}
is a central element.
\end{Corollary}
For an $(n+1)$-fold tensor product space and $\omega=\sum \omega_i\otimes
\Omega^i\in A^{\ot n}\otimes{\rm
End}V$ we define
\begin{equation} \tau_n(\omega)={\rm tr}\left(\Omega^i\pi\left(Y_k\beta S(\bar{Z}_j
Z_k) S(\alpha)u\bar{Y}_j
\right)\right)\Delta^{(n-1)}(\bar{X}_j)\omega_i \Delta^{(n-1)}(X_k). \label{tn} \end{equation}
\sect{Representations of the braid group}
Given any representation $\pi$ of a
quasi-Hopf algebra $A$ we set
\begin{equation} \check R=P.(\pi \ot \pi){\cal R} \label{rh} \end{equation}
and
$$\Phi_i=(\Delta^{(i-2)}\ot I\ot I)\Phi.$$
In terms of $\check R$ the quasi-Yang-Baxter equation may be written
\begin{equation} \Phi\check R_{23}\Phi^{-1}\check R_{12}\Phi\check R_{23}\Phi^{-1}
=\check R_{12}\Phi\check R_{23}\Phi^{-1}\check R_{12} \label{qyb} \end{equation}
where throughout we use the same symbols $\Phi$ and $\Phi_i$
for both the algebraic objects and their matrix representatives.
\begin{Theorem}
Define $n$ operators on the $(n+1)$-fold tensor product space
by
\begin{equation} \sigma_i=\Phi_i\check R_{i(i+1)}\Phi_i^{-1},~~~~i=1,2,...,n\label{bg}
\end{equation}
These give
rise to a representation of the braid group $B_n$
by satisfying the defining relations
\begin{eqnarray} \sigma_i\sigma_j&=&\sigma_j\sigma_i ~~~~~j\neq i\pm 1 \label{com} \\
\sigma_i\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i&=&\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i\sigma_{i+1}.\label{br}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{Theorem}
The above result was given in \cite{ac}. Here we want to
present a detailed proof.
First we establish that the braid generators (\ref{bg})
are invariant with respect to the co-product action
$\Delta^{(n)}$ of $A$; i.e
\begin{equation} [\sigma_i,\,\Delta^{(n)}(a)]=0~~~~~~~\forall a\in A.\label{inv} \end{equation}
It is clear from the definition (\ref{rh}) that
$$ [\check R,\,\Delta(a)]=0~~~~~~~\forall a\in A$$
which immediately implies that
$$[\sigma_1,\,\Delta^{(n)}(a)]=0~~~~~~~\forall a\in A.$$
Next consider
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_2\Delta^{(j)}(a)&=&\Phi\check R_{23}\Phi^{-1}(\Delta\ot I^{\ot(j-1)})\Delta^{
(j-1)}(a) \nonumber \\
&=&\Phi\check R_{23}(I\ot \Delta\ot I^{(j-2)})\Delta^{(j-1)}(a)\Phi^{-1} \nonumber \\
&=&\Phi(I\ot \Delta\ot I^{(j-2)})\Delta^{(j-1)}(a)\check R_{23}\Phi^{-1} \nonumber \\
&=&(\Delta\ot I^{\ot(j-1)})\Delta^{(j-1)}(a)\Phi\check R_{23}\Phi^{-1}\nonumber \\
&=&\Delta^{(j)}(a) \sigma_2 \label{si2} \end{eqnarray}
Observing that the action (\ref{act}) enjoys the property
$$\Delta^{(i)}\cdot \Delta^{(j)}=\Delta^{(i+j)}.$$
and applying $\Delta^{(k)}\ot I^{\ot j}$ to (\ref{si2}) now yields
(\ref{inv}) by choosing $k=i-2,\,j=n-i-2$.
Since $\check R$ commutes with the co-product action we immediately
deduce for $i>1$
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_1\sigma_i&=&\check R_{12} \Phi_i \check R_{i(i+1)} \Phi_i^{-1} \nonumber \\
&=& \Phi_i\check R_{12}\check R_{i(i+1)}\Phi_i^{-1} \nonumber \\
&=&\Phi_i\check R_{i(i+1)}\check R_{12}\Phi_i^{-1}\nonumber \\
&=&\Phi_i\check R_{i(i+1)}\Phi_i^{-1}\check R_{12}\nonumber \\
&=&\sigma_i\sigma_1. \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
Consider now for $l>3$
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_2\sigma_l&=&\sigma_2 (\Delta^{(l-2)}\ot I\ot I)\Phi. \check R_{l(l+1)}(\Delta^{(l-2)}
\ot I \ot I)\Phi^{-1}
\nonumber \\
&=&(\Delta^{(l-2)}\ot I\ot I)\Phi.\sigma_2\check R_{l(l+1)}(\Delta^{(l-2)}\Phi^{-1}
\ot I\ot I)\nonumber \\
&=&(\Delta^{(l-2)}\ot I\ot I)\Phi. \Phi_{123}\check R_{23}\Phi_{123}^{-1}
\check R_{l(l+1)}(\Delta^{(l-2)}\ot I\ot I)\Phi^{-1} \nonumber \\
&=&(\Delta^{(l-2)}\ot I\ot I)\Phi.\check R_{l(l+1)}\Phi_{123}
\check R_{23}\Phi_{123}^{-1}
(\Delta^{(l-2)}\ot I\ot I)\Phi^{-1} \nonumber \\
&=&(\Delta^{(l-2)}\ot I\ot I)\Phi.\check R_{l(l+1)}\sigma_2(\Delta^{(l-2)}
\ot I\ot I)\Phi^{-1} \nonumber \\
&=& (\Delta^{(l-2)}\ot I\ot I)\Phi. \check R_{l(l+1)}(\Delta^{(l-2)}
\ot I\ot I)\Phi^{-1}.\sigma_2 \nonumber \\
&=& \sigma_2\sigma_l. \label{s2com} \end{eqnarray}
Applying $\Delta^{(k)}\ot I\ot I$ to (\ref{s2com}) yields (\ref{com}) for
$i\geq 2$ by choosing $k=i-2,\,l=j-i+2.$
In order to show that (\ref{br}) is satisfied we see from (\ref{qyb})
that
$$\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_1=\sigma_2\sigma_1\sigma_2$$
is certainly true. Now through (\ref{qyb}), the invariance of
$\check R$ and repeated use of the
pentagonal relation (\ref{pent}) we find
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_2 \nonumber \\
&&=\Phi_2\check R_{23}\Phi_2^{-1}\Phi_3\check R_{34}\Phi_3^{-1}
\Phi_2\check R_{23}\Phi^{-1}_2 \nonumber \\
&&=\Phi_2\check R_{23}\Phi_2^{-1}\Phi_3(I\ot I\ot\Delta)\Phi.\check R_{34}
(I\ot I\ot\Delta)\Phi^{-1}.\Phi_3^{-1}
\Phi_2\check R_{23}\Phi^{-1}_2 \nonumber \\
&&=\Phi_2\check R_{23}(I\ot \Delta\ot I)\Phi.(I\ot\Phi)
\check R_{34}(I\ot\Phi^{-1})(I\ot \Delta\ot I)\Phi^{-1}
.\check R_{23}\Phi^{-1}_2 \nonumber \\
&&=\Phi_2(I\ot \Delta\ot I)\Phi.\left[\check R_{23}(I\ot\Phi)
\check R_{34}(I\ot\Phi^{-1}) \check R_{23}\right]
(I\ot \Delta\ot I)\Phi^{-1}.\Phi^{-1}_2 \nonumber \\
&&=\Phi_2(I\ot \Delta\ot I)\Phi.\left[(I\ot\Phi)\check R_{34}(I\ot\Phi^{-1})
\check R_{23}(I\ot\Phi)\check R_{34}(I\ot\Phi^{-1})\right]
(I\ot \Delta\ot I)\Phi^{-1}.\Phi^{-1}_2 \nonumber \\
&&=\Phi_3(I\ot I\ot \Delta)\Phi.\check R_{34}(I\ot\Phi^{-1})
\check R_{23}(I\ot\Phi)\check R_{34}(I\ot I\ot \Delta)\Phi^{-1}.
\Phi_3^{-1} \nonumber \\
&&=\Phi_3\check R_{34}(I\ot I\ot \Delta)\Phi.(I\ot\Phi^{-1})
\check R_{23}(I\ot\Phi)(I\ot I\ot \Delta)\Phi^{-1}.\check R_{34}
\Phi_3^{-1}\nonumber \\
&&=\Phi_3\check R_{34}\Phi_3^{-1}\Phi_2
(I\ot \Delta\ot I)\Phi.\check R_{23}(I\ot \Delta\ot I)\Phi^{-1}.\Phi^{-1}_2
\Phi_3\check R_{23}\Phi_3^{-1}\nonumber \\
&&=\Phi_3\check R_{34}\Phi_3^{-1}\Phi_2\check R_{23}\Phi_2^{-1}\Phi_3\check
R_{34}\Phi_3^{-1} \nonumber \\
&&=\sigma_3\sigma_2\sigma_2
\label{int1} \end{eqnarray}
Finally, acting $\Delta^{(i-2)}\ot I^{\ot 3}$ on (\ref{int1}) above yields
$$\sigma_i\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i=\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i\sigma_{i+1}. $$
\sect{Link Polynomials from Ribbon Quasi-Hopf Algebras}
In \cite{ac} the following definition was proposed for the ribbon
quasi-Hopf algebras.
\begin{Definition}
Let $A$ be a quasi-triangular quasi-Hopf algebra. We say that $A$ is a
ribbon quasi-Hopf algebra if there exists a central element $v\in A$
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] $v^2=uS(u)$
\item[2.] $S(v)=v$
\item[3.] $\epsilon (v)=1$
\item[4.] $\Delta(uv^{-1})=\f^{-1}(S\ot S)\f_{21}.uv^{-1}\ot uv^{-1}$
\end{itemize}
where $\f$ is the Drinfeld twist discussed earlier.
\end{Definition}
Given a ribbon quasi-Hopf algebra, a prescription was also provided in
\cite{ac} to define a Markov trace on the braid group representation which
in turn may be used to compute link polynomials in the usual
way. From here on we will omit the symbol $\pi$ denoting the
representation for ease of notation.
\begin{Theorem} Let $\Psi$ be a word in the braid generators (\ref{bg})
for a fixed finite dimensional irreducible
representation of a ribbon Hopf-algebra $A$. Then a Markov
trace $\theta_n $ on the $(n+1)$-fold tensor product space may be defined by
$$\theta_n(\Psi)={\rm tr}\left(\Psi\Delta^{(n-1)}(\beta S(\alpha)uv^{-1})
\right)$$
which satisfies the Markov properties
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] $\theta_n(\Psi_1\Psi_2)=\theta_n(\Psi_2\Psi_1)
~~~~~\forall\,\Psi_1,\,\Psi_2\in B_n$
\item[2.] $\theta_n(\Psi\sigma^{\pm 1})=z^{\pm}\theta_{n-1}(\Psi) ~~~~~\forall
\Psi\in B_{n-1}\subset B_n$
\end{itemize}
where $z^{\pm}$ are the eigenvalues of the central operators $v^{\mp 1}$
in the representation $\pi$.
\end{Theorem}
The importance of the Markov trace is that from it one can
define a link
polynomial $L(\hat{\Psi})$ through
\begin{equation}
L(\hat{\Psi})=(z^+z^-)^{n/2}\;\left(\frac{z^-}{z^+}\right)^{e(\theta)/2}\theta(\Psi),~~~~
\theta\in B_n
\end{equation}
where $e(\Psi)$ is the sum of the exponents of the $\sigma_i$'s appearing in
$\Psi$.
The functional $L(\hat{\Psi})$ enjoys the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] $~~L(\widehat{\Psi\eta})=L(\widehat{\eta\Psi}),~\forall \Psi,
\eta\in B_M;$ ~
\item[2.] $~~L(\widehat{\Psi\sigma_{n-1}^{\pm 1}})=L(\hat{\Psi}),~
\forall \Psi\in B_{n-1}\subset B_n$
\end{itemize}
and is an invariant of ambient isotopy.
The first Markov property follows easily from the invariance of the braid
generators $\sigma^{\pm 1}$ and the cyclic rule of traces. To establish the
second Markov property requires some work and was stated in \cite{ac}
without proof. Here we provide the details.
Before proceeding, we need to determine the co-product action of the
element $S(\alpha)uv^{-1}$. Using the Drinfeld twistor we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\left(S(\alpha)\right)&=&\f^{-1}\left((S\ot S)\Delta^T(\alpha)\right)\f \nonumber \\
&=&\f^{-1}\left((S\ot S)(\f^{-1}_{21}\gamma_{21})\right)\f \nonumber \\
&=&\f^{-1}(S\ot S)\gamma_{21}.(S\ot S)\f_{21}^{-1}.\f \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
Now through using (\ref{gamma}) and definition 3 we find that
\begin{equation} \Delta\left(S(\alpha)uv^{-1}\right)= \f^{-1}\left(S(D_i)S(\alpha)uv^{-1}A_i \ot
S(C_i)S(\alpha)uv^{-1}B_i\right). \label{dels} \end{equation}
We will also need the following result
\begin{Lemma}
Let ${\cal C}\in {\rm End} (V\ot V)$ be any invariant operator; i.e
$$[{\cal C}, \Delta(a)]=0 ~~~~~~\forall a\in A.$$
Then
$$\left(A_i\ot B_i\right){\cal C}\left(K_j\beta S(D_iN_j)\ot L_j\beta S(C_iM_j)\right)
=\left(\bar{X}_j\ot\bar{Y}_j\right){\cal C}\left(X_i\beta\ot Y_i\beta S(\Z_j Z_i)\right).$$
\end{Lemma}
The above result follows directly from the definitions (\ref{notation}).
We may now see that
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta_n(\Psi)&=&{\rm tr}\left(\Psi\Delta^{(n)}(\beta S(\alpha)uv^{-1})
\right) \nonumber \\
&=&{\rm tr}\left(\Psi.(\Delta^{(n-1)}\ot
I)\delta.\Delta^{(n-1)}(S(D_i)S(\alpha)uv^{-1}A_i)\ot S(C_i)S(\alpha)
uv^{-1}B_i \right) \nonumber \\
&=&{\rm tr}\left(\Psi.\Delta^{(n-1)}\left(K_j\beta S(N_j)S(D_i)S(\alpha)
uv^{-1}A_i\right) \ot
L_j\beta S(M_j)S(C_i)S(\alpha) uv^{-1}B_i
\right) \nonumber \\
&=&{\rm tr}\left(\Psi. \Delta^{(n-1)}(X_i\beta S(\alpha)uv^{-1}\bar{X}_j)\ot
Y_i\beta S(Z_i)S(\Z_j)S(\alpha)uv^{-1}\bar{Y}_j \right) \nonumber \\
&=&{\rm tr}\left(\tau_n(\Psi)\Delta^{(n-1)}(\beta S(\alpha)uv^{-1})\right) \nonumber \\
&=&\theta_{n-1}\left(\tau_n(\Psi)\right) \end{eqnarray}
where the element $u$ in the definition (\ref{tn}) has now been replaced
by $uv^{-1}$.
It is apparent also from (\ref{tn}) that for $\Psi\in B_{n-1}$
then
$$\tau_n(\Psi\sigma_n^{\pm 1})=\Psi\tau_n(\sigma_n^{\pm 1})$$
To evaluate $\tau_n(\sigma_n^{\pm 1})$ we can appeal to the pentagonal
relation (\ref{pent}) to find that
\begin{eqnarray} &&\Phi^{-1}_{n+1}\sigma_n^{\pm 1}\Phi_{n+1}\nonumber \\
&&=
\Phi^{-1}_{n+1}\Phi_n\check R_{n(n+1)}^{\pm 1}\Phi^{-1}_n\Phi_{n+1} \nonumber \\
&&=I^{(n-2)}\ot \left(( I \ot I \ot \Delta)\Phi.(I\ot \Phi^{-1})(I\ot \Delta\ot
I)\Phi^{-1}.(I\ot \check R^{\pm 1} \ot I)\right. \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~.\left.(I\ot \Delta\ot I)\Phi.(I\ot \Phi)
(I\ot I\ot \Delta)\Phi^{-1}\right) \nonumber \\
&&=I^{(n-2)}\ot \left((I\ot I \ot \Delta)\Phi.(I\ot \Phi^{-1})
(I\ot \check R^{\pm 1} \ot I)(I\ot \Phi)
(I\ot I\ot \Delta)\Phi^{-1}\right) \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
which, upon using (\ref{quasi-hopf1}, \ref{quasi-hopf2},
\ref{e(phi)=1}), leads us to conclude that
$$\tau_n(\sigma_n^{\pm 1})=I^{\ot (n-1)}\ot \tau(\check R^{\pm 1}
). $$
An algebraic exercise shows that
\begin{eqnarray} \tau(\check R)&=&\bar{X}_jb_{\nu}Y_l\beta S(Z_l)S(\Z_j)S(\alpha)uv^{-1}\bar{Y}_j
a_{\nu}X_l, \nonumber \\
\tau(\check R^{-1})&=&X_jc_{\nu}Y_k\beta
S(Z_k)S(\Z_j)S(\alpha)uv^{-1}\bar{Y}_jd_{\nu}X_k
\nonumber \end{eqnarray}
and hence we can conclude that $z^{\pm}$ are given by the eigenvalues of
the central operators $v^{\mp 1}$ if we can show that the
following relations hold.
\begin{Lemma}
\begin{eqnarray} \bar{X}_jb_{\nu}Y_l\beta S(Z_l)S(\Z_j)S(\alpha)u\bar{Y}_j
a_{\nu}X_l&=&I, \nonumber \\
\bar{X}_jc_{\nu}Y_k\beta S(Z_k)S(\Z_j)S(\alpha)u\bar{Y}_jd_{\nu}X_k
&=&v^2.\nonumber \end{eqnarray}
\end{Lemma}
Through use of (\ref{quasi-hopf3}, \ref{imp}) we obtain
\begin{eqnarray} I&=&\bar{X}_i\beta S(\bar{Y}_i)\alpha \Z_i \nonumber \\
&=&\bar{X}_j\beta S(\bar{Y}_i)S(d_{\nu})S(b_{\mu})\alpha a_{\mu}c_{\nu}\Z_i \nonumber \\
&=&\bar{X}_j\beta S(\bar{Y}_i)S(d_{\nu})S(\alpha)uc_{\nu}\Z_i \nonumber \\
&=&\bar{X}_i\beta S(\bar{Y}_i)S(d_{\nu})S(\alpha)S^2(c_\nu)S^2(\Z_i)u.
\end{eqnarray}
From \reff{1dr} we see that
$${\cal R}^{-1}_{13}\Phi^{-1}_{312}\left(I\ot \Delta\right){\cal R}=\Phi^{-1}_{213}{\cal R}_{12}
\Phi_{123} $$
which expressed in terms of the tensor components reads
$$c_{\nu}\Z_ja_l\ot \bar{X}_jb_l^{(1)}\otimes d_{\nu}\bar{Y}_j b_l^{(2)}
=\bar{Y}_j a_\nu X_l\ot \bar{X}_j b_\nu Y_l\ot \Z_jZ_l. $$
We can now write
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\bar{X}_jb_{\nu}Y_l\beta S(Z_l)S(\Z_j)S(\alpha)u\bar{Y}_j
a_{\nu}X_l \nonumber \\
&&~~~~=\bar{X}_jb_l^{(1)}\beta S(b_l^{(2)})S(\bar{Y}_j)S(d_\nu)S(\alpha)u
c_\nu\Z_ja_l \nonumber \\
&&~~~~=\epsilon(b_l)\bar{X}_j\beta S(\bar{Y}_j)S(d_\nu)S(\alpha)u
c_\nu\Z_ja_l \nonumber \\
&&~~~~=\bar{X}_i\beta S(\bar{Y}_i)S(d_{\nu})S(\alpha)S^2(c_\nu)S^2(\Z_i)u \nonumber \\
&&~~~~=I. \end{eqnarray}
Next we see that
\begin{eqnarray}
u&=& S\left(\bar{X}_i\beta S(\bar{Y}_i)\alpha\Z_i\right)u \nonumber \\
&=&S(\Z_i)S(\alpha)S^2(\bar{Y}_i)S(\beta)S(\bar{X}_i)u \nonumber \\
&=&S(\Z_i)S(\alpha)u\bar{Y}_iS^{-1}(\beta)S^{-1}(\bar{X}_i) \nonumber \\
&=&S(\Z_i)S(b_\nu)\alpha a_\nu\bar{Y}_iS^{-1}(\beta)S^{-1}(\bar{X}_i)
\end{eqnarray}
where in the last step we have used \reff{imp}. Consequently
$$S(u)=\bar{X}_i\beta S(\bar{Y}_i)S(a_\nu)S(\alpha)S^2(b_\nu)S^2(\Z_i). $$ \
From \reff{d1r} we have
$${\cal R}_{23}\Phi^{-1}_{123}\left(\Delta\ot I\right){\cal R}^{-1}=\Phi_{132}^{-1}
{\cal R}^{-1}_{13}\Phi_{231} $$
which we may express as
$$\bar{X}_jc^{(1)}_\nu\ot a_\mu\bar{Y}_jc_\nu^{(2)}\ot b_\mu \Z_jd_\nu
=\bar{X}_jc_\nu Y_k\ot \Z_jZ_k\ot \bar{Y}_jd_\nu X_k. $$
This relation leads us to deduce that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\bar{X}_jc_{\nu}Y_k\beta S(Z_k)S(\Z_j)S(\alpha)u\bar{Y}_jd_{\nu}X_k
\nonumber \\
&&~~~~=\bar{X}_jc_\nu^{(1)}\beta S(c_\nu^{(2)})S(\bar{Y}_j)S(a_\mu) S(\alpha)u
b_\mu\Z_jd_\nu \nonumber \\
&&~~~~=\bar{X}_j\beta S(\bar{Y}_j)S(\alpha_\mu)S(\alpha)S^2(b_\mu)S^2(\Z_j)u \nonumber \\
&&~~~~=S(u)u \nonumber \\
&&~~~~=v^2 \end{eqnarray}
which proves lemma 2 and completes the proof of Theorem 6.
\sect{Twisting Invariance of the Markov trace}
Now we are in a position to show twisting invariance of the link
polynomials. Let us begin with the following result.
\begin{Proposition}
Every twisted ribbon quasi-Hopf algebra is
again a ribbon quasi-Hopf algebra.
\end{Proposition}
Recall from definition 3 that the first three conditios of a ribbon
quasi-Hopf algebra are properties of the algebra structure rather than
the co-algebra. Thus, to this end we need only show that if
$$
\Delta(uv^{-1})=\f^{-1}(S\ot S)\f_{21}.\,uv^{-1}\ot uv^{-1} $$
then
$$\Delta_F(uv^{-1})=\f_F^{-1}(S\ot S)(\f_F)_{21}.\,uv^{-1}\ot uv^{-1}$$
where $\f_F$ denotes the Drinfeld twistor for the twisted quasi-Hopf
algebra.
Recalling that the Drinfeld twist $\f$ is determined by
$$\f\Delta(a)\f^{-1}=(S\ot S)\left(\Delta^T\left(S^{-1}(a)\right)\right)
~~~~~\forall a\in A $$
shows that
\begin{eqnarray} F\Delta(a)F^{-1} &=& \Delta_F(a)\nonumber \\
&=&\f^{-1}_F\left((S\ot
S)\Delta^T_F\left(S^{-1}(a)\right)\right)\f_F \nonumber \\
&=&\f_F^{-1}\left((S\ot S)\left(F_{21}\Delta^T\left(S^{-1}(a)\right)
F_{21}^{-1}\right)\right)\f_F \nonumber \\
&=&\f_F^{-1}\left((S\ot S)F_{21}^{-1}.(S\ot
S)\Delta^T\left(S^{-1}(a)\right).(S\ot S)F_{21}\right) \f_F \nonumber \\
&=&\f^{-1}_F(S\ot S)F_{21}^{-1}.\f\Delta(a)\f^{-1}.(S\ot S)F_{21}\f_F \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which leads us to
$$\f_F=(S\ot S) F_{21}^{-1}.\f F^{-1}. $$
Now we observe that
\begin{eqnarray} &&\f_F^{-1}(S \ot S)(\f_F)_{21}.uv^{-1}\ot uv^{-1} \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~=F\f^{-1}(S\ot S)F_{21}.(S\ot S)\left((S\ot S)F^{-1}.(\f F^{-1})_{21}
\right)uv^{-1}\ot uv^{-1} \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~=F\f^{-1}(S\ot S)\f_{21}.(S^2\ot S^2)F^{-1}.uv^{-1}\ot uv^{-1} \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~=F\f^{-1}(S\ot S)\f_{21}.uv^{-1}\ot uv^{-1}. F^{-1}\nonumber \\
&&~~~~~=F\Delta(uv^{-1})F^{-1} \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~=\Delta_F(uv^{-1}) \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
thus establishing that the twisted ribbon quasi-Hopf algebra is also of ribbon
type.
By induction the co-product action on the $(n+1)$-fold space assumes the form
$$\Delta^{(n)}_F(a)=\chi_{n}\Delta^{(n)}\chi_{n}^{-1}$$
where
$$\chi_{n}=F_{12}.(\Delta\ot I)F_{12}.(\Delta^2\ot
I)F_{12}....(\Delta^{(n-1)}\ot I )F. $$
Consider next
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_{n}\sigma_i\chi^{-1}_{n}&=&F_{12}(\Delta\ot
I)F_{12}.(\Delta^2\ot I)F_{12}....(\Delta^{(n-1)}\ot I )F
\sigma_i \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~~~~~~
(\Delta^{(n-1)}\ot I )F^{-1}....(\Delta\ot I)F_{12}^{-1}.F_{12}^{_1} \nonumber
\\
&=&F_{12}(\Delta\ot
I)F_{12}.(\Delta^2\ot I)F_{12}....(\Delta^{(i-1)}\ot I )F
\sigma_i
\nonumber \\ && ~~~~~~~~~
(\Delta^{(i-1)}\ot I )F^{-1}....(\Delta\ot I)F_{12}^{-1}.F_{12}^{_1} \nonumber
\\
&=&\chi_i\sigma_i\chi_i^{-1}. \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
We now determine the representations of the braid generators under
twisting; i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_i^F&=& (\Delta_F^{(i-2)}\ot I\ot I)\Phi_F.\check R^F_{i(i+1)}.
(\Delta_F^{(i-2)}\ot I\ot I) \Phi_F^{-1} \nonumber \\
&=&\chi_{i-2}(\Delta^{(i-2)}\ot I \ot I)\left(F_{12}(\Delta\ot I)F.\Phi.
(I\ot \Delta)F^{-1}.F_{23}^{-1}\right)\chi_{i-2}^{-1}F_{i(i+1)}\check
R_{i(i+1)}F^{-1}_{i.i+1} \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~~~~~\chi_{i-2}\Delta^{(i-2)}\left(F_{23}(I\ot
\Delta)F.\Phi^{-1}(\Delta\ot I)F^{-1}.F_{12}^{-1}\right) \chi^{-1}_{i-2}
\nonumber \\
&=&\chi_i\Delta\Phi.(\Delta^{(i-2)}\otimes\Delta)F^{-1}.F_{i(i+1)}^{-1}
\chi_{i-2}^{-1}F_{i(i+1)}\check R_{i(i+1)}F^{-1}_{i(i+1)} \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~~~~~\chi_{i-2} F_{i(i+1)}(\Delta^{(i-2)}\ot
\Delta)F.\Delta^{(i-2)}\Phi^{-1}. \chi_i^{-1} \nonumber \\
&=&\chi_i\Delta^{(i-2)}\Phi. \check R_{i(i+1)} \Delta^{(i-2)} \Phi^{-1}.
\chi_i^{-1} \nonumber \\
&=&\chi_i\sigma_i\chi_i^{-1} \nonumber \\
&=&\chi_{n}\sigma_i\chi_{n}^{-1} \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
which shows that the representation of the braid generators under
twisting are related to those of the untwisted case by a basis
transformation. Thus for any word in the generators of the braid group
we can write
$$\Psi^F=\chi_{n}\Psi\chi_{n}^{-1}$$
in an obvious notation.
Using the relations (\ref{twisted-s-ab}) we may write
$$\alpha_F=S(\bar{f}_i)\alpha \bar{f}^i,~~~~~~~~\beta_F=f_i\beta S(f^i)$$
and proceed to calculate
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta^F_n(\Psi)&=&{\rm tr}\left(\Psi^F \Delta_F^{(n)}\left(\beta_F S(\alpha_F)
uv^{-1}\right)\right) \nonumber \\
&=&{\rm tr}\left(\chi_{n}\Psi \Delta^{(n)}
\left(\beta_F S(\alpha_F)uv^{-1}\right)\chi^{-1}_{n}\right) \nonumber \\
&=&{\rm tr}\left(\Psi\Delta^{(n)}\left(f_i\beta S(f^i)S(\bar{f}^j)S(
\alpha)S^2(\bar{f}_j)uv^{-1}\right)\right) \nonumber \\
&=&{\rm tr}\left(\Psi\Delta^{(n)}\left(f_i\beta S(\bar{f}^jf^i)
S(\alpha)uv^{-1}\bar{f}_j\right)\right) \nonumber \\
&=&{\rm tr}\left(\Delta^{(n)}(\bar{f}_j)\Psi\Delta^{(n)}\left(f_i\beta
S(\bar{f}^jf^i)S(\alpha)uv^{-1}\right)\right) \nonumber \\
&=&{\rm tr}\left(\Psi\Delta^{(n)}\left(\bar{f}_jf_i\beta
S(\bar{f}^jf^i)S(\alpha)uv^{-1}\right)\right) \nonumber \\
&=&{\rm tr}\left(\Psi \Delta^{(n)}\left(\beta S(\alpha) uv^{-1}
\right) \right) \nonumber \\
&=&\theta_n(\Psi) \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
which proves twisting invariance of the Markov trace
and consequently the associated link polynomials.
\vskip.3in
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements.}
This work has been financed by the Australian Research Council.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
There is recent experimental evidence that the effective interaction
between like-charged colloidal particles (``macroions") is sensitively
affected by a confinement between two parallel charged glass plates
\cite{kepler,crocker,nature}.
For aqueous polystyrene suspensions studied in experiment, the effective force
between two colloidal macroions is found to be repulsive far away from the plates
but becomes attractive when the like-charge macroions are located close to an equally charged
plate.
At first glance, these findings are surprising as one would expect a purely
repulsive interaction from the electrostatic part of the
traditional Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) theory \cite{DLVO}.
In fact a full theoretical
explanation is still missing but several steps were performed in
different directions: the essential difference in a confining geometry with respect to the bulk
is that the counterion
density field is inhomogeneous for small coupling between the macroions and counterions.
In a straightforward generalization of the DLVO theory to such an inhomogeneous
situation \cite{anne,Jay}, the effective force between the macroions
remains repulsive close to the charged
plates but becomes weaker since the local concentration of counterions is higher
which results in a stronger screening of the Coulomb repulsion. It was further realized
that a charged wall induces significant effective triplet interactions \cite{HLEA}
which are
ignored in the usual DLVO approach resulting in a net attraction \cite{dave23}
or in a repulsion \cite{Tehver} depending on the system parameters.
An explicit calculation was done within density functional perturbation theory
which is justified, however, only for weak inhomogeneities.
A complementary approach is to solve the nonlinear Poisson-Boltzmann equation with appropriate
boundary conditions in a finite geometry. This was done recently for two charged spheres in a charged
cylindrical pore \cite{bowen} as well as for two charged
cylinders confined by two parallel charged plates \cite{ospeck}. However, the first situation
corresponds to a finite system where the Poisson-Boltzmann approach does not lead to attraction
\cite{Neu} and the second situation is a quasi-two-dimensional set-up which is known to behave
qualitatively different from a three-dimensional situation \cite{Schmitz}.
A further complication
arises from image charges induced by the different dielectric constants of the glass
and the solvent \cite{Chang,Tandon,dave1}.
A general problem of any theoretical description (as DLVO, Poisson-Boltzmann)
is that close to the walls
the counterion concentration is high and any weak-coupling theory fails {\it a priori\/}
when applied to a situation of confined macroions. For strong coupling, even in the
bulk, it is unclear whether an effective attraction of like-charged spherical macroions
is possible although there are hints from experiments \cite{Ise,Horn,Weiss}, theory \cite{Levin,Netz,shklov,Preparata,Tokuyama},
and computer simulations \cite{allah,Pincus,Tang}. At this stage it is important to remark
that a phase separation seen in experiment does not necessarily imply an effective
attraction. The additional contribution from the counterions to the total free energy
may induce such a phase separation although the effective interaction between the macroions
is purely repulsive \cite{roij,Graf}. Bearing the difficulties in experimental interpretations and
theory in mind, computer simulations represent a helpful alternative
tool to extract ``exact" results for certain model systems. The general accepted theoretical
model for the description of charged colloidal suspensions is the ``primitive approach" where
the discrete structure of the solvent is disregarded and the interaction between the macroions
and counterions is modelled by excluded volume and Coulomb forces. The problem with a full
computer simulation of the primitive model is the high charge asymmetry between macro- and counterions
which restricts the full treatment to micelles rather than charged colloidal suspensions \cite{Linse}.
In this paper, we use computer simulations to obtain ``exact" results for the effective interaction
between confined charged colloids based upon the primitive model. Instead of solving the full
many-body problem with many macroions, we only simulate one or two macroions confined between
two parallel charged plates. This enables us to access high charge numbers of the macro-particles.
As a result we find that the wall-particle and the interparticle interaction is repulsive for
weak Coulomb coupling. For stronger coupling, the behaviour of the force changes from
repulsive to attractive and back to repulsive
as the interparticle distance is varied. In particular, the
plate-particle interaction exhibits a short-range attraction for a
small distances. This may explain the occurrence
of crystalline colloidal layers on top of the glass plates found in recent experiments
\cite{Larsen_crystallites,larsen,jessica}. These crystallites are metastable but very long-lived
and cannot be understood in terms of DLVO-theory.
The paper is organized as follows: the model and our target quantities
are defined in section II\@. Section III contains details of our
computer simulation procedure. Results for the counterion density
profiles are shown in section IV\@. The case of a single macroion is discussed
in section V, and a macroion pair is investigated in section VI\@.
Finally, we conclude in section VII\@.
\section{The model and target quantities}
We consider $N_m$ macroions with bare charge $q_{m}=Ze>0$ ($e>0$ denoting the elementary charge)
and mesoscopic diameter $d_m$ confined between two parallel
plates that carry surface charge densities $\sigma_{1}$ and
$\sigma_{2}$. We assume that the plates and the macroions are likely charged.
The separation distance between plates is $2L$. For convenience,
we choose the $z$ axis to be perpendicular to the plate surface. The origin of the coordinate
system is located on the surface of one plate. Image charges are neglected, i.e.\
we assumed for simplicity that the dielectric constants of the solvent, the plate and the colloidal
material are the same.
Typically we use a periodically repeated square cell in $x$ and $y$ direction
which possesses an area $S_{p}$. Hence the macroion number density is $\rho_{m}=N_m/2LS_p$.
We restrict our studies to a small number of macroions in the cell. In particular we are considering
the cases $N_m=0,1,2$ subsequently. Both the macroions and the charged plates provide
neutralizing counterions which are dissolved in a solvent of dielectric constant $\epsilon$.
The counterions have a microscopic diameter $d_c$ and
carry an opposite charge $q_c = -qe$ where $q>0$ denotes the valency.
Typically, $q=1,2$. For
simplicity, we assume that the counterions from the walls and from the macroions
are not distinguishable. The total counterion number $N_c$ in the cell
(as well as the averaged counterion number density $\rho_{c}=N_c/2LS_p$)
is fixed by the condition of global charge neutrality
\begin{equation}
\label{neutral1}
\rho_{m}q_{m}+\rho_{c}q_{c}+\frac{\sigma_{1}+\sigma_{2}}{2L} = 0.
\end{equation}
The interactions between the particles are described within the framework
of the primitive model. We assume the following pair interaction potentials $V_{mm}(r)$,
$V_{mc}(r)$, $V_{cc}(r)$ between
macroions and counterions, $r$ denoting the corresponding interparticle distance:
\begin{equation}
V_{mm} (r) = \cases {\infty &for $ r \leq d_m$\cr
{{Z^2e^2} \over {\epsilon r}} &for $ r > d_m$\cr}
\label{1aLMH}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
V_{mc} (r) = \cases {\infty &for $ r \leq (d_m + d_c) /2$\cr
- {{Zqe^2} \over {\epsilon r}} &for $ r > (d_m + d_c) /2$\cr}
\label{1bLMH}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
V_{cc} (r) =\cases {\infty &for $ r \leq d_c$\cr
{{q^2e^2} \over {\epsilon r}} &for $ r > d_c$\cr}
\label{1cLMH}
\end{equation}
The interaction between the particles and the wall is described by the potential energy
\begin{equation}
V_{pi} (z) =\cases {\infty &for $z<d_i/2$ and \cr
& $z>2L-d_i/2$\cr
{{2\pi(\sigma_2-\sigma_1)q_i z} \over {\epsilon }}&else \cr}
\label{2}
\end{equation}
where $z$ is the altitude of the particle center and $i=m,c$. Note that the interaction between the wall and the particles is zero
for equally charged plates.
Our target quantities are the equilibrium counterion profiles and the effective forces
exerted on the macroions. The counterionic density profile
$\rho_c^{(0)}(\vec r)$ is
defined as statistical
average via
\begin{equation}
\rho_c^{(0)}({\vec r})= \sum_{j=1}^{N_c}<\delta ( {\vec r} - {\vec
r}_j )>_c
\label{3}
\end{equation}
where $\{ {\vec r}_j=(x_j, y_j, z_j); j=1,...N_c \}$ denote the counterion positions.
The canonical
average $<...>_c$ over an $\{ {\vec r}_j \}$-dependent
quantity $\cal A$ is defined via the classical trace
\begin{eqnarray}
<{\cal A}(\{ {\vec r}_k \}) >_c =&& {1\over {\cal Z}} {1\over {N_c!}}
\int_V d^3r_1...\int_V d^3r_{N_c}\nonumber \\
&&\times {\cal A} (\{ {\vec r}_k \})
\exp \left( - {{V_c}\over{k_BT}} \right)
\label{33}
\end{eqnarray}
where $k_BT$ is the thermal energy ($k_B$ denoting Boltzmann's constant) and
\begin{eqnarray}
V_c =&&\sum_{n=1}^{N_m} \sum_{j=1}^{N_c} V_{mc}( \mid {\vec R}_n - {\vec r}_j \mid )
\nonumber \\
& & + {{1} \over {2}} \sum_{i,j=1; i\not= j}^{N_c} V_{cc}( \mid {\vec r}_i
- {\vec r}_j \mid ) +
\sum_{j=1}^{N_c} V_{pc}(z_j)
\label{9999}
\end{eqnarray}
is the total counterionic part of the potential energy provided the
macroions are at positions\\ \hbox {$\{ {\vec R}_j=(X_j, Y_j, Z_j); j=1,...N_m \}$}. Furthermore, the classical
partition function
\begin{equation}
{\cal Z} = {1\over {N_c!}}
\int_V d^3r_1...\int_V d^3r_{N_c}
\exp \left( - {{V_c}\over{k_BT}}\right)
\label{neu3}
\end{equation}
guarantees the correct normalization $<1>_c=1$. Note that the counterionic density profile
$\rho_c^{(0)}({\vec r})$ depends parametrically on the macroion positions
$\{ {\vec R}_j \}$.
The total effective force ${\vec F}_j$ acting onto the $j$th macroion
contains three different parts \cite{LMH,allah2,allah}
\begin{equation}
{\vec F}_j = {\vec F}_j^{(1)} + {\vec F}_j^{(2)} + {\vec F}_j^{(3)}
\label{neu4}
\end{equation}
The first term, ${\vec F}_j^{(1)}$,
is the direct Coulomb repulsion stemming from neighboring macroions
and the plates
\begin{eqnarray}
{\vec F}_j^{(1)} = -{\vec \nabla}_{\vec R_j} \left( \sum_{i=1;
j\not=i}^{N_m} V_{mm}
( \mid {\vec R}_i - {\vec R}_j \mid ) +
V_{pm} (Z_j)\right)
\label{neu2}
\end{eqnarray}
The second part ${\vec F}_j^{(2)}$ involves
the electric part of the counterion-macroion interaction
and has the statistical definition
\begin{equation}
{\vec F}_j^{(2)}=< \sum_{i=1}^{N_c} {\vec \nabla}_{\vec R_j}
{{Zqe^2} \over {\epsilon \mid {\vec R}_j - {\vec r}_i \mid }} >_c
\label{8}
\end{equation}
Finally, the third term ${\vec F}_j^{(3)}$ describes a
depletion (or contact) force arising from the hard-sphere part in
$V_{mc}(r)$, which can be expressed as an integral over the surface
${\cal S}_j$ of the $j$th macroion
\begin{equation}
{\vec F}_j^{(3)}=k_BT \int_{{\cal S}_j} d{\vec f} \ \
\rho_c^{(0)}({\vec r})
\label{9}
\end{equation}
where ${\vec f}$ is a surface vector pointing towards the macroion center.
This depletion term is usually neglected in any DLVO or Poisson-Boltzmann treatment but
becomes actually important for strong macroion-counterion coupling. We
define the strength of Coulomb coupling via the dimensionless coupling
parameter \cite{allah}
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{mc} ={Z \over q}{2 \lambda_B \over
{d_m+d_c}} ,
\label{gamma_mc}
\end{equation}
where the Bjerrum length is $\lambda_B = q^2e^2/\epsilon k_B T$.
A further interesting quantity is the
counterion-averaged total potential energy defined as
\begin{equation}
U( \{ {\vec R}_j \} ) = \sum_{i,j;i<j}^{N_m} V_{mm}(\mid
{\vec R}_i - {\vec R}_j \mid ) + < V_c >_c
\label{neu5}
\end{equation}
In general the effective force (\ref{neu4}) is different from the gradient of
$U( \{ {\vec R}_j \} )$ \cite{Hartmut} i.e.
\begin{equation}
{\vec F}_j \not= {\vec {\bar F}}_j \equiv -{\vec \nabla}_{\vec R_j}U( \{
{\vec R}_i \} )
\label{neu566}
\end{equation}
In fact, as we shall show below these two quantities behave qualitatively different
for strong coupling. We emphasize that it is the effective force (\ref{neu4}) that is probed
in experiments.
\section{details of the computer simulation}
The Coulomb interactions involved in the primitive model
are long-ranged but the periodically repeated system is finite
which poses a computational problem.
This can be solved in different ways. The simplest way to solve the
problem is to cut off the range of the Coulomb interaction by half of the
system size which is the minimum image convention (MIC). The MIC is
easy to implement but serious cut-off errors can be introduced.
A better way is to include $\cal N$ periodically repeated images (PRI) of neighbour
cells in $x$ and $y$ direction. Also the limit ${\cal N}\to\infty$ can be treated by
a suitable generalization of the traditional Ewald summation technique \cite{Ewald,han_pol,val_koh}
to a two-dimensional system. A straightforward
generalization, however, leads to quite
massive computational effort \cite{halley}. A much more effective
alternative is the so-called Lekner summation method
\cite{Lekner1,Lekner2} which has
recently been applied successfully to the problem of effective
interactions between rodlike polyelectrolytes and like-charged planar
surfaces \cite{mashl12}.
A completely different way out of the problem is to study the system
on a surface of a four-dimensional (4D) hypersphere which itself is a
compact closed geometry with spherical boundary conditions
\cite{izenberg}. Then one has to express the Coulomb forces in terms of the
appropriate 4D spherical coordinates which can be done
analytically, see Appendix A. Such spherical boundary conditions were
effectively utilized in computer simulations of
two-dimensional (2D) classical electrons \cite{han_lev,cal_lev} and other 2D
fluids \cite{caillol,kratky,cail_ela}.
Simulations of the 3D system located on the surface of a 4D
hypersphere were carried out for Lennard-Jones \cite{schrei},
hard sphere \cite{toboch} and charged \cite{cail1} systems.
The hypersphere geometry (HSG) was also tested against Ewald
summations to investigate the stability of charged
interfaces \cite{cail2} and good agreement was found,
even for strongly coupled interfaces. Simulations in HSG are
much faster than that for Lekner sums or PRI as there is no sum over images.
In most of our investigations we have used HSG simulations but tested them against
MIC, PRI and Lekner summations. Good agreement was found except for the MIC which
suffers from the early truncation of the Coulomb tail. We have performed Molecular Dynamics (MD)
simulations at room
temperature $T=293^o K$. A more
detailed description of the MD procedure in HSG is given
in Appendix B. The width of planar slit is fixed to be $2L=5 d_m$.
Different sets of system parameters are summarized
in Table I.
\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname
@twocolumnfalse\endcsname
\begin{table}
\caption{Set of parameters used in our calculations}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
Run& $N_{m}$ & $Z$ & $q$ & $\sigma_{p}(e/cm^{2})$&
$\epsilon$&$\rho_m (1/cm^{3})$&$ d_m (cm)$&$ d_c (cm)$&$\Gamma_{mc}$ \\
\tableline
A & 0 & - & 2 & $ 1.24\times10^{11}$&
78.3&$1.17\times10^{13}$& - & $5.32\times10^{-8}$&- \\
B & 1 & 200 & 2 & $ 0.62\times10^{11}$&
78.3&$1.17\times10^{13}$&$5.32\times10^{-6}$ & $5.32\times10^{-8}$&11 \\
C & 1 & 200 & 2 & $ 1.24\times10^{11}$&
78.3&$varied$&$5.32\times10^{-6}$ & $5.32\times10^{-8}$&11 \\
D & 1 & 100 & 2 & $ 1.49\times10^{11}$&
$varied $&$1.17\times10^{13}$&$5.32\times10^{-6}$ & $5.32\times10^{-8}$&$varied$ \\
E & 1 & 100 & 2 & $ 2.98\times10^{11}$&
3.9&$1.17\times10^{13}$&$5.32\times10^{-6}$ & $5.32\times10^{-8}$&110 \\
G & 1 & 100 & 2 & $varied$&
78.3&$9.36\times10^{16}$&$2.66\times10^{-7}$ & $2.66\times10^{-8}$&100 \\
K & 1 & 32 & 2 & $ 1.56\times10^{14}$&
77.3&$1.9\times10^{18}$&$2.56\times10^{-7}$ & $2.56\times10^{-9}$&37 \\
L & 2 & 200 & 2 & $ 1.24\times10^{11}$&
78.3&$2.34\times10^{13}$&$5.32\times10^{-6}$ & $5.32\times10^{-8}$&11 \\
M & 2 & 100 & 2 & $ varied$&
3.9&$2.34\times10^{13}$&$5.32\times10^{-6}$ & $5.32\times10^{-8}$&110 \\
N & 2 & 100 & 2 & $varied$&
78.3&$1.87\times10^{17}$&$2.66\times10^{-7}$ & $2.66\times10^{-8}$&100 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
]
We take divalent counterions throughout our investigations.
The dielectric constant is that for water at room temperature $(\epsilon=78.3$) but
we have also investigated cases where $\epsilon$ is smaller in order
to enhance the Coulomb coupling formally. The charge asymmetry $Z/q$ ranges from
16 to 100. The
time step $\triangle{t}$ of the simulation was typically chosen to be
$10^{-3}\,\sqrt{m\,{d^{3}_{m}}/e^{2}}$, (with $m$ denoting the mass of the counterions)
such that the reflection of
counterions following the collision with the surface of macroions and
walls is calculated with high precision. For every
run the equilibrium state of the system was checked during the
simulation time. This was done by monitoring the temperature, average velocity and
the distribution function of velocities and total potential energy of
the system. On average it took about $10^4$ MD steps to get into
equilibrium. Then during $5\cdot 10^4-5\cdot 10^5$ time steps, we gathered
statistics to perform the canonical averages for calculated quantities.
\section{counterion density profiles between charged plates}
First, as a reference case, let us discuss the situation
without any macroion. This set-up is well-studied
in the literature \cite{Robbins,Valleau}.
We consider equally charged surfaces $\sigma_1 = \sigma_2 =\sigma_p$.
The imbalance in the
interaction with neighbours will push the counterions toward the
plates. Consequently, a great
majority of neutralizing counterions reside within a thin surface
layer. For strong coupling, the width of this layer can be
approximately expressed as \cite{rouzina}
\begin{equation}
\label{lambda}
\lambda_z = \frac {\lambda_{D}^{2}} {2L},
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_D$ is the bulk Debye screening length
\begin{equation}
\label{lambda2}
\lambda_{D}^{2}
= \frac {\epsilon k_B T} {4 \pi \rho_0 q^2 e^2}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_0\equiv \rho_c$.
Due to symmetry, the equilibrium
counterion density profile only depends on $z$.
The analytical solution of the Poisson-Boltzmann (PB) equation for this profile is \cite{eng}
\begin{equation}
\label{hb}
\rho^{(PB)}_{c}(z)= \rho_c \frac {2\gamma_{0}^{2} \lambda_{D}^{2} }{L^{2}
\cos ^2 (\gamma_{0} (1-{z \over L}))}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_0$ is defined via the solution of the implicit equation
\begin{equation}
\label{defgamma}
\frac {(L/\lambda_D)^{2}} {2\gamma_0} - \tan{\gamma_0} = 0
\end{equation}
For parameters of moderate Coulomb coupling (run A), the PB result is shown
as a solid line in Fig.\ref{fig1allah}.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6cm
\epsfysize=6cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah1.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Reduced counterion density profiles $\rho^{(0)}_c(z)/\rho_0$ versus
reduced distance $z/L$. solid line- PB prediction and
simulation result with incorporating Lekner summation method. Both data
do coincide on the same curve, long-dashed line-
result of simulation in HSG, dashed line- result of PRI simulation
with ${\cal N}=2$, dotted line- result of MIC simulation.}
\label{fig1allah}
\end{figure}
The corresponding MD simulation data were obtained with 600
counterions in the cell using various boundary conditions.
As expected, the PB theory coincides with the Lekner summation method
which treats best the long-range nature of the Coulomb interactions.
In HSG the counterionic profiles are also very similar to the Lekner summation
while the MIC deviates significantly. The MIC can already be improved significantly
if ${\cal N}=2$ periodic repeated images are included.
In conclusion, the agreement between Lekner summation
and HSG justifies the HSG a posteriori and gives evidence that the HSG produces
reliable results also for stronger couplings.
\section{Single macroion between charged plates}
Let us now consider a single macroion in the inter-lamellar
area. We put the macroion on the $z$-axis, such that its
position is at ${\vec R}_{1}=(0,0,Z_1)$.
A corresponding schematic picture is given in Fig.\ref{fig2allah}.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6.5cm
\epsfysize=5cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah2.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Schematic picture for a single macroion between likely
charged planes of charge density $\sigma_p$, separated by distance
$2L$.}
\label{fig2allah}
\end{figure}
The total force acting on the macroion only depends on $Z_1$ and points
along the $z$-axis.
Obviously, for the case $\sigma_1=\sigma_2=\sigma_p$ of symmetric plates considered here, the direct
part of the total force, ${\vec F}_j^{(1)}$, vanishes.
For the second (electrostatic) part, simple PB-theory applied to the case
of small macroion charge and small macroion diameter yields the following analytical expression
for the effective macroion force \cite{eng,anne}
\begin{equation}
\label{pbforce}
{\vec F}_{1}^{PB}=\frac {2 Z k_{B} T \gamma_{0}} {q L} \tan \left(\gamma_{0}
\left(1-z/L \right) \right) {\vec e}_z
\end{equation}
where ${\vec e}_z$ is the unit vector in $z$-direction and $\gamma_0$
is given by (\ref{defgamma}). Note that only the counterion
density stemming from the charged plates
has to be inserted in (\ref{defgamma})
i.e. $\rho_o=\frac{\sigma_p}{L\mid qe \mid}$.
This force pushes the macroion
towards the mid-plane, i.e.\ the wall-particle interaction is repulsive.
The expression (\ref{pbforce}) will break down, however, for a large
macroion diameter $d_m$ and for strong
macroion-counterion coupling parameter $\Gamma_{mc}$.
We have tested the PB-theory against ``exact" computer simulation data.
For moderate couplings (run B and run C) the results for the total force
$F_1={\vec F}_1 \cdot {\vec e}_z$ are shown in
Figs.\ref{fig3allah}-\ref{fig4allah}. In Fig.\ref{fig3allah}, a surprising agreement between theory and simulation
is obtained despite the fact that the macroion charge is large.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6cm
\epsfysize=7cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah3.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Force $F_1={\vec F}_1 \cdot {\vec e}_z$ acting on a single macro-ion versus
reduced macro-ion distance $Z_1/L$. The force is scaled by the (arbitrary)
unit $F_{0}= \frac{Zqe^{2}} {\epsilon {d_{m}^{2}}}$.
The system parameters are from run B\@. The solid line is the
prediction from PB theory. The open circles are simulation results in HSG\@. The statistical error corresponds
to the symbol size.}
\label{fig3allah}
\end{figure}
This justifies the theoretical
conclusions drawn in Refs.\ \cite{anne,Jay} based on PB theory. The deviation between theory and
simulation are larger in Fig.\ref{fig4allah} where the surface charge density was doubled.
Here, also the system size dependence (resp.\ the dependence on the
macroion density) was studied in the simulation.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6cm
\epsfysize=7cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah4.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Same as Fig.\ref{fig3allah} but now for run C. Symbols are
simulation results in HSG for various macroion number densities:
circles: $\rho_m = 1.17\times 10^{13} cm^{-3}$, squares: $\rho_m =
2.0\times 10^{12} cm^{-3}$, triangles: $\rho_m = 1.0\times 10^{12} cm^{-3}$.}
\label{fig4allah}
\end{figure}
As expected the agreement becomes better for
a larger system size (resp.\ for a smaller macroion density) since the theory is constructed formally
for vanishing macroion density. In addition, we repeated the
calculations for $\rho_m = 1.17\times 10^{13} cm^{-3}$ (corresp.\ to
the circles in Fig.\ref{fig4allah}) using the PRI method with $N=4$
and got the same results as in HSG\@.
We now enhance the Coulomb coupling by formally reducing the dielectric constant
$\epsilon$. For a fixed macroion position at $Z_1=d_m$, the force $F_1$ is shown in Fig.\ref{fig5allah}
for the parameters of run D.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6cm
\epsfysize=7cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah5.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Force $F_1={\vec F}_1 \cdot {\vec e}_z$ acting on a single macro-ion versus
dielectric constant $\epsilon$ for a fixed position at $Z_1 = d_m $.
The force is scaled by the (arbitrary)
unit $F_{0}=0.01 \frac{Zqe^{2}} {\epsilon {d_{m}^{2}}}$. The parameters of the
system are from run D. The solid line is the prediction of PB
theory. The crosses are simulation results in HSG.}
\label{fig5allah}
\end{figure}
While the PB theory always predicts a repulsive force,
the simulation data
are in accordance with theory only for large $\epsilon$ but the force changes its sign
for $\epsilon <10$. Hence as expected the theory breaks down for large Coulomb coupling
where correlation between the counterions become significant.
For the same run D, the distance-resolved macroion force $F_1$ is shown in Fig.\ref{fig6allah} for
a strongly reduced dielectric constant $\epsilon=3.9$.
The simulation data
were obtained in HSG but confirmed by PRI calculations with ${\cal N}=4$.
The electrostatic part
$F_1^{(2)}={\vec F}_1^{(2)} \cdot {\vec e}_z$ and the depletion
part $F_1^{(3)}={\vec F}_1^{(3)} \cdot {\vec e}_z$ are shown separately. $F_z^{(3)}$ is
always repulsive and increases with decreasing $Z_1$, at least if the macroion is not
too close to the surface when the counterion depletion between the macroion and the wall
induced by the finite counterion core is negligible. This
is an expected behavior, since in general there are more counterions close to the walls.
The pure electrostatic contribution, $F_1^{(2)}$, on the other hand,
exhibits a more subtle behavior. If the macroion is close to the midplane,
it is repulsive, then it becomes attractive as the macroion is getting closer to the plates.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6cm
\epsfysize=7cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah6.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Same as Fig.\ref{fig3allah} but now for run D, $\epsilon=3.9$, and for a force unit
of $F_{0}=0.1 \frac{Zqe^{2}} {\epsilon {d_{m}^{2}}}$. The crosses are
simulation data in HSG for the total force $F_1$, the squares (resp.\ circles)
are simulation data the electrostatic part $F_1^{(2)}$ (resp.\ the depletion
part $F_1^{(3)}$).The line is a guide
to the eye for the total force. The inset shows the effective potential in units of
$k_BT$ versus
reduced macro-ion distance $Z_1/L$ together with the energy barrier
$\Delta V_{eff}$. The solid line is for run D with
$\epsilon =3.9$, dashed line is for run E.}
\label{fig6allah}
\end{figure}
As a function of macroion distance,
the total force $F_1$ is repulsive, attractive and becomes repulsive again.
For small separations (which are still larger than the microscopic counterionic core)
the force is dominated by the repulsive depletion force. Hence the
macroion has got three equilibrium positions, two of them are stable, namely
the midplane and a position in the vicinity of the plate. In order to extract
more information, we have calculated the effective wall-particle potential
defined by
\begin{equation}
V_{eff}(Z_1) = - \int_{0}^{Z_1} F_1(h) dh
\label{eff}
\end{equation}
by integrating our data with respect to the macroion altitude $h$. This
quantity is shown as an inset in Fig.\ref{fig6allah}.
One first sees that the global minimum is in the vicinity of the walls. Furthermore
the barrier height $\Delta V_{eff}$ to escape from there is about $8 k_BT$. This
implies that the time for a colloidal particle to escape
from the position close to the surface is roughly $\tau_0 \exp \left(\Delta
V_{eff}/k_BT \right) = e^8 \tau_0\approx 3000 \tau_0$ \cite{Russel,Sauer}
where $\tau_0$ is a Brownian time scale governing the decay of
dynamical correlations of the macroion. It can also be seen that, for a
doubled surface charge (run E), the height of barrier increases.
A similar behaviour occurs for another parameter combinations (run G), see
Fig.\ref{fig7allah}, corresponding to aqueous suspensions of micelle-sized macroions.
It hence seems to be a generic feature of the primitive model for
strong Coulomb coupling.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6cm
\epsfysize=7cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah7.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Same as Fig.\ref{fig6allah} but now for run G and for a force unit
of $F_{0}=0.1 \frac{Zqe^{2}} {\epsilon {d_{m}^{2}}}$. The squares are
simulation results for the total force in HSG
for $\sigma_p
=1.19\times10^{14} { e \over cm^{2}} $, while the circles are for
$\sigma_p =2.38\times10^{14} {e \over cm^{2}}$. The lines are a guide
to the eye. The inset shows the effective potential in units of
$k_BT$ versus
reduced macro-ion distance $Z_1/L$. The dashed line is for $\sigma_p
=1.19\times10^{14} { e \over cm^{2}} $, the solid line is for $\sigma_p =2.38\times10^{14} {e \over cm^{2}}$.}
\label{fig7allah}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6cm
\epsfysize=7cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah8.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Effective force $F_1={\vec F}_1 \cdot {\vec e}_z$ (circles) and gradient
of the potential energy $\bar F_1={\vec {\bar F}}_1 \cdot {\vec e}_z$ (squares) versus
reduced macro-ion distance $Z_1/L$ for run K. The unit of the force
is $F_{0}=0.1 {{Zqe^{2}} \over {\epsilon d_{m}^{2}} }$. the lines
are a guide to the eye. The dashed line are data from Ref.[60]}
\label{fig8allah}
\end{figure}
We note that the barrier height $\Delta V_{eff}$ is about $70
k_B T$ which implies a very large escape time. Finally we show for a certain parameter combination (run K) which
was also used in Ref.\ \cite{bo} that the averaged force ${\vec F}_1$ differs from the
gradient of the averaged potential energy ${\vec {\bar F}}_1$. As in
Ref.\ \cite{bo}, the system consists of
a single macroion in a planar slit of width $5d_m$, with one charged and one neutral
wall. Results are given in Fig.\ref{fig8allah}.
We conclude that the forces
behave even qualitatively different. The average force ${\vec F}_1$
is a short-range attractive force which becomes repulsive only for
touching macroion configurations. Contrary to that, the force ${\vec {\bar
F}}_1$ is repulsive up to distance about $d_m/2$ from the wall
surface. Note that our data actually differ from those of Ref.\
\cite{bo} due to the early truncation of the Coulomb interaction performed
there.
\section{Two macro-ions between plates}
We finally consider two equally charged macroions at the positions
${\vec R}_{1}=(X_1 ,Y_1 ,Z_1)$ and ${\vec R}_{2}=(X_2 ,Y_2 ,Z_2)$ confined
between plates. A schematic picture is given in Fig.\ref{fig9allah}.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=7.5cm
\epsfysize=6cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah9.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Schematic picture for the macroion pair near a charged wall of
surface charge density
$\sigma_p$. For the sake of clarity, the position of second wall
is omitted. The different forces are shown for the case of a mutual attraction.}
\label{fig9allah}
\end{figure}
In order
to reduce the parameter space, we assume for
simplicity that both macroions have the same altitude $Z_1=Z_2$. The
distance between the macroion centers is $R_{12} =\mid {\vec R}_1 -
{\vec R}_2 \mid $ where the difference vector ${\vec R}_{12}={\vec R}_1 -
{\vec R}_2$ is in the $xy$-plane. We assume that only one of the walls is charged and that
the second wall is neutral. This gives us the
possibility to simulate higher surface charge densities. Also for strong coupling,
the counterions of the two different walls are practically decoupled such that
the set-up with a single charged wall is not expected to differ much from the symmetrical set-up.
The total force acting on the two macroions can be split into a part
pointing in $z$-direction and another contribution pointing along ${\vec R}_{12}$.
Hence we write ${\vec F}_j = {\vec F}^\|_j + {\vec F}^\bot_j$ defining
${\vec F}^\|_j= \left({\vec F}_j \cdot {\vec R}_{12} \right) \cdot
{\vec R}_{12}/R_{12}^2$ and
${\vec F}^\bot_j= \left( {\vec F}_j \cdot {\vec e}_z \right) \cdot {\vec e}_z$ for $j=1,2$. Clearly,
${\vec F}^\bot_1={\vec F}^\bot_2$, and ${\vec F}^\|_1=-{\vec F}^\|_2$.
It is instructive to compare these force to the DLVO bulk theory which yields
\begin{eqnarray}
{\vec F}^{DLVO}_1 =&& \frac {{Z}^2 e^2 \exp{((d_m - R_{12})/ \lambda_{D}) }
} {\epsilon R_{12}(1+ {d_m/2 \lambda_D})^2} \nonumber\\
&&\times \left({1 \over R_{12}}+{1
\over \lambda_D}
\right) {{\vec R}_{12} \over R_{12}}
\label{dlvo}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the Debye screening length $\lambda_D$ is given by eq.(\ref{lambda2}), where $\rho_0$
corresponds to the counterion number density coming only from the
macroions, $\rho_{0} = {Z \over {q}}\rho_{m}$. One can also modify
the DLVO theory by admitting screening also from the counterions stemming from the wall
assuming they follow a Poisson-Boltzmann density profile.
This yields the PB force \cite{anne,Jay}
\begin{equation}
{\vec F}^{PB}_1 = ({\vec F}^{PB}_1)^\| + ({\vec F}^{PB}_1)^\bot
\label{PBA}
\end{equation}
where we get for the parallel part of the force
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{PBpar}
({\vec F}_1^{PB})^\| =&& \frac {{Z}^2 e^2 \exp{(- R_{12}/ \lambda_{D}(Z_1))}
} {\epsilon R_{12}} \nonumber \\
&&\times \left({1 \over R_{12}}+{1
\over \lambda_D(Z_1)}\right) {{\vec R}_{12} \over R_{12}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The perpendicular part of the force is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{PBper}
({\vec F}^{PB}_1)^\bot =&& {\vec F}_1^{PB} - \frac {{Z}^2 e^2 }
{\epsilon} \frac{\lambda_D(Z_1) \gamma_0^3}{L^3} \nonumber \\
&& \times \frac {\tan
\left(\gamma_0 (1-Z_1/L)\right)} {\cos^2
\left(\gamma_0 (1-Z_1/L)\right)} {\vec e}_z
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6cm
\epsfysize=7cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah10.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Parallel part of the effective force acting onto a macroion pair,
$F^\|_1={\vec F}^\|_1\cdot {{\vec R}_{12} / R_{12}}$, versus
reduced interparticle distance $R_{12}/d_m$. The unit of the force is $F_{0}=\left(
\frac{Z^{2} e^{2}} {\epsilon {d_{m}^{2}}}\right )\,\times 10^{-2}$. The
parameters of system are from run L and for an altitude of macroions of
$Z_1=0.6 d_m$. The solid line is the bulk DLVO theory, the
dashed line is the Poisson-Boltzmann theory (\ref{PBpar}) and the points are simulation results
in HSG\@. The statistical error corresponds
to the symbol size.}
\label{fig10allah}
\end{figure}
The space dependent Debye screening length is
\begin{equation}
\label{ldz}
\lambda_D(Z_1) = \left( 4 \pi \lambda_B \left( {Z \over q}\rho_m +
\rho_c^{PB}(Z_1)\right) \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
Here $\rho_c^{PB}(z)$ and ${\vec F}_1^{PB}$ are given by Eqns.\ (\ref{hb}) and (\ref{pbforce}).
Contrary to the bulk DLVO force, the PB force
has an additional perpendicular part for a pair of particles (second
term in (\ref{PBper})). This additional force is
attractive. Still the total perpendicular force
(\ref{PBper}) is always repulsive.
For the parameters of run L corresponding to weak coupling, simulation results
for $F^\|_1={\vec F}^\|_1 \cdot {{\vec R}_{12} / R_{12}}$ are shown in
Fig.\ref{fig10allah}.
The solid line corresponds to the bulk DLVO force, and
the dashed line is the Poisson-Boltzmann result.
The force is repulsive both in theory and simulation,
but the theories overestimate the force significantly. As expected
the Poisson-Boltzmann approach yields better agreement than DLVO bulk theory.
Results for $F^\|_1$ for stronger coupling (runs M and N) are
displayed in Figs.\ref{fig11allah}-\ref{fig12allah}.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6cm
\epsfysize=7cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah11.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Same as Fig.\ref{fig10allah} but now for run M and $F_{0}=\left(
\frac{Z^{2} e^{2}} {\epsilon {d_{m}^{2}}}\right )\,\times 10^{-3}$.
Simulation results are shown for three different surface charges:
squares: $\sigma_p = 0 {e \over cm^{2}}$, triangles: $\sigma_p =
2.98\times10^{11} {e \over cm^{2}}$, circles: $\sigma_p = 5.95\times10^{11}
{e \over cm^{2}}$. The lines are a guide to the eye.}
\label{fig11allah}
\end{figure}
For a neutral wall, the
interaction force between macroions is already attractive.
With increasing surface charge the attraction
between macroions becomes stronger. Clearly this attraction is neither contained
in DLVO theory nor in the Poisson-Boltzmann approach (\ref{PBpar}).
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6cm
\epsfysize=7cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah12.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Same as Fig.\ref{fig11allah} but now for run N and for
$Z_1 =0.7\, d_m$. Results are shown for three different surface charges:
squares: $\sigma_p = 0 {e \over cm^{2}}$, triangles: $\sigma_p =
1.19\times10^{14} {e \over cm^{2}}$, circles: $\sigma_p = 2.38\times10^{14}
{e \over cm^{2}}$.}
\label{fig12allah}
\end{figure}
In Fig.\ref{fig13allah} we fixed the macroion distance and calculated $F^\|_1$
and the force perpendicular to the plates,
$F^\bot_1={\vec F}^\bot_1 \cdot {\vec e}_z$ versus altitude $Z_1$ for
run N.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6cm
\epsfysize=7cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah13.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Parallel $F^\|_1={\vec F}^\|_1\cdot {{\vec R}_{12} /
R_{12}}$ ( squares) and perpendicular
$F^\bot_1={\vec F}^\bot_1\cdot {\vec e}_z$ (circles) parts of effective force versus reduced altitude $Z_1/d_m$
for fixed interparticle spacing $R_{12}=1.2\,d_m$. The unit of the
force $F^\|_1$ is $F_{0}=\left(
\frac{Z^{2} e^{2}} {\epsilon {d_{m}^{2}}}\right )\,\times 10^{-3}$,
and for the force $F^\bot_1$ is $F_{0}^*=\left(
\frac{Z^{2} e^{2}} {\epsilon {d_{m}^{2}}}\right )\,\times 10^{-2}$. The surface charge
density is $\sigma_p = 2.38\times10^{14} {e \over cm^{2}}$. The inset shows the effective potential in units of
$k_BT$ versus
reduced macro-ion distance $Z_1/d_m$. }
\label{fig13allah}
\end{figure}
There is attraction. Both the interparticle attraction and the
wall-particle attraction become stronger
in the vicinity of the plate. The effective wall-particle
interaction potential for the perpendicular part
is shown as an inset in Fig.\ref{fig13allah}. Note
that the minimum of $V_{eff}$ is much more than twice as large as in
the single macroion case (compare to inset in
Fig.\ref{fig7allah}, solid line). Thus, a pair of macroions near a
planar surface is more stable than a single macroion. This is also
evident from the results for run N shown
in Fig.\ref{fig14allah}.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6cm
\epsfysize=7cm
~\hfill\epsfbox{allah14.ps}\hfill~
\caption{Perpendicular part of the effective force acting onto a macroion pair,
$F^\bot_1={\vec F}^\bot_1\cdot {\vec e}_z$ in units of $F_{0}=\left(
\frac{Z^{2} e^{2}} {\epsilon {d_{m}^{2}}}\right )\,\times 10^{-3}$ versus
dimensionless interparticle distance $R_{12}/d_m$. The
parameters of system are from run N and the altitude of macroions is
fixed to $Z_1=0.7\, d_m$. Simulation results are shown for two different surface charges:
squares: $\sigma_p =
1.19\times10^{14} {e \over cm^{2}}$, circles: $\sigma_p = 2.38\times10^{14}
{e \over cm^{2}}$.}
\label{fig14allah}
\end{figure}
Again there is attraction towards the plate
for varied $R_{12}$ and fixed $Z_1$.
The attraction
becomes stronger if the interparticle distance is decreasing. This shows that the attraction
between the wall and a single macroion discussed in chapter V is stable and even enhanced
if more macroions are close to the wall. This leads us to the final conclusion that
the macroions will assemble on top of the surface forming two-dimensional colloidal
layers.
\section{Conclusions}
We have simulated the effective force between macroions
confined in a slit-geometry. An effective attraction was found for
strong Coulomb coupling. In particular, the effective potential of a single macroion confined
between two parallel charged plates was found to have two stable minima
where the total force vanishes: the first is in the mid-plane, the second close
to the walls. This result was confirmed for two macroions. In this
case the attraction
towards the walls was even stronger than for a single macroion.
Our most important conclusion is that the attractive force will result
in two-dimensional colloidal layers on top of the plates. As the depth
of the attractive potential is larger than $k_B T$, these layers
possess a large life-time with respect to thermal fluctuations. The layers
should be crystalline as the interparticle interaction is also attractive.
This can explain at least qualitatively the long-lived metastable
crystalline layers found in recent experiments on confined samples
of charge colloidal suspensions \cite{Larsen_crystallites,larsen}.
We want to add some remarks: First, our parameters are actually
different form those describing the experiments. The main difference is the
high surface charge of the glass plates within an area spanned by a typical macroion separation
distance. Such a system cannot be simulated since it
requires a huge number of counterions in the simulation box. We have mimicked the high
surface charge by dealing with a small dielectric constant, but strictly speaking
this corresponds to a different system. Second, the mechanism of our attraction is similar
to that proposed recently by us in the bulk case \cite{allah}. It only occurs for strong coupling
with divalent counterions and is short-ranged. In this respect, it behaves different than in
experiment where the attraction was long-ranged. We emphazise again that the depletion force
is crucial in the strong coupling parameter regime.
Third, our computer simulation data were tested
against simple DLVO- or Poisson-Boltzmann-type theories.
It would be interesting to use them as benchmark data for more sophisticated theoretical
approaches which predict attraction as e.g.\ the density functional perturbation theory
recently proposed by Goulding and Hansen \cite{dave23}.
Finally, in our simulations, we neglected any impurity or added salt ions. Their inclusion
increases substantially the number of microscopic particles and would
lead to more extensive simulation. A further challenge would be to incorporate image charges properly into the model which requires a non-trivial extension of our approach.
\acknowledgments
We thank D. Goulding, J. P. Hansen, C. N. Likos for helpful comments. Financial
support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within (SFB 237 and Schwerpunkt
Benetzung und Strukturbildung an Grenzfl{\"a}chen)
is gratefully acknowledged. We also thank the IFF at the Forschungszentrum
J{\"u}lich for providing CPU time.
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the least expected achievements of the Infra-Red Astronomical Satellite
(IRAS; Neugebauer et al.\ 1984) was the detection of a large number of mid-IR
point sources in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) just above its limits of
sensitivity (IRAS Point Source Catalogue; Schwering \& Israel 1990). Many of
these are candidates for intermediate-mass stars at the tip of the Asymptotic
Giant Branch (AGB). Their lives drawing to a close, these stars are shedding
their stellar mantles at rates of up to $10^{-4}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$. Their
dusty circumstellar envelopes (CSEs) obscure the optical light from the star
and become very bright IR objects. The details of the evolution and mass loss
of AGB stars are poorly understood. The study of galactic samples of AGB stars
is severely hampered by the difficulty to determine accurate distances to
stars in the Milky Way. The distance to the LMC, however, is well known and
hence luminosities and mass-loss rates of AGB stars in the LMC may be
determined with a high degree of accuracy.
Early explorations of the IRAS data in combination with ground-based near-IR
observations resulted in the first identifications of mid-IR sources in the
LMC with obscured AGB stars (Reid et al.\ 1990; Wood et al.\ 1992). We have
successfully increased the sample of known AGB counterparts of IRAS sources in
the LMC from a dozen to more than 50 stars (Loup et al.\ 1997; Zijlstra et
al.\ 1996; van Loon et al.\ 1997, 1998a: Papers I to IV). We attempted to
classify their photospheres and CSEs as oxygen- or carbon-dominated, but for
the majority of the stars this could not be done conclusively. There remained
therefore considerable uncertainty about the luminosity distribution of the
obscured carbon stars. This information is important for testing current
understanding of the evolution of AGB stars, including dredge-up of carbon and
nuclear burning at the bottom of the convective mantle (Hot Bottom Burning,
HBB).
\begin{table*}
\caption[]{IRAS detected stars observed with ISO: names (LI stands for LI-LMC
(Schwering \& Israel 1990), TRM is from Reid et al.\ (1990), HV is from
Payne-Gaposchkin (1971), SP is from Sanduleak \& Philip (1977) and WOH is from
Westerlund et al.\ (1981); sources will be referenced hereafter by their
bold-faced names), ISO pointing coordinates (J2000), and references:
1: Hodge \& Wright (1969);
2: Eggen (1971);
3: Wright \& Hodge (1971);
4: Dachs (1972);
5: Sandage \& Tammann (1974);
6: Glass (1979);
7: Humphreys (1979);
8: Blanco et al.\ (1980);
9: Feast et al.\ (1980);
10: Bessell \& Wood (1983);
11: Wood et al.\ (1983);
12: Rebeirot et al.\ (1983);
13: Prevot et al.\ (1985);
14: Elias et al.\ (1985);
15: Wood et al.\ (1985);
16: Elias et al.\ (1986);
17: Wood et al.\ (1986);
18: Reid et al.\ (1988);
19: Reid (1989);
20: Hughes (1989);
21: Hughes \& Wood (1990);
22: Reid et al.\ (1990);
23: Hughes et al.\ (1991);
24: Wood et al.\ (1992);
25: Roche et al.\ (1993);
26: Groenewegen et al.\ (1995);
27: Zijlstra et al.\ (1996);
28: Ritossa et al.\ (1996);
29: van Loon et al.\ (1996);
30: van Loon et al.\ (1997);
31: Loup et al.\ (1997);
32: Oestreicher (1997);
33: van Loon et al.\ (1998a);
34: Groenewegen \& Blommaert (1998);
35: van Loon et al.\ (1998b);
36: van Loon et al.\ (1999)}
\begin{flushleft}
\begin{tabular}{llllllll}
\hline\hline
LI & IRAS & TRM & HV &
RA (2000) & Decl (2000) &
Other names & References \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{{\em IRAS detected stars}} \\
\hline
1825 & {\bf 04286$-$6937} & -- & -- &
04 28 30.3 & $-$69 30 49 &
-- & 27,31,33 \\
1844 & {\bf 04374$-$6831} & -- & -- &
04 37 22.8 & $-$68 25 03 &
-- & 27,31,33 \\
4 & {\bf 04407$-$7000} & -- & -- &
04 40 28.4 & $-$69 55 13 &
-- & 27,31,33 \\
57 & {\bf 04496$-$6958} & -- & -- &
04 49 18.6 & $-$69 53 14 &
-- & 27,31,33,34,36 \\
60 & {\bf 04498$-$6842} & -- & -- &
04 49 41.4 & $-$68 37 50 &
-- & 27,31,33,36 \\
77 & {\bf 04509$-$6922} & -- & -- &
04 50 40.2 & $-$69 17 33 &
-- & 24,27,28,33,36 \\
92 & {\bf 04516$-$6902} & -- & -- &
04 51 28.4 & $-$68 57 53 &
-- & 24,27,33 \\
121 & {\bf 04530$-$6916} & -- & -- &
04 52 45.3 & $-$69 11 53 &
-- & 24,27,28 \\
141 & {\bf 04539$-$6821} & -- & -- &
04 53 46.3 & $-$68 16 12 &
-- & 27,31,33 \\
153 & 04544$-$6849 & -- & -- &
04 54 14.4 & $-$68 44 13 &
{\bf SP77 30-6}, WOH SG66 & 12,13,20,21,27,31 \\
159 & {\bf 04545$-$7000} & -- & -- &
04 54 09.8 & $-$69 56 00 &
-- & 24,27 \\
181 & 04553$-$6825 & -- & -- &
04 55 10.1 & $-$68 20 35 &
{\bf WOH G64} & 16,17,19,24,25,27,29,31,33,35,36 \\
198 & {\bf 04557$-$6753} & -- & -- &
04 55 38.9 & $-$67 49 10 &
-- & 27,31,33 \\
203 & 04559$-$6931 & -- & {\bf 12501} &
04 55 41.6 & $-$69 26 25 &
SP77 31-20, WOH SG097 & 11,12,13,20,22,27,32,33 \\
297 & {\bf 05003$-$6712} & -- & -- &
05 00 18.9 & $-$67 08 02 &
-- & 27,30,31,33,36 \\
310 & {\bf 05009$-$6616} & -- & -- &
05 01 03.8 & $-$66 12 40 &
-- & 27,31,33,36 \\
383 & 05042$-$6720 & 48 & {\bf 888} &
05 04 14.3 & $-$67 16 17 &
SP77 29-33, WOH SG140 & 5,6,7,11,14,18,22,31,32 \\
570 & {\bf 05112$-$6755} & 4 & -- &
05 11 10.1 & $-$67 52 17 &
-- & 22,27,31,33,36 \\
571 & {\bf 05113$-$6739} & 24 & -- &
05 11 13.7 & $-$67 36 35 &
-- & 22,27,31,33 \\
578 & -- & {\bf 72} & -- &
05 11 41.2 & $-$66 51 12 &
-- & 22,27,31,33 \\
612 & 05128$-$6728 & 43 & {\bf 2360} &
05 12 46.4 & $-$67 19 37 &
SP77 37-24, WOH SG193 & 3,5,6,7,11,14,18,22,31 \\
1880 & {\bf 05128$-$6455} & -- & -- &
05 13 04.6 & $-$64 51 40 &
-- & 27,31,33,36 \\
663 & 05148$-$6730 & 36 & {\bf 916} &
05 14 49.9 & $-$67 27 19 &
SP77 37-35, WOH SG204 & 1,2,4,6,7,11,18,22,31,32 \\
793 & {\bf 05190$-$6748} & 20 & -- &
05 18 56.7 & $-$67 45 06 &
-- & 22,27,31,33 \\
-- & -- & {\bf 88} & -- &
05 20 20.9 & $-$66 36 00 &
-- & 22,27,31,33,34,36 \\
-- & -- & {\bf 45} & -- &
05 28 16.3 & $-$67 20 55 &
-- & 22,27,31,33 \\
1157 & {\bf 05295$-$7121} & -- & -- &
05 28 40.8 & $-$71 19 13 &
-- & 27,31 \\
1130 & {\bf 05289$-$6617} & 99 & -- &
05 29 02.6 & $-$66 15 31 &
-- & 22,27,31 \\
1145 & -- & -- & {\bf 5870} &
05 29 03.5 & $-$69 06 47 &
SP77 47-17, WOH SG331 & 9,11,20,31 \\
1153 & {\bf 05294$-$7104} & -- & -- &
05 28 47.8 & $-$71 02 29 &
-- & 24,27,31 \\
1164 & {\bf 05298$-$6957} & -- & -- &
05 29 24.5 & $-$69 55 14 &
-- & 24,27,31,36 \\
1177 & {\bf 05300$-$6651} & 79 & -- &
05 30 04.2 & $-$66 49 23 &
-- & 22,27,31,36 \\
1238 & 05316$-$6604 & 101 & -- &
05 31 45.9 & $-$66 03 51 &
{\bf WOH SG374} & 22,27,31 \\
1281 & 05327$-$6757 & 5 & {\bf 996} &
05 32 36.0 & $-$67 55 08 &
SP77 46-59, WOH SG388 & 7,11,17,18,22,31 \\
1286 & {\bf 05329$-$6708} & 60 & -- &
05 32 52.5 & $-$67 06 25 &
-- & 17,22,24,26,27,31,33,36 \\
1345 & {\bf 05348$-$7024} & -- & -- &
05 34 16.1 & $-$70 22 53 &
-- & 27,31,33 \\
1382 & {\bf 05360$-$6648} & 77 & -- &
05 36 03.3 & $-$66 46 47 &
-- & 22,27,31,33 \\
1506 & {\bf 05402$-$6956} & -- & -- &
05 39 44.6 & $-$69 55 18 &
-- & 24,27 \\
1756 & {\bf 05506$-$7053} & -- & -- &
05 50 09.1 & $-$70 53 12 &
-- & 27,31,33 \\
1790 & {\bf 05558$-$7000} & -- & -- &
05 55 20.8 & $-$70 00 05 &
-- & 27,31 \\
1795 & {\bf 05568$-$6753} & -- & -- &
05 56 38.7 & $-$67 53 39 &
-- & 27,31 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{flushleft}
\normalsize
\end{table*}
57 obscured AGB stars and a few red supergiants (RSGs) in the LMC were
selected for Guaranteed Time and follow-up Open Time observations with the
Infrared Space Observatory (ISO; Kessler et al.\ 1996). The goals were to
obtain photometry at 12, 25 and 60 $\mu$m and to spectroscopically determine
the chemical types of the CSEs. The photometry, which covers the entire
spectral energy distributions (SEDs), can be modelled and used to derive
accurate luminosities and mass-loss rates. In this paper we present the ISO
data and classify sources as oxygen- or carbon-rich.
\section{Source selection}
\begin{table*}
\caption[]{The list of program stars without IRAS counterpart. The references
are as in Table 1. SHV is from Hughes (1989), BMB is from Blanco et al.\
(1980), WBP is from Wood et al.\ (1985) and GRV is from Reid et al.\ (1988).}
\begin{flushleft}
\begin{tabular}{llllllll}
\hline\hline
LI & IRAS & TRM & HV &
RA (2000) & Decl (2000) &
Other names & References \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{{\em non-IRAS sources classified as C stars}} \\
\hline
-- & -- & -- & -- &
04 53 59.7 & $-$67 45 47 &
{\bf SHV0454030$-$675031} & 20,21 \\
-- & -- & -- & -- &
05 02 28.7 & $-$69 20 10 &
{\bf SHV0502469$-$692418} & 20,21,23 \\
-- & -- & -- & {\bf 2379} &
05 14 46.3 & $-$67 55 47 &
-- & 3,10,11,20 \\
-- & -- & -- & -- &
05 20 46.8 & $-$69 01 25 &
{\bf SHV0521050$-$690415}, BCB-R046 & 8,20,21,23 \\
-- & -- & -- & -- &
05 25 30.6 & $-$70 09 13 &
{\bf SHV0526001$-$701142} & 20,21 \\
-- & -- & -- & -- &
05 26 17.4 & $-$69 08 07 &
{\bf WBP14} & 15 \\
-- & -- & -- & -- &
05 35 11.4 & $-$70 22 46 &
{\bf SHV0535442$-$702433} & 20,21 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{{\em non-IRAS sources classified as M or S stars}} \\
\hline
-- & -- & -- & {\bf 2446} &
05 20 01.5 & $-$67 34 43 &
WOH G274, GRV0520$-$6737 & 11,18 \\
-- & -- & -- & -- &
05 21 33.1 & $-$70 09 56 &
{\bf SHV0522023$-$701242} & 20,21 \\
-- & -- & -- & -- &
05 21 40.5 & $-$70 22 31 &
{\bf SHV0522118$-$702517} & 20,21 \\
-- & -- & -- & -- &
05 24 31.3 & $-$69 43 25 &
{\bf SHV0524565$-$694559} & 20,21 \\
-- & -- & -- & -- &
05 30 00.3 & $-$70 20 06 &
{\bf SHV0530323$-$702216} & 20,21,23 \\
-- & -- & -- & {\bf 12070} &
05 52 27.8 & $-$69 14 12 &
WOH SG515 & 9,11 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{{\em non-IRAS sources without spectral classification}} \\
\hline
-- & -- & -- & -- &
05 00 11.2 & $-$68 12 48 &
{\bf SHV0500193$-$681706} & 20,21 \\
-- & -- & -- & -- &
05 00 13.5 & $-$68 24 56 &
{\bf SHV0500233$-$682914} & 20,21 \\
-- & -- & -- & -- &
05 19 41.8 & $-$66 57 50 &
{\bf GRV0519$-$6700} & 18 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{flushleft}
\normalsize
\end{table*}
The sources observed with ISO were selected from the lists presented in Paper
I, where all IRAS candidate AGB stars in the MCs are listed. We selected 30
infrared AGB stars or RSGs without optical counterparts from their Table 2.
These objects should represent the brightest, most obscured AGB stars. Four
objects from this table were excluded because of their red IRAS colours
($S_{25}/S_{12}\gsim2.5$): LI-LMC528, 861, 1137 and 1341. We also selected 8
sources from the optically known M and C stars with IRAS counterparts in Table
1 of Paper I. These include well known Harvard Variables as well as the
optically thick source IRAS04553$-$6825 (LI-LMC181, WOH G64; Elias et al.\
1986; Wood et al.\ 1986). Two unidentified IRAS sources from Table 4 of Paper
I have been included in the present sample. LI-LMC203 is near an M1.5 star
(HV12501), but there is also an A3 Iab supergiant (Sk$-69$-39a) close to the
IRAS position. For LI-LMC1795 we found a bright R-band counterpart (Paper II).
Finally one source from Table 7 of Paper I was included (LI-LMC1130). Although
listed in Paper I as a foreground star, it was included here in an attempt to
establish whether this is true. For these last three stars the higher spatial
resolution ISO observations at 12 $\mu$m allow a better identification of the
source with one of the possible counterparts found near the IRAS position. The
41 IRAS sources included in this study are listed in Table 1, with the most
common names for these objects, their coordinates (J2000) and some references.
The coordinates for the pointings of the ISO observations were taken from the
SIMBAD astronomical database in 1994.
The selection of IRAS detected AGB stars gives a sample that is severely
biased towards very luminous stars (including supergiants). We therefore also
included 16 non-IRAS stars. These were mostly taken from Wood et al.\ (1983,
1985), Reid et al.\ (1990) and Hughes (1989). Seven of these objects are
classified as C stars from optical spectra or near-IR colours. Six objects are
classified as M or S stars and for three objects no classification is
available. This group of non-IRAS sources also includes the RCB-like variable
HV2379 (Bessell \& Wood 1983). These sources are listed in Table 2.
\section{IRAS data}
\begin{table}
\caption[]{Revised IRAS 12, 25, 60 and 100 $\mu$m photometry (in Jy),
accompanied by a colon if questionable.}
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\hline\hline
Star &
$F_{12}$ &
$F_{25}$ &
$F_{60}$ &
$F_{100}$ \\
\hline
GRV0519$-$6700 &
\llap{$<$}0.06 &
\llap{$<$}0.02 &
\llap{$<$}0.1 &
\\
HV12070 &
0.06 &
0.03 &
0.1\rlap{:} &
\\
HV12501 &
0.23 &
0.06 &
\llap{$<$}1.0 &
\\
HV2360 &
0.38 &
0.35 &
0.4\rlap{:} &
\\
HV2379 &
0.05 &
0.02 &
\llap{$<$}0.8 &
\\
HV2446 &
0.05 &
0.02 &
\llap{$<$}0.2 &
\\
HV5870 &
0.30 &
0.17 &
\llap{$<$}5.0 &
\\
HV888 &
0.58 &
0.29 &
\llap{$<$}4.0 &
\\
HV916 &
0.44 &
0.23 &
\llap{$<$}2.0 &
\\
HV996 &
0.71 &
0.53 &
\llap{$<$}0.5 &
\\
IRAS04286$-$6937 &
0.28 &
0.20 &
\llap{$<$}0.1 &
\\
IRAS04374$-$6831 &
0.24 &
0.12 &
0.1\rlap{:} &
\\
IRAS04407$-$7000 &
0.76 &
0.76 &
0.1 &
\\
IRAS04496$-$6958 &
0.31 &
0.19 &
0.1 &
\\
IRAS04498$-$6842 &
1.33 &
0.89 &
\llap{$<$}0.2 &
\\
IRAS04509$-$6922 &
0.89 &
0.86 &
\llap{$<$}2.0 &
\\
IRAS04516$-$6902 &
0.86 &
0.55 &
0.4\rlap{:} &
\\
IRAS04530$-$6916 &
2.07 &
5.09 &
\llap{2}2.0 &
\llap{2}8.0 \\
IRAS04539$-$6821 &
0.22 &
0.12 &
0.1\rlap{:} &
\\
IRAS04545$-$7000 &
0.46 &
0.83 &
\llap{$<$}0.5 &
\\
IRAS04557$-$6753 &
0.24 &
0.14 &
\llap{$<$}0.3 &
\\
IRAS05003$-$6712 &
0.43 &
0.33 &
0.1\rlap{:} &
\\
IRAS05009$-$6616 &
0.28 &
0.14 &
\llap{$<$}0.4 &
\\
IRAS05112$-$6755 &
0.46 &
0.33 &
0.7\rlap{:} &
\\
IRAS05113$-$6739 &
0.25 &
0.14 &
0.1\rlap{:} &
\\
IRAS05128$-$6455 &
0.23 &
0.24 &
0.1 &
\\
IRAS05190$-$6748 &
0.39 &
0.25 &
0.1\rlap{:} &
\\
IRAS05289$-$6617 &
0.16 &
0.39 &
0.3 &
\\
IRAS05294$-$7104 &
0.69 &
0.56 &
\llap{$<$}3.0 &
\\
IRAS05295$-$7121 &
0.23 &
0.08 &
\llap{$<$}0.3 &
\\
IRAS05298$-$6957 &
0.85 &
1.38 &
\llap{$<$}3.0 &
\\
IRAS05300$-$6651 &
0.28 &
0.17 &
0.1\rlap{:} &
\\
IRAS05329$-$6708 &
0.74 &
1.23 &
0.2\rlap{:} &
\\
IRAS05348$-$7024 &
0.58 &
0.16 &
\llap{$<$}1.0 &
\\
IRAS05360$-$6648 &
0.21 &
0.09 &
0.3\rlap{:} &
\\
IRAS05402$-$6956 &
0.71 &
1.02 &
\llap{$<$}2.0 &
\\
IRAS05506$-$7053 &
0.28 &
0.16 &
\llap{$<$}0.2 &
\\
IRAS05558$-$7000 &
0.85 &
0.80 &
0.2\rlap{:} &
\\
IRAS05568$-$6753 &
0.35 &
0.43 &
0.2 &
\\
SHV0454030$-$675031 &
\llap{$<$}0.03 &
\llap{$<$}0.03 &
\llap{$<$}0.2 &
\\
SHV0500193$-$681706 &
0.11\rlap{:} &
0.07 &
\llap{$<$}0.3 &
\\
SHV0500233$-$682914 &
0.10\rlap{:} &
0.03 &
\llap{$<$}1.5 &
\\
SHV0502469$-$692418 &
0.02\rlap{:} &
\llap{$<$}0.03 &
\llap{$<$}0.1 &
\\
SHV0521050$-$690415 &
0.06\rlap{:} &
0.02\rlap{:} &
\llap{$<$}0.7 &
\\
SHV0522023$-$701242 &
\llap{$<$}0.10 &
\llap{$<$}0.04 &
0.4\rlap{:} &
\\
SHV0522118$-$702517 &
0.06\rlap{:} &
0.05 &
\llap{$<$}2.2 &
\\
SHV0524565$-$694559 &
\llap{$<$}0.14 &
\llap{$<$}0.07 &
\llap{$<$}1.0 &
\\
SHV0526001$-$701142 &
0.07\rlap{:} &
0.01\rlap{:} &
0.1\rlap{:} &
\\
SHV0530323$-$702216 &
\llap{$<$}0.04 &
\llap{$<$}0.04 &
0.4 &
\\
SHV0535442$-$702433 &
0.01\rlap{:} &
0.07\rlap{:} &
\llap{$<$}1.0 &
\\
SP77 30$-$6 &
0.26 &
0.13 &
0.1\rlap{:} &
\\
TRM45 &
0.07 &
0.07 &
\llap{$<$}2.0 &
\\
TRM72 &
0.22 &
0.06 &
\llap{$<$}0.3 &
\\
TRM88 &
0.17 &
0.04 &
\llap{$<$}0.7 &
\\
WBP14 &
0.01\rlap{:} &
\llap{$<$}0.03 &
\llap{$<$}4.0 &
\\
WOH G64 &
8.45 &
\llap{1}3.53 &
2.2 &
\\
WOH SG374 &
0.37 &
0.38 &
0.2\rlap{:} &
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Here the IRAS data are discussed, for later comparison with the ISO
photometry. Data at 12, 25, 60 and 100 $\mu$m was retrieved from the IRAS data
base server in Groningen\footnote{The IRAS data base server of the Space
Research Organisation of the Netherlands (SRON) and the Dutch Expertise Centre
for Astronomical Data Processing is funded by the Netherlands Organisation for
Scientific Research (NWO). The IRAS data base server project was also partly
funded through the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, grants
AFOSR 86-0140 and AFOSR 89-0320.} (Assendorp et al.\ 1995). The Groningen
Gipsy data analysis software was used to measure the flux density from a trace
through the position of the star (Gipsy command SCANAID). For the 60 and 100
$\mu$m data, $2\times2$ square degree maps were created with $0.5^\prime$
pixels to find point sources coincident with the positions of the stars. The
12 and 25 $\mu$m flux densities have a 1-$\sigma$ error of a few per cent,
with a minimum error of $\sim0.01$ Jy. The 60 and 100 $\mu$m flux densities
are much less certain, and it is also more difficult to assess reliable error
estimates: 10\% would be a typical error. The faintest 60 $\mu$m sources that
IRAS detected were assigned $F_{60}=0.1$ Jy. Only one source was well detected
at 100 $\mu$m. The flux densities are listed in Table 3. When it is not
certain that the measured flux density is physically related to the star of
interest it is marked with a colon.
All of our sources that are in the IRAS-PSC, plus HV5870 (=LI-LMC1145) and
TRM72 (=LI-LMC578) that are in Schwering \& Israel (1990), were recovered with
good flux density determinations at 12 $\mu$m. Reliable 12 $\mu$m flux
densities could also be determined for IRAS05128$-$6455 and 05289$-$6617,
below their upper limits as listed in the PSC. Neither in the PSC, nor in
Schwering \& Israel (1990), are HV12070, HV2379, HV2446, TRM45, and TRM88
secure detections. Detection is not certain for WBP14 and the SHV sources for
which flux density estimates are listed. The 12 $\mu$m flux densities of the
GRV source and four SHV sources are upper limits. IRAS05506$-$7053 looks
extended or multiple.
At 25 $\mu$m detections seem a little more reliable than at 12 $\mu$m, at a
given flux density. Rather surprisingly, the detection limit at 25 $\mu$m is
at least as faint as at 12 $\mu$m; sources with $F_{25}\sim0.02$ Jy could be
found (see also Reid et al.\ 1990). This is, however, only possible because
the positions of the stars are known. For SP77 30$-$6 and all eight (other)
IRAS sources the PSC lists only upper limits of $F_{25}<0.25$ Jy.
SHV0502469$-$692418 and WBP14 were the only sources that were (tentatively)
detected at 12 $\mu$m but not at 25 $\mu$m. Their flux densities are probably
below the limit of detection, $F_{25}<0.01$ Jy, if their colours are rather
blue.
At 60 $\mu$m, IRAS05298$-$6957 is a bright, small but extended source about
$10^\prime$ in diameter, with $F_{60}\sim2$ Jy. No point source could be
distinguished on top of this emission, that is probably associated with the
small cluster of which IRAS05298$-$6957 is a member (Paper IV). Flux densities
are listed for two dozen sources, but it is not sure how many among these are
real detections and how many are spurious. The only 60 $\mu$m detections in
the PSC are IRAS04516$-$6902 ($0.80\pm0.19$ Jy), 04530$-$6916 ($20.51\pm1.85$
Jy) and 05112$-$6755 ($0.91\pm0.11$ Jy), all consistent with our estimates.
More stringent upper limits are put on the 60 $\mu$m flux densities of the
other sources.
At 100 $\mu$m sources may be detected as faint as a few Jy. The only
detection, however, is the brightest far-IR source in our sample,
IRAS04530$-$6916, which we measured at $F_{100}=28$ Jy. This is consistent
with the PSC upper limit of 46.17 Jy.
The new flux density estimates can be compared with the literature values from
the PSC or Schwering \& Israel (1990) (Fig.\ 1). On average, the new flux
densities are only a few per cent fainter than the values from the literature.
Flux densities $F_{25}\lsim0.2$ Jy may have been over-estimated in the past.
HV12501 with $F_{\rm rev}$/$F_{\rm lit}=0.56$ and 0.32 at 12 and 25 $\mu$m,
respectively, and IRAS05506$-$7053 with $F_{\rm rev}$/$F_{\rm lit}=0.67$ and
0.42 at 12 and 25 $\mu$m, respectively, are the most extreme examples of this.
Schwering \& Israel (1990) over-estimated the 25 $\mu$m flux density of TRM72
($F_{\rm rev}$/$F_{\rm lit}=0.55$), but under-estimated the 12 $\mu$m flux
density of HV5870 ($F_{\rm rev}$/$F_{\rm lit}=2.00$). The other two flux
densities which are obviously under-estimated are for SP77 30$-$6 at 12 $\mu$m
($F_{\rm rev}$/$F_{\rm lit}=1.53$) and IRAS04286$-$6937 at 25 $\mu$m ($F_{\rm
rev}$/$F_{\rm lit}=1.67$).
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=h1374.f1,width=88mm,height=45mm}}
\caption[]{A comparison of the estimates of IRAS flux densities given here and
values from the IRAS Point Source Catalogue and Schwering \& Israel (1990), at
12 (solid symbols) and 25 $\mu$m (open symbols).}
\end{figure}
IRAS counterparts not listed in IRAS-based catalogues may still be found in
the original IRAS data. This is because manual extraction and measuring of the
data is a more sophisticated technique than the automatic techniques that
created the existing catalogues. In particular, manual flux-density
determination enables the background flux levels to be estimated and
subtracted better, yielding more reliable photometry. The only sources from
our ISO sample that could not be detected in the IRAS data at either 12, 25 or
60 $\mu$m are GRV0519$-$6700, SHV0454030$-$675031 and SHV0524565$-$694559.
\section{ISO observations}
The programme stars were observed with ISO at 12, 25 and 60 $\mu$m (chopped
measurements) and with PHOT-S as part of a Guaranteed Time programme under
proposals NTMCAGB1 and NTMCAGB2, and at 60 $\mu$m with mapping mode and
CAM-CVF as part of an Open Time programme under proposal LMCSPECT.
The 12 $\mu$m photometry was mostly obtained using the ISOCAM instrument
(Cesarsky et al.\ 1996) in staring mode with a $3^{\prime\prime}$ pixel field
of view in beam LW-s and using the LW10 filter ($\sim$ IRAS 12 $\mu$m). We did
25 exposures of each 2.1 s duration, after a number of read-outs to stabilise
the detector (ranging from 10 to 34 frames depending on the expected source
flux density). The gain was 2 in most cases, but 1 in the case of sources that
were expected to be relatively bright: HV12501 and 996, IRAS04496$-$6958,
04545$-$7000, 05003$-$6712, 05112$-$6755, 05348$-$7024 and 05568$-$6753, and
WOH SG374. For most stars this resulted in a clear detection with S/N ratios
of 10 to 100. In total 44 sources were observed with ISOCAM at 12 $\mu$m.
For sources that were expected to be stronger than 0.5 Jy and which would
therefore saturate the ISOCAM detectors with the LW10 filter, the 12 $\mu$m
photometry was obtained with the ISOPHOT instrument (Lemke et al.\ 1996) using
the 11.5 filter ($\sim$ IRAS 12 $\mu$m). These observations were done using
triangular chopping with a chopper throw of $90^{\prime\prime}$. The aperture
used for the observations was $52^{\prime\prime}$ in diameter. Integration
times were 32 s on-source (and the same off-source), except for
IRAS05294$-$7104 that we integrated 64 s. A total of 13 sources were observed
in this mode. For 53 sources we obtained PHOT-P photometry at 25 $\mu$m using
the 25 filter ($\sim$ IRAS 25 $\mu$m), triangular chopping with a chopper
throw of $90^{\prime\prime}$, and an aperture of $52^{\prime\prime}$.
Integration times ranged from 32 to 256 s, depending on the expected flux
density. In our Guaranteed Time programme we finally observed 40 objects with
ISOPHOT at 60 $\mu$m using the PHOT-C100 camera and filter 60 ($\sim$ IRAS 60
$\mu$m) and triangular chopping with a $150^{\prime\prime}$ chopper throw.
Integration times ranged from 32 to 128 s, depending on the expected flux
density. Unfortunately due to the reduced in-orbit sensitivity of the
instrument and the problems with the calibration of the chopped measurements
(especially for PHOT-C), we discovered after most observations had already
been carried out that this was not the best observing strategy for the 60
$\mu$m photometry. Therefore, 7 objects were observed again in the Open Time
using PHOT-C100 and filter 60 in raster mapping mode, with $3\times3$ rasters
and $45^{\prime\prime}$ raster steps in X and Y directions (spacecraft
coordinates). The integration time per raster point was 128 seconds.
In order to establish the carbon- or oxygen-rich nature of some of the
programme stars we also obtained IR spectra for a number of them. In the
Guaranteed Time 15 objects were observed using PHOT-S in staring mode, with
integration times of 256 or 512 s (1024 s for HV2379) depending on the
expected flux densities. The advantage of this instrument is that its spectral
coverage is rather large (2 to 12 $\mu$m) at a reasonable resolution
($\sim90$). The sensitivity of the PHOT-S instrument, however, limits the
detectability to sources with 12 $\mu$m flux densities above $\sim0.3$ Jy.
Furthermore, using staring observations the background cannot easily be
determined. In this spectral region the diffuse emission is dominated by the
zodiacal emission, which, according to IRAS measurements, amounts to about
$\sim0.1$ Jy in the PHOT-S aperture at 10 $\mu$m.
Considering this, we decided to obtain CAM-CVF spectra for 12 objects with a
pixel field-of-view of $6^{\prime\prime}$ in beam LW-l. We did 25 exposures of
2.1 s each at gain 2, after 50 read-outs to stabilise the detector. The
unprecedented sensitivity of the ISOCAM instrument allows the observer to
obtain spectra even for sources as faint as 100 mJy at 12 $\mu$m. Because of
the long duration of a CVF observation, the spectral coverage chosen was only
7 to 9.2 $\mu$m (with step 4) in LW-CVF1 and 9 to 14.1 $\mu$m (with step 2) in
LW-CVF2, at a spectral resolution of $\sim40$. A big advantage of the CAM-CVF
is that the spectra are obtained using an imaging technique. Therefore, a
background spectrum was obtained simultaneously. These background spectra can
be used to correct the PHOT-S spectra. We also obtained observations of 3
objects for which PHOT-S spectra had already been taken, in order to
cross-check the results from the different instruments.
\subsection{Near-IR photometry}
Near-IR photometry was determined for each star at the time of the ISO
observation, by interpolating near-IR lightcurves from our monitoring campaign
at the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO) at Sutherland, South
Africa (Whitelock et al., in preparation). Nearly always the lightcurve was
sampled close in time to the ISO observation, but occasionally some
extrapolation was necessary. The quoted uncertainties include an estimate, for
each star, of the error introduced by the inter/extrapolation. For TRM45 and
for the H-band magnitude of IRAS05360$-$6648 we have made use of the near-IR
lightcurves and photometry presented by Wood (1998), after transformation to
the SAAO system using Carter (1990). The near-IR photometry is listed in Table
4, along with the ISO photometry and the Julian Dates of the ISO spectroscopy.
No near-IR counterparts could be identified with IRAS05568$-$6753 and
05289$-$6617. Two stars with near-IR colours much like those of unobscured
M-type stars were monitored in the near-IR, but they show no variability.
\section{ISO results and comparison with IRAS photometry}
The data were reduced using the PHOT and CAM Interactive Analysis software
packages: PIA (Gabriel et al.\ 1997) version V7.1.2(e) and CIA (Ott et al.\
1996) version V3.0, respectively. For a general description of the data and
reduction methods see the ISOPHOT Data Users Manual (Laureijs et al.\ 1998),
and the ISOCAM Observer's Manual (1994) and ISOCAM Data Users Manual
(Siebenmorgen et al.\ 1998). Details of the steps undertaken in reducing
so-called Edited Raw Data (ERD) products to the finally derived flux densities
and spectra can be found in Appendices A (photometry) and B (spectroscopy).
The resulting ISO photometry is listed in Table 4, and the ISO spectra are
presented in Figs.\ 4 \& 5.
The flux densities at 12 and 25 $\mu$m for the stars that were detected both
by IRAS and ISO (Tables 3 \& 4) are compared in Fig.\ 2. A bright regime where
ISO and IRAS are consistent can be distinguished from a faint regime where ISO
flux densities are systematically lower than IRAS flux densities. CAM is
consistent with IRAS down to fainter levels ($\sim0.2$ Jy) than PHOT
($\sim0.6$ Jy). PHOT seems to under-estimate flux densities at levels between
0.2 and 0.6 Jy by a factor $\sim$two. Below 0.2 Jy, both CAM and PHOT yield
flux densities $\sim0.6\times$IRAS.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=h1374.f2,width=88mm,height=45mm}}
\caption[]{Comparison between ISO and our revised IRAS flux densities.}
\end{figure}
Flux density under-estimation may be caused by the difficulty of the detectors
to respond to low signals. CAM 12 $\mu$ flux densities below $\sim0.2$ Jy may
have been under-estimated as the $\kappa$-$\sigma$ method does not adequately
correct for non-stabilised signals if stabilisation is not reached well within
less than half the integration time. The 12 and 25 $\mu$m PHOT measurements,
although employing different detector materials, show exactly the same trend.
The 12 (either CAM or PHOT) and 25 $\mu$m observations were performed in the
same orbit. Default responsivities for the 12 and 25 $\mu$m PHOT measurements
were thought to be (much) lower in 1996 than in the current calibrations.
Adopting those early values, the ISOPHOT photometry would be consistent with
the IRAS photometry to a high degree. Subsequent revisions of the default
responsivities have lead to higher values, approaching the values we obtain
from the (chopped) FCS measurements. The ratio of ISO and IRAS flux densities
at 25 $\mu$m is $0.60\pm0.06$ for the 24 sources with ISO measurements before
orbit 190, and $0.68\pm0.09$ for the 21 sources measured after orbit 190.
These ratios are very similar, despite the large differences in median IRAS
flux density between these two samples: 0.41 and 0.14 Jy, respectively.
However, the discrepancy between the ISO and IRAS data may not be as great as
it appears if we take plausible selection effects into account. The stars in
our sample were largely selected on the basis of their IRAS flux density, but
many of them were only just detected by IRAS. It is therefore likely that they
were near the maximum of their pulsation cycles at the time of the IRAS
observation. In contrast, they will have been at random phases when the ISO
observations were made. This will lead to a systematic difference between
the IRAS and ISO flux densities for faint sources. A similar effect may
explain the discrepancy between the PHOT and CAM behaviour for sources with
flux densities in the range 0.2 to 0.6 Jy, as the brighter sources were
selected for measurement with PHOT and the fainter sources with CAM.
Ground-based 10 $\mu$m (N-band) magnitudes of a subset of our ISO targets were
on average $\sim30$\% fainter than measured by IRAS at 12 $\mu$m (Paper IV).
Although we explained this in terms of differences between the N-band and IRAS
12 $\mu$m filters, it may actually reflect the same discrepancy seen between
the ISO and IRAS photometry. Variability cannot be the complete explanation,
though: for instance, the sources IRAS04407$-$7000, 4516$-$6902 and
05003$-$6712 were all near the maxima in their K- and L-band lightcurves at
the time of the ISO photometry, yet their PHOT 25 $\mu$m flux densities of
0.584, 0.380, and 0.210 Jy, respectively, are still fainter than the IRAS flux
densities by factors of 0.77, 0.69, and 0.64, respectively. Interestingly,
Reid et al.\ (1990, their Figure 5) show that for $F_{12,25}\lsim0.3$ Jy both
the PSC and Schwering \& Israel (1990) over-estimate flux densities for point
sources in the LMC by typically 20 to 50\%. They attribute this to source
confusion resulting from the large beam width and crowdedness in typical LMC
fields.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\caption[]{ISO 12, 25 and 60 $\mu$m photometry (in Jy). The near-IR magnitudes
for the ISO-epochs is deduced from light curves obtained at SAAO
($JD-2,450,000={\rm orbit}+38$). Values in parentheses are 1-$\sigma$ errors.
The last column indicates when a PHOT-S or CAM-CVF spectrum was taken.}
\begin{tabular}{lllllllllllll}
\hline\hline
Star &
$JD$ &
$J [mag]$ &
$H [mag]$ &
$K [mag]$ &
$L [mag]$ &
$F_{12}$(CAM) &
$F_{12}$(PHOT) &
$F_{25}$(PHOT) &
$F_{60}$(chop) &
$F_{60}$(map) &
Spectrum \\
\hline
GRV0519$-$6700 &
318 &
\llap{1}2.63(0.03) &
\llap{1}1.36(0.02) &
\llap{1}0.67(0.02) &
&
0.004(0.001) &
&
&
&
&
\\
HV12070 &
274 &
\llap{1}0.03(0.02) &
8.98(0.02) &
8.68(0.02) &
8.24(0.03) &
0.043(0.004) &
&
\llap{$-$}0.023(0.003) &
&
&
\\
&
787 &
\llap{1}0.30(0.10) &
9.20(0.10) &
8.80(0.10) &
8.30(0.10) &
&
&
&
&
&
CAM-CVF \\
HV12501 &
754 &
8.80(0.05) &
8.00(0.05) &
7.75(0.05) &
7.30(0.05) &
0.185(0.005) &
&
0.067(0.018) &
0.260(0.108) &
&
\\
HV2360 &
754 &
9.00(0.05) &
8.15(0.05) &
7.75(0.05) &
7.20(0.05) &
0.331(0.003) &
&
0.138(0.019) &
0.207(0.042) &
&
\\
HV2379 &
288 &
\llap{1}2.68(0.03) &
\llap{1}2.05(0.04) &
\llap{1}1.40(0.04) &
9.70(0.10) &
0.038(0.002) &
&
&
\llap{$-$}0.027(0.048) &
&
PHOT-S \\
&
626 &
&
\llap{1}3.20(0.40) &
\llap{1}1.90(0.20) &
&
0.035(0.001) &
&
&
&
&
\\
&
729 &
&
\llap{1}3.20(0.40) &
\llap{1}1.90(0.20) &
&
0.032(0.001) &
&
0.014(0.005) &
&
&
CAM-CVF \\
HV2446 &
288 &
\llap{1}0.25(0.02) &
9.23(0.02) &
8.80(0.02) &
8.35(0.04) &
0.066(0.001) &
&
0.043(0.005) &
0.109(0.056) &
&
\\
&
622 &
\llap{1}0.60(0.10) &
9.60(0.10) &
9.10(0.10) &
8.35(0.05) &
&
&
&
&
0.361(0.135) &
\\
&
754 &
\llap{1}0.10(0.02) &
9.04(0.02) &
8.67(0.02) &
8.06(0.02) &
&
&
&
&
&
CAM-CVF \\
HV5870 &
754 &
9.34(0.02) &
8.40(0.02) &
8.10(0.02) &
7.60(0.04) &
0.269(0.002) &
&
0.092(0.008) &
0.090(0.355) &
&
\\
HV888 &
195 &
8.10(0.01) &
7.20(0.01) &
6.89(0.01) &
6.46(0.02) &
&
0.713(0.037) &
0.201(0.012) &
\llap{$-$}0.237(0.626) &
&
PHOT-S \\
HV916 &
209 &
8.55(0.03) &
7.60(0.03) &
7.25(0.02) &
6.80(0.02) &
0.380(0.004) &
&
0.176(0.015) &
0.065(0.171) &
&
\\
HV996 &
163 &
8.93(0.01) &
8.01(0.01) &
7.58(0.01) &
6.83(0.01) &
0.601(0.006) &
&
0.364(0.026) &
0.326(0.074) &
&
PHOT-S \\
IRAS04286$-$6937 &
217 &
&
\llap{1}3.00(0.05) &
\llap{1}1.25(0.05) &
9.10(0.05) &
0.136(0.002) &
&
0.059(0.013) &
\llap{$-$}0.101(0.130) &
&
\\
IRAS04374$-$6831 &
195 &
&
\llap{1}3.60(0.05) &
\llap{1}1.40(0.04) &
8.80(0.03) &
0.185(0.003) &
&
0.086(0.027) &
0.228(0.136) &
&
PHOT-S \\
&
701 &
&
\llap{1}3.60(0.10) &
\llap{1}1.40(0.10) &
8.90(0.10) &
&
&
&
&
0.309(0.069) &
\\
IRAS04407$-$7000 &
217 &
\llap{1}0.18(0.03) &
8.92(0.03) &
8.18(0.03) &
7.30(0.05) &
&
0.962(0.024) &
0.584(0.031) &
0.125(0.088) &
&
\\
&
605 &
\llap{1}1.70(0.05) &
\llap{1}0.20(0.05) &
9.20(0.05) &
8.10(0.05) &
&
&
&
&
0.473(0.132) &
\\
IRAS04496$-$6958 &
195 &
\llap{1}3.00(0.05) &
\llap{1}0.90(0.05) &
9.50(0.04) &
7.70(0.04) &
0.269(0.002) &
&
0.126(0.010) &
0.252(0.154) &
&
PHOT-S \\
&
605 &
\llap{1}2.40(0.05) &
\llap{1}0.40(0.05) &
8.95(0.05) &
7.60(0.05) &
&
&
&
&
&
CAM-CVF \\
IRAS04498$-$6842 &
217 &
\llap{1}0.95(0.05) &
9.65(0.05) &
8.70(0.02) &
7.70(0.02) &
&
0.486(0.013) &
0.221(0.028) &
0.292(0.112) &
&
\\
IRAS04509$-$6922 &
217 &
\llap{1}1.50(0.05) &
\llap{1}0.00(0.04) &
9.15(0.04) &
8.10(0.04) &
&
0.303(0.011) &
0.202(0.028) &
\llap{$-$}0.021(0.231) &
&
\\
IRAS04516$-$6902 &
202 &
\llap{1}0.50(0.03) &
8.96(0.03) &
8.24(0.03) &
7.25(0.03) &
&
0.854(0.026) &
0.380(0.051) &
0.349(0.135) &
&
\\
IRAS04530$-$6916 &
202 &
\llap{1}3.65(0.05) &
\llap{1}1.60(0.04) &
9.73(0.02) &
7.60(0.03) &
&
2.144(0.079) &
4.105(0.054) &
\llap{3}7.656(2.639) &
&
\\
IRAS04539$-$6821 &
229 &
&
\llap{1}4.30(0.05) &
\llap{1}1.80(0.04) &
8.80(0.10) &
0.244(0.002) &
&
0.089(0.013) &
0.106(0.053) &
&
\\
IRAS04545$-$7000 &
195 &
&
\llap{1}1.75(0.03) &
9.40(0.02) &
7.15(0.03) &
0.836(0.008) &
&
0.927(0.027) &
0.641(0.192) &
&
PHOT-S \\
&
605 &
&
\llap{1}2.80(0.10) &
\llap{1}0.30(0.10) &
8.10(0.10) &
&
&
&
&
0.286(0.206) &
\\
IRAS04557$-$6753 &
229 &
&
\llap{1}4.60(0.05) &
\llap{1}2.45(0.04) &
9.60(0.05) &
0.164(0.002) &
&
0.090(0.027) &
\llap{$-$}0.072(0.137) &
&
\\
IRAS05003$-$6712 &
229 &
\llap{1}2.30(0.05) &
\llap{1}0.65(0.05) &
9.45(0.05) &
8.15(0.05) &
0.362(0.003) &
&
0.210(0.007) &
0.173(0.079) &
&
PHOT-S \\
IRAS05009$-$6616 &
229 &
\llap{1}4.70(0.10) &
\llap{1}2.65(0.05) &
\llap{1}0.70(0.05) &
8.45(0.05) &
0.284(0.003) &
&
0.082(0.017) &
\llap{$-$}0.032(0.047) &
&
\\
IRAS05112$-$6755 &
288 &
&
\llap{1}4.70(0.10) &
\llap{1}2.00(0.05) &
8.80(0.05) &
0.414(0.004) &
&
&
0.078(0.133) &
&
PHOT-S \\
&
629 &
&
\llap{1}4.70(0.10) &
\llap{1}1.90(0.05) &
8.65(0.05) &
0.360(0.003) &
&
0.108(0.011) &
&
&
PHOT-S \\
IRAS05113$-$6739 &
288 &
&
\llap{1}4.35(0.05) &
\llap{1}2.12(0.03) &
9.06(0.02) &
0.316(0.003) &
&
&
0.398(0.115) &
&
\\
&
629 &
&
\llap{1}3.90(0.10) &
\llap{1}1.60(0.10) &
8.75(0.05) &
0.209(0.002) &
&
&
&
&
\\
&
729 &
&
\llap{1}3.90(0.05) &
\llap{1}1.60(0.05) &
8.75(0.05) &
0.254(0.002) &
&
0.067(0.013) &
&
&
\\
IRAS05128$-$6455 &
628 &
\llap{1}3.60(0.10) &
\llap{1}2.10(0.10) &
\llap{1}0.55(0.05) &
8.55(0.05) &
0.226(0.002) &
&
0.061(0.008) &
&
&
PHOT-S \\
IRAS05190$-$6748 &
288 &
&
&
\llap{1}3.10(0.05) &
9.70(0.10) &
0.346(0.003) &
&
0.163(0.022) &
0.190(0.060) &
&
PHOT-S \\
IRAS05289$-$6617 &
209 &
&
&
&
&
0.157(0.002) &
&
0.202(0.009) &
0.382(0.049) &
&
\\
&
668 &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
0.281(0.069) &
\\
&
729 &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
CAM-CVF \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\caption[]{(continued) The near-IR photometry of Wood (1998) is used for TRM45
and in part for IRAS05360$-$6648 (H-band), after transformation to the SAAO
system (Carter 1990).}
\begin{tabular}{llllllllllll}
\hline\hline
Star &
$JD$ &
$J [mag]$ &
$H [mag]$ &
$K [mag]$ &
$L [mag]$ &
$F_{12}$(CAM) &
$F_{12}$(PHOT) &
$F_{25}$(PHOT) &
$F_{60}$(chop) &
$F_{60}$(map) &
Spectrum \\
\hline
IRAS05294$-$7104 &
754 &
\llap{1}1.80(0.05) &
\llap{1}0.00(0.05) &
8.90(0.05) &
7.60(0.05) &
&
0.680(0.045) &
0.394(0.035) &
0.079(0.097) &
&
\\
IRAS05295$-$7121 &
209 &
&
\llap{1}3.85(0.05) &
\llap{1}1.75(0.05) &
9.35(0.05) &
0.143(0.001) &
&
0.007(0.011) &
0.233(0.074) &
&
\\
IRAS05298$-$6957 &
209 &
&
&
\llap{1}1.60(0.20) &
8.60(0.20) &
&
0.303(0.015) &
0.359(0.014) &
0.414(0.279) &
&
PHOT-S \\
&
729 &
\llap{1}4.10(0.20) &
\llap{1}2.50(0.10) &
\llap{1}1.10(0.10) &
8.50(0.20) &
&
&
&
&
&
CAM-CVF \\
IRAS05300$-$6651 &
209 &
&
\llap{1}4.70(0.20) &
\llap{1}2.20(0.10) &
9.10(0.10) &
0.246(0.003) &
&
0.114(0.017) &
0.068(0.049) &
&
\\
IRAS05329$-$6708 &
163 &
\llap{1}7.00(0.20) &
\llap{1}2.70(0.10) &
\llap{1}0.40(0.05) &
8.25(0.05) &
&
0.442(0.018) &
0.531(0.035) &
0.479(0.082) &
&
PHOT-S \\
IRAS05348$-$7024 &
202 &
&
\llap{1}3.60(0.30) &
\llap{1}1.60(0.20) &
8.70(0.20) &
0.525(0.005) &
&
0.208(0.031) &
0.170(0.108) &
&
\\
&
732 &
&
\llap{1}3.80(0.30) &
\llap{1}2.70(0.20) &
9.30(0.20) &
&
&
&
&
&
CAM-CVF \\
IRAS05360$-$6648 &
202 &
&
\llap{1}5.00(0.40) &
\llap{1}2.30(0.05) &
9.50(0.10) &
0.171(0.002) &
&
0.082(0.013) &
0.174(0.067) &
&
\\
IRAS05402$-$6956 &
217 &
&
\llap{1}3.50(0.10) &
\llap{1}0.60(0.05) &
8.00(0.04) &
&
0.455(0.020) &
0.429(0.022) &
0.944(0.288) &
&
\\
&
662 &
\llap{1}4.40(0.10) &
\llap{1}1.45(0.05) &
9.40(0.03) &
7.15(0.03) &
&
&
&
&
\llap{$-$}0.245(0.527) &
\\
&
782 &
\llap{1}4.50(0.10) &
\llap{1}1.50(0.05) &
9.50(0.05) &
7.25(0.05) &
&
&
&
&
&
CAM-CVF \\
IRAS05506$-$7053 &
173 &
&
\llap{1}6.00(0.30) &
\llap{1}3.30(0.10) &
\llap{1}0.00(0.10) &
&
&
&
0.109(0.062) &
&
\\
&
228 &
&
\llap{1}6.40(0.30) &
\llap{1}3.60(0.10) &
\llap{1}0.30(0.10) &
&
\llap{$-$}0.035(0.017) &
0.029(0.015) &
0.167(0.073) &
&
\\
IRAS05558$-$7000 &
209 &
\llap{1}1.90(0.04) &
\llap{1}0.10(0.04) &
8.90(0.03) &
7.60(0.04) &
&
0.667(0.011) &
0.517(0.016) &
0.291(0.100) &
&
PHOT-S \\
&
781 &
\llap{1}3.50(0.05) &
\llap{1}1.60(0.03) &
\llap{1}0.03(0.01) &
8.20(0.05) &
&
&
&
&
&
CAM-CVF \\
IRAS05568$-$6753 &
186 &
&
&
&
&
0.412(0.004) &
&
0.285(0.008) &
0.383(0.073) &
&
PHOT-S \\
SHV0454030$-$675031 &
318 &
\llap{1}4.20(0.10) &
\llap{1}2.67(0.04) &
\llap{1}1.85(0.03) &
&
0.006(0.002) &
&
&
&
&
\\
SHV0500193$-$681706 &
229 &
\llap{1}4.00(0.20) &
\llap{1}2.00(0.10) &
\llap{1}0.70(0.10) &
9.50(0.10) &
0.030(0.005) &
&
0.030(0.016) &
0.098(0.026) &
&
\\
&
754 &
\llap{1}3.10(0.10) &
\llap{1}1.45(0.05) &
\llap{1}0.25(0.05) &
9.00(0.05) &
&
&
&
&
&
CAM-CVF \\
SHV0500233$-$682914 &
229 &
\llap{1}3.05(0.05) &
\llap{1}1.30(0.05) &
\llap{1}0.00(0.05) &
8.50(0.05) &
0.076(0.001) &
&
0.004(0.033) &
\llap{$-$}0.004(0.097) &
&
\\
&
729 &
\llap{1}3.30(0.10) &
\llap{1}1.40(0.10) &
\llap{1}0.20(0.05) &
8.60(0.05) &
&
&
&
&
&
CAM-CVF \\
SHV0502469$-$692418 &
304 &
\llap{1}2.93(0.03) &
\llap{1}1.61(0.02) &
\llap{1}0.81(0.02) &
\llap{1}0.30(0.05) &
0.002(0.001) &
&
&
&
&
\\
SHV0521050$-$690415 &
788 &
\llap{1}1.07(0.02) &
9.77(0.02) &
9.23(0.02) &
8.40(0.10) &
0.062(0.004) &
&
\llap{$-$}0.011(0.014) &
&
&
\\
SHV0522023$-$701242 &
788 &
\llap{1}2.60(0.10) &
\llap{1}1.60(0.10) &
\llap{1}1.40(0.10) &
&
0.001(0.001) &
&
0.003(0.021) &
&
&
\\
SHV0522118$-$702517 &
217 &
\llap{1}3.00(0.20) &
\llap{1}2.00(0.20) &
\llap{1}1.00(0.20) &
9.70(0.20) &
0.028(0.001) &
&
0.007(0.002) &
0.170(0.125) &
&
\\
SHV0524565$-$694559 &
217 &
\llap{1}2.50(0.04) &
\llap{1}1.40(0.05) &
\llap{1}0.75(0.05) &
&
0.003(0.001) &
&
&
&
&
\\
SHV0526001$-$701142 &
217 &
\llap{1}3.50(0.10) &
\llap{1}2.00(0.10) &
\llap{1}0.45(0.05) &
9.15(0.05) &
0.037(0.001) &
&
\llap{$-$}0.019(0.030) &
0.051(0.063) &
&
\\
SHV0530323$-$702216 &
788 &
\llap{1}1.80(0.10) &
\llap{1}0.80(0.10) &
\llap{1}0.35(0.05) &
&
0.008(0.002) &
&
0.008(0.009) &
&
&
\\
SHV0535442$-$702433 &
782 &
\llap{1}2.90(0.20) &
\llap{1}1.50(0.10) &
\llap{1}0.65(0.05) &
\llap{1}0.30(0.20) &
0.009(0.001) &
&
0.029(0.022) &
&
&
\\
SP77 30$-$6 &
195 &
\llap{1}0.80(0.10) &
9.60(0.10) &
9.20(0.10) &
8.50(0.10) &
0.139(0.001) &
&
0.077(0.018) &
0.225(0.073) &
&
\\
&
794 &
\llap{1}0.30(0.10) &
9.30(0.10) &
8.80(0.10) &
8.20(0.10) &
&
&
&
&
&
CAM-CVF \\
TRM45 &
788 &
\llap{1}6.20(0.20) &
\llap{1}3.60(0.10) &
\llap{1}1.55(0.05) &
9.50(0.10) &
0.076(0.001) &
&
0.037(0.007) &
&
&
\\
TRM72 &
788 &
\llap{1}5.22(0.20) &
\llap{1}2.81(0.03) &
\llap{1}0.96(0.02) &
8.60(0.05) &
0.161(0.001) &
&
0.026(0.025) &
&
&
\\
TRM88 &
788 &
\llap{1}3.50(0.10) &
\llap{1}1.78(0.02) &
\llap{1}0.24(0.02) &
8.55(0.05) &
0.101(0.001) &
&
0.051(0.014) &
&
&
\\
WBP14 &
209 &
\llap{1}3.35(0.05) &
\llap{1}1.60(0.05) &
\llap{1}0.55(0.03) &
9.50(0.10) &
0.022(0.001) &
&
\llap{$-$}0.005(0.011) &
1.372(0.539) &
&
\\
&
616 &
\llap{1}3.40(0.10) &
\llap{1}1.60(0.10) &
\llap{1}0.55(0.05) &
9.50(0.05) &
&
&
&
&
0.211(0.293) &
\\
WOH G64 &
229 &
9.58(0.02) &
7.96(0.02) &
6.98(0.02) &
5.32(0.02) &
&
\llap{1}2.112(0.965) &
\llap{1}3.786(0.354) &
4.647(0.298) &
&
PHOT-S \\
WOH SG374 &
788 &
9.90(0.02) &
9.10(0.02) &
8.64(0.02) &
7.69(0.05) &
0.490(0.005) &
&
0.188(0.020) &
&
&
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=h1374.f3,width=88mm,height=40mm}}
\caption[]{Histogram of the distribution of ISO 60 $\mu$m flux densities
(chopped measurements). The dotted vertical line indicates 3-$\sigma$ flux
density derived from the distribution of negative flux densities. All flux
densities over 1 Jy are piled up in the last bin.}
\end{figure}
A histogram of the distribution of ISO 60 $\mu$m flux densities (Fig.\ 3),
leaving out the mapping observations, illustrates the detection rate.
Considering negative flux densities indicating non-detection, and assuming a
Gaussian distribution around zero flux density for non-detections, we estimate
a 1-$\sigma$ detection to have 0.103 Jy. There are 12 sources with flux
densities exceeding 3-$\sigma$, i.e.\ probable detections. This does not take
into the account the large errors on some of the individual measurements, and
a 3-$\sigma$ detection may still turn out to be spurious (an example is
WBP14). On the other hand, the distribution below 3-$\sigma$ is certainly
skewed towards positive flux densities. Projecting the negative flux density
distribution onto the positive domain, we estimate that there are probably 17
more detections between 0 and 3-$\sigma$, and a total of 14 non-detections.
In the IRAS 60 $\mu$m data we found 8 detections and 17 tentative detections
(Table 3). The 0.1 Jy assigned to the faintest IRAS 60 $\mu$m flux densities
compares well with the ISO 1-$\sigma$ detection threshold of the chopped
measurements. Of the 8 IRAS 60 $\mu$m detections 6 have ISO chopped
measurements, all of which yield higher flux densities than IRAS --- by a
factor 1.8 on average. This is in contrast to the 12 and 25 $\mu$m photometry,
where ISO flux densities are generally lower than those measured by IRAS. The
14 ISO chopped measurements of IRAS tentative detections also yield higher
flux densities than did IRAS --- by a factor of 1.5 on average, although some
individual ISO measurements are fainter than the IRAS ones. None of these ISO
measurements is negative, indicating that many of the IRAS 60 $\mu$m tentative
detections are indeed real.
The 7 mapping observations all agree with the chopped measurements within
2-$\sigma$, although these errors can be large. There is no tendency for one
of these two methods to yield higher flux densities than the other. As we do
not expect strong variability at 60 $\mu$m, which traces cool dust some
distance from the stars, flux densities from mapping and chopped measurements
are averaged. The error estimates of the mapping measurements are
systematically larger than those of the chopped measurements. This may be due
to the fact that, for the mapping data, the flux density of the star was
determined from the inner $3\times3$ pixels. The contribution of the
background to these 9 pixels is considerable. Also, the reliability of the
error estimate for the central pixel in the chopped data as produced by PIA is
unknown. There is great difficulty in extracting reliable photometry and
associated errors from either mapping or chopped measurements at 60 $\mu$m,
for stellar sources in fields like the LMC. This is mainly due to the complex
background and limited spatial resolution of PHOT at these wavelengths.
IRAS05289$-$6617 has a very smooth background, being situated in the
line-of-sight to the supergiant shell LMC4 (Meaburn 1980). Indeed, ISO mapping
and chopped measurements are relatively precise for this source, and agree
nicely with the 60 $\mu$m flux density measured from the IRAS data.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=h1374.f4,width=88mm}}
\caption[]{The CAM-CVF spectra of obscured AGB stars in the LMC. Open symbols
represent spectro-photometric points that are prone to have flux densities
that are over-estimated due to stabilisation difficulties. The spectral shape
is best represented by the solid symbols (squares for the short-, disks for
the long-wavelength region). Emission and/or absorption centred at $\sim9.7$
$\mu$m is indicative of oxygen-rich dust (e.g.\ IRAS05402$-$6956 and SP77
30$-$6), whereas carbon-rich dust may show emission at $\sim11.3$ $\mu$m
(e.g.\ IRAS05289$-$6617). A featureless continuum around 10 $\mu$m also
strongly suggests carbon-rich dust (e.g.\ SHV0500193$-$681706).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=h1374.f5a,width=180mm}}
\caption[]{The PHOT-S spectra of obscured AGB stars (and RSGs) in the LMC.
Emission and/or absorption centred at $\sim9.7$ $\mu$m suggests oxygen-rich
dust (e.g.\ HV888 and IRAS04545$-$7000). Absorption at 3 $\mu$m is seen in
carbon star photospheres (e.g.\ IRAS04496$-$6958), but artifacts in the PHOT-S
responsivities also mimic weak depression at 3 $\mu$m in the spectra of
unambiguous oxygen-rich stars (e.g.\ IRAS04545$-$7000).}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=h1374.f5b,width=180mm}}
\caption[]{(continued)}
\end{figure*}
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Chemical types from ISO spectroscopy}
The presence or absence in the ISO spectra (Figs.\ 4 \& 5) of discrete dust
emission and molecular absorption bands can be used to distinguish between
carbon- and oxygen-rich circumstellar envelopes (e.g.\ Merrill \& Stein
1976a,b,c). The results are summarised in Table 5.
Amorphous oxygen-rich dust may give rise to strong and broad silicate emission
between $\sim8$ and 13 $\mu$m, peaking at $\sim9.7 \mu$m (the exact location
may differ from this by a few tenths of $\mu$m). The late-M stars HV2446, 888,
996, and SP77 30$-$6 have prominent silicate emission. In optically thick
cases the silicate feature turns into absorption. All spectra of OH maser
sources show the silicate feature in self-absorption: IRAS04545$-$7000,
05298$-$6957, 05329$-$6708, 05402$-$6956, and WOH G64.
Oxygen-rich molecules do not provide clear diagnostics of the chemical type of
CSEs at our signal-to-noise and spectral resolution. We already mentioned that
shallow absorption around 3 $\mu$m in oxygen-rich sources is most likely due
to an artifact in the responsivities, rather than H$_2$O ice.
\begin{table}
\caption[]{Chemical types. Optical spectra (Opt Sp) include objective prism
and CCD spectroscopy up to $\sim1 \mu$m. ISO spectroscopy (ISO Sp) comprises
PHOT-S and CAM-CVF observations. IR colour-colour diagrams (IR col) can in
some cases be reasonably conclusive too: we here use $(K-[12])$ and
$([12]-[25])$ versus $(K-L)$ diagrams. At radio wavelengths, OH, SiO and/or
H$_2$O maser emission is detected from some oxygen-rich sources.}
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\hline\hline
Star &
Opt Sp &
ISO Sp &
IR col &
Maser \\
\hline
GRV0519$-$6700 &
C &
&
carbon? &
\\
HV12070 &
MS3/9 &
oxygen? &
? &
\\
HV12501 &
M1.5 &
&
oxygen &
\\
HV2360 &
M2 Ia &
&
oxygen &
\\
HV2379 &
C &
SiC? &
carbon &
\\
HV2446 &
M5e &
silicate &
oxygen &
\\
HV5870 &
M4.5/5 &
&
oxygen &
\\
HV888 &
M4 Ia &
silicate &
oxygen &
\\
HV916 &
M3 Iab &
&
oxygen &
\\
HV996 &
M4 Iab &
silicate &
oxygen &
\\
IRAS04286$-$6937 &
&
&
carbon &
\\
IRAS04374$-$6831 &
&
SiC? &
carbon &
\\
IRAS04407$-$7000 &
&
&
oxygen &
yes \\
IRAS04496$-$6958 &
C &
car$+$sil? &
carbon &
\\
IRAS04498$-$6842 &
&
&
oxygen &
\\
IRAS04509$-$6922 &
M10 &
&
oxygen &
\\
IRAS04516$-$6902 &
M9 &
&
oxygen &
\\
IRAS04530$-$6916 &
&
&
oxygen &
\\
IRAS04539$-$6821 &
&
&
carbon &
\\
IRAS04545$-$7000 &
&
silicate &
oxygen &
yes \\
IRAS04557$-$6753 &
&
&
carbon &
\\
IRAS05003$-$6712 &
&
silicate? &
oxygen &
\\
IRAS05009$-$6616 &
&
&
carbon &
\\
IRAS05112$-$6755 &
&
carbon? &
carbon &
\\
IRAS05113$-$6739 &
&
&
carbon &
\\
IRAS05128$-$6455 &
&
carbon? &
carbon &
\\
IRAS05190$-$6748 &
&
carbon? &
carbon &
\\
IRAS05289$-$6617 &
&
SiC &
? &
\\
IRAS05294$-$7104 &
&
&
oxygen &
\\
IRAS05295$-$7121 &
&
&
carbon &
\\
IRAS05298$-$6957 &
&
silicate &
oxygen &
yes \\
IRAS05300$-$6651 &
&
&
carbon &
\\
IRAS05329$-$6708 &
&
silicate &
oxygen &
yes \\
IRAS05348$-$7024 &
&
SiC &
carbon &
\\
IRAS05360$-$6648 &
&
&
carbon &
\\
IRAS05402$-$6956 &
&
silicate &
oxygen &
yes \\
IRAS05506$-$7053 &
&
&
oxygen &
\\
IRAS05558$-$7000 &
&
silicate &
oxygen &
\\
IRAS05568$-$6753 &
&
carbon? &
? &
\\
SHV0454030$-$675031 &
C &
&
carbon &
\\
SHV0500193$-$681706 &
&
carbon &
carbon &
\\
SHV0500233$-$682914 &
&
SiC? &
carbon &
\\
SHV0502469$-$692418 &
C &
&
carbon? &
\\
SHV0521050$-$690415 &
C &
&
carbon &
\\
SHV0522023$-$701242 &
M3 &
&
? &
\\
SHV0522118$-$702517 &
S? &
&
carbon &
\\
SHV0524565$-$694559 &
MS5 &
&
? &
\\
SHV0526001$-$701142 &
C &
&
carbon &
\\
SHV0530323$-$702216 &
M6 &
&
oxygen &
\\
SHV0535442$-$702433 &
C &
&
? &
\\
SP77 30$-$6 &
M8 &
silicate &
oxygen &
\\
TRM45 &
&
&
carbon &
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\addtocounter{table}{-1}
\caption[]{(continued).}
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\hline\hline
Star &
Opt Sp &
ISO Sp &
IR col &
Maser \\
\hline
TRM72 &
C &
&
carbon &
\\
TRM88 &
C &
&
carbon &
\\
WBP14 &
C &
&
carbon &
\\
WOH G64 &
M7.5 &
silicate &
oxygen &
yes \\
WOH SG374 &
M6 &
&
oxygen &
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Crystalline carbon-rich dust sometimes gives rise to a SiC (graphite) emission
feature peaking at $\sim11.3 \mu$m, and narrower than the silicate feature.
The CVF spectrum of IRAS05289$-$6617 (Fig.\ 4) shows the best example of this.
Carbon-rich molecules have several strong absorption bands in our spectral
region, all from HCN and C$_2$H$_2$. The strongest is at 3.1 $\mu$m, but the
problem with the responsivities limits the number of unambiguous detections to
one (IRAS04496$-$6958). Related, but weaker, absorption is visible at 3.8
$\mu$m. More absorption bands are located around 5, 8 and 14 $\mu$m.
Unfortunately, the 5 $\mu$m band falls entirely in the blind spectral region
of PHOT-S. The 8 and 14 $\mu$m bands are at the edges of the CVF spectra and
hence difficult to identify.
Some other spectra show merely a featureless dust continuum around 10 $\mu$m.
Best examples are the CVF spectrum of SHV0500193$-$681706 and the PHOT-S
spectrum of IRAS05568$-$6753. These spectra suggest pure amorphous carbon dust
emission.
\subsection{IR colour-colour diagrams}
The ISO 12, 25 and 60 $\mu$m filters are similar but not identical to the IRAS
filters. As the zero-points of these ISO filters are unknown, we adopt here
the IRAS zero-points. This results in the following definitions for the (not
colour-corrected) mid-IR magnitudes
\begin{equation}
[12]=-2.5\log(F_{12}/28.3)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
[25]=-2.5\log(F_{25}/6.73)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
[60]=-2.5\log(F_{60}/1.19)
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Diagram of $(K-[12])$ versus $(H-K)$}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=h1374.f6,width=88mm}}
\caption[]{$(K-[12])$ versus $(H-K)$ diagram. Stars are distinguished by their
chemical types inferred from spectroscopic methods: carbon stars (solid
disks), M stars (open disks), MS stars (open squares), S stars (open
triangles), and stars of which the chemical type is a priori unknown
(crosses). Carbon stars and oxygen stars define sequences in this diagram,
indicated by a dotted and solid curve, respectively.}
\end{figure}
The $(K-[12])$ versus $(H-K)$ colour-colour diagram separates carbon- from
oxygen-rich stars in samples of obscured stars in the MCs (Papers II \& IV).
Indeed, the distributions of carbon- and oxygen-rich stars using ISO and SAAO
photometry define clear sequences in this diagram (Fig.\ 6). The sequences are
fit by eye, with the carbon sequence the same as in Paper IV:
\begin{equation}
(H-K)=0.36\times(K-[12])
\end{equation}
but the oxygen sequence a simple, yet somewhat steeper function than in Paper
IV:
\begin{equation}
(H-K)=0.3+0.0003\times(K-[12])^5
\end{equation}
Although the stars with spectral type M follow the oxygen sequence very well,
the carbon stars show a large scatter around the carbon sequence with several
carbon stars on or beyond the region populated by M stars, at small $(H-K)$
but large $(K-[12])$ magnitudes. This scatter contrasts with the tight carbon
sequence that is observed in the Milky Way (Fig.\ 3 in Paper IV). We suspect
that this is in part caused by the severe crowding in some LMC fields,
affecting the near-IR aperture photometry. Differences in the strength of
absorption in the H-band by carbonaceous molecules may cause additional
scatter among carbon stars (Bessell \& Wood 1983; Catchpole \& Whitelock
1985).
\subsubsection{Diagram of $(K-[12])$ versus $(K-L)$}
The $(K-[12])$ versus $(K-L)$ colour-colour diagram shows much less scatter
around well-defined carbon and oxygen sequences (Fig.\ 7). This makes it a
much more powerful diagnostic diagram than the $(K-[12])$ versus $(H-K)$
diagram in typifying the chemical composition of the circumstellar dust.
Noguchi et al.\ (1991a) introduced a very similar diagnostic using $(L-[12])$
and $(K-L)$ colours. We note, however, that some of the peculiar stars in our
$(K-[12])$ versus $(H-K)$ diagram were too blue and hence too faint to be
detected in the L-band. Still, the tight sequences prove that both the SAAO
and ISO photometry are of good quality when comparing individual stars. We fit
(by eye) a linear carbon sequence:
\begin{equation}
(K-L)=\frac{5}{11}\times(K-[12])-\frac{2}{11}
\end{equation}
and a superposition of even polynomials for the oxygen sequence:
\begin{equation}
(K-L)=0.35+0.007\times(K-[12])^2+0.0014\times(K-[12])^4
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=h1374.f7,width=88mm}}
\caption[]{$(K-[12])$ versus $(K-L)$ diagram. Symbols as in Fig.\ 6.}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Diagram of $([12]-[25])$ versus $(K-L)$}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=h1374.f8,width=88mm}}
\caption[]{$([12]-[25])$ versus $(K-L)$ diagram. Symbols are as in Fig.\ 6.
Oxygen-rich sources and carbon stars occupy distinct areas in this diagram.
The dividing line (dotted) between stars with carbon- and oxygen-rich dust is
taken from Epchtein et al.\ 1987.}
\end{figure}
Another colour-colour diagram that separates carbon- from oxygen-rich sources
is the $([12]-[25])$ versus $(K-L)$ diagram (Fig.\ 8). The confirmed
oxygen-rich sources show a linear relationship between the $([12]-[25])$ and
$(K-L)$ colours, possibly flattening out at $(K-L)>1.5$ mag. The LMC stars
generally follow the separation determined for galactic stars (dotted line in
Fig.\ 8, taken from Epchtein et al.\ 1987).
\subsubsection{Diagram of $([25]-[60])$ versus $([12]-[25])$}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=h1374.f9,width=88mm}}
\caption[]{$([25]-[60])$ versus $([12]-[25])$ diagram. Symbols are as in Fig.\
6. Carbon stars are not well separated from oxygen-rich sources, although
carbon stars seem to be relatively bright at 60 $\mu$m.}
\end{figure}
The aim of obtaining 60 $\mu$m flux densities for stars in the LMC is mainly
to probe the coolest circumstellar dust. The 60 $\mu$m flux density is
expected to increase as prolonged mass loss first extends the CSE and again as
reduced mass loss results in a detached shell. This evolution might be seen in
$([25]-[60])$ versus $([12]-[25])$ diagrams (Fig.\ 9, see also van der Veen \&
Habing 1988). Unfortunately, the accuracy of the ISO photometry at 60 $\mu$m
is not very high for most of these LMC sources, and the diagram contains a lot
of scatter.
Perhaps the most obvious thing to learn from this diagram is that carbon stars
tend to be relatively bright at 60 $\mu$m, yielding $([25]-[60])\sim1.5$ to 3
mag. Although oxygen-rich sources can have similar colours, there are many
oxygen-rich sources with $([25]-[60])<2$ and $([12]-[25])>0.6$ mag, colours
not seen for any carbon star in our sample. This is similar to the findings of
van der Veen \& Habing (1988), but our LMC sources have bluer $([12]-[25])$
and redder $([25]-[60])$ colours than do their Milky Way sources. However, the
LMC $([12]-[25])$ colours do not differ much from those discussed by Le Bertre
et al.\ (1994).
\subsection{Comments on particular objects}
\subsubsection{GRV0519$-$6700}
The referee Dr.\ Peter Wood conveys that an optical spectrum of GRV0519$-$6700
shows it to be a carbon star, in good agreement with its IR colours of
$(H-K)=0.7$ and $(K-[12])=1.0$ mag.
\subsubsection{HV12070}
The CVF spectrum of HV12070 shows only a hint of the silicate feature, whilst
the IR colours cannot distinguish between oxygen- and carbon-rich dust of the
optically thin CSE of this MS-type star.
\subsubsection{HV2379}
The PHOT-S spectrum of HV2379 suggests SiC emission, but its CVF spectrum does
not. This may be a result of changes in the properties of the CSE or the dust.
Its IR colours leave no doubt about the carbon-rich nature of the dust.
\subsubsection{HV2446, 888, 996, and SP77 30$-$6}
These late-M stars all have prominent silicate emission and IR colours that
unambiguously indicate oxygen-rich dust.
\subsubsection{IRAS04286$-$6937, 04539$-$6821, 04557$-$6753, 05009$-$6616,
05113$-$6739, 05295$-$7121, 05300$-$6651, 05360$-$6648, and TRM45 and 72}
The position of these objects in the $(K-[12])$ versus $(H-K)$ or $(K-L)$
colour-colour diagrams does not clarify the chemical composition of their
CSEs. The $([12]-[25])$ versus $(K-L)$ diagram, however, unambiguously
indicates that the dust around these stars is carbon rich. The IR colours of
IRAS05113$-$6739 at the three ISO epochs for this star all lie along the
carbon sequences in the $(K-[12])$ versus $(H-K)$ and $(K-L)$ diagrams.
Ground-based L-band spectra of IRAS05009$-$6616 and 05300$-$6651 show the 3.1
$\mu$m absorption feature due to HCN and C$_2$H$_2$ molecules, indicating
carbon-rich photospheres (van Loon et al.\ 1999).
\subsubsection{IRAS04374$-$6831}
The position of IRAS04374$-$6831 in the $([12]-[25])$ versus $(K-L)$ diagram
indicates carbon-rich dust. Its PHOT-S spectrum, which does not clearly reveal
the chemical composition of the dust by itself, is then marginally consistent
with SiC emission.
\subsubsection{IRAS04496$-$6958}
IRAS04496$-$6958 shows strong absorption by carbonaceous molecules at 3.1
$\mu$m, already known from ground-based L-band spectroscopy (van Loon et al.\
1999). Related, but weaker, absorption is visible at 3.8 $\mu$m, and possibly
around 8 $\mu$m. Surprisingly, this carbon star has silicate emission too,
indicating the presence of oxygen-rich dust (see Trams et al.\ 1999). Its IR
colours indicate carbon-rich dust, hence the oxygen-rich dust is only a minor
component.
\subsubsection{IRAS04530$-$6916}
With $(K-L)=2.13$, $(K-[12])=6.9$ and $([12]-[25])=2.3$ mag, the IR colours of
IRAS04530$-$6916 imply that the dust around this very luminous and red object
must be oxygen rich.
\subsubsection{IRAS04545$-$7000, 05298$-$6957, 05329$-$6708, 05402$-$6956, and
WOH G64}
These OH maser sources all show the silicate feature in self-absorption, and
also their IR colours clearly indicate oxygen-rich dust.
\subsubsection{IRAS05003$-$6712}
The IR colours of IRAS05003$-$6712 unambiguously classify the dust as oxygen
rich. The PHOT-S spectrum shows a hint of the silicate feature. A ground-based
L-band spectrum of this star shows a featureless continuum around 3.1 $\mu$m,
indicating an oxygen-rich photosphere (van Loon et al.\ 1999).
\subsubsection{IRAS05112$-$6755}
The dust around IRAS05112$-$6755 is classified as carbon rich on the basis of
the position in the $([12]-[25])$ versus $(K-L)$ diagram. There is a hint of 8
$\mu$m absorption in the PHOT-S spectrum of IRAS05112$-$6755. A ground-based
L-band spectrum of this object shows the strong absorption at 3.1 $\mu$m found
in carbon-rich stellar photospheres (van Loon et al.\ 1999).
\subsubsection{IRAS05128$-$6455 and 05190$-$6748}
The absence of clear indications for the presence of the silicate feature in
the PHOT-S spectra of these stars suggest that their dust may be carbon rich,
which is also indicated by their $([12]-[25])$ and $(K-L)$ colours.
\subsubsection{IRAS05289$-$6617}
The CVF spectrum of IRAS05289$-$6617 shows prominent SiC emission. Hence it is
probably a mass-losing carbon-rich AGB star in the LMC rather than a
foreground object. We have not yet identified its near-IR counterpart.
\subsubsection{IRAS05348$-$7024}
The CVF spectrum of IRAS05348$-$7024 shows weak SiC emission. The carbon-rich
nature of the dust around this object is also indicated by its position in the
$([12]-[25])$ versus $(K-L)$ diagram.
\subsubsection{IRAS05506$-$7053}
IRAS05506$-$7053 is the only star in our sample that could not be detected at
12 $\mu$m. Assuming a 12 $\mu$m flux density $<0.03$ Jy, the $(K-[12])$ colour
would be $<6.2$ mag and probably $([12]-[25])>1.5$ mag. At $(K-L)=3.3$ mag,
this suggests an oxygen-rich CSE.
\subsubsection{IRAS05558$-$7000}
The CVF spectrum of IRAS05558$-$7000 is similar to the CVF spectra of
IRAS05298$-$6957 and 05402$-$6956, showing silicate emission that is becoming
optically thick at 10 $\mu$m. The IR colours of IRAS05558$-$7000 unambiguously
imply that the dust is oxygen-rich.
\subsubsection{IRAS05568$-$6753}
The PHOT-S spectrum of IRAS05568$-$6753 shows a featureless dust continuum
around 10 $\mu$m, suggesting pure amorphous carbon dust emission. The near-IR
counterpart of this object has yet to be identified.
\subsubsection{SHV0500193$-$681706}
The CVF spectrum of SHV0500193$-$681706 shows a featureless dust continuum
around 10 $\mu$m, suggesting pure amorphous carbon dust emission. The
carbon-rich nature of the dust is confirmed by the position in the $(K-[12])$
versus $(K-L)$ diagram. Inaccuracy of its 25 $\mu$m flux density causes the
rather odd position among the oxygen-rich stars in the $([12]-[25])$ versus
$(K-L)$ diagram.
\subsubsection{SHV0500233$-$682914}
The CVF spectrum of SHV0500233$-$682914 shows a hint of SiC emission, and also
its IR colours clearly indicate that the dust around this star is carbon rich.
\subsubsection{SHV0502469$-$692418, 0522023$-$701242 and 0524565$-$694559}
The carbon star SHV0502469$-$692418, the M-type star SHV0522023$-$701242 and
the MS-type star SHV0524565$-$694559 are surrounded by an optically thin CSE
and hence it is difficult to classify the chemical type of their dust from IR
colour-colour diagrams.
\subsubsection{SHV0522118$-$702517}
SHV0522118$-$702517 was tentatively classified an S-type star by Hughes \&
Wood (1990). Its IR colours are clearly similar to those of carbon stars. This
suggests that carbon-rich dust dominates the absorption and emission
characteristics of the CSE despite the under-abundance of carbon atoms in its
photosphere. Noguchi et al.\ (1991b) show that the IR colours of the CSE
indicate oxygen-rich dust in case of an MS-type star. Also, CS stars show 3
$\mu$m absorption from HCN and C$_2$H$_2$ molecules, whereas SC stars do not
(Catchpole \& Whitelock 1985; Noguchi \& Akiba 1986). This suggests that
carbon chemistry is dominant in CS stars, but not in SC stars. Thus, we
identify SHV0522118$-$702517 with a CS star. Dust-enshrouded S stars ---
including MS and CS stars --- that have $(K-L)>1$ mag are very rare in the
Milky Way, and none are known with $(K-L)>2$ mag (Noguchi et al.\ 1991b).
Hence, with $(K-L)=1.3$ mag, SHV0522118$-$702517 is among the most obscured S
stars known.
\subsubsection{SHV0530323$-$702216}
The late-M type star SHV0535442$-$702433 has $([12]-[25])=1.56$ mag. Its
near-IR colours are rather blue and $(K-L)$ is not expected to be larger than
unity. Hence the position of this object in the $([12]-[25])$ versus $(K-L)$
diagram suggests that the dust is oxygen rich.
\subsubsection{SHV0535442$-$702433}
The carbon star SHV0535442$-$702433 is surrounded by an optically thin CSE,
and hence the IR colours are difficult to use for classifying the chemical
type of the dust. The location among oxygen-rich stars in the $([12]-[25])$
versus $(K-L)$ diagram is caused entirely by the inaccuracy of its 25 $\mu$m
flux density yielding a spuriously red $([12]-[25])\sim3$ mag.
\section{Conclusions}
ISO spectroscopy is used to determine the chemical type of the dust around
obscured cool evolved stars in the LMC. ISO photometry at 12, 25 and 60 $\mu$m
is presented, together with quasi-simultaneous near-IR photometry from the
ground (SAAO). The accuracy and sensitivity of the ISOPHOT photometry is not
much better than can be achieved from properly treated IRAS data. The ISOCAM
photometry is much more reliable because it is based on imaging, and an order
of magnitude more sensitive than was IRAS. Colour-colour diagrams prove that
relative photometry is reliable. A combination of $(K-[12])$ and $([12]-[25])$
versus $(K-L)$ diagrams provide a reliable way of distinguishing between
carbon- and oxygen-rich dust, provided the CSE has sufficient optical depth.
The combination of ISO spectra and photometry enabled us to securely classify
the chemical type of the dust around nearly all stars in our sample. This was
previously known for only a minority of the stars. Surprisingly, the
$(K-[12])$ versus $(H-K)$ diagnostic diagram contains a lot of scatter
especially among carbon stars.
Many of the obscured AGB stars in our sample are carbon stars: 46\% amongst
the LMC stars that were detected by IRAS (Table 1). M stars were always found
to be surrounded by oxygen-rich dust. In particular, all detected OH maser
sources show self-absorbed silicate emission. As in the Milky Way, the fact
that no M star with carbon-rich dust has ever been found suggests that HBB
cannot efficiently turn carbon stars back into oxygen-rich stars. The dust
around the dust-enshrouded S star SHV0522118$-$702517 has the characteristics
of carbon-rich material, suggesting it is actually a CS star. Surprisingly,
the dust around the carbon star IRAS04496$-$6958 has a (minor) oxygen-rich
component (Trams et al.\ 1999).
\acknowledgements{We would like to thank everyone at VilSpa (Madrid) for the
discussions and advices during the various stages of ISO data reduction, in
particular Drs.\ Jos\'{e} Acosta-Pulido, Carlos Gabriel, Rene Laureijs, Thomas
M\"{u}ller, and Bernhard Schulz, and Dr.\ P\'{e}ter \'{A}brah\'{a}m in
Heidelberg. The ISOCAM data presented in this paper was analysed using
``CIA'', a joint development by the ESA Astrophysics Division and the ISOCAM
Consortium. The ISOCAM Consortium is led by the ISOCAM PI, C. Cesarsky,
Direction des Sciences de la Mati\'{e}re, C.E.A., France. The ISOPHOT data
presented in this paper was reduced using PIA, which is a joint development by
the ESA Astrophysics Division and the ISOPHOT Consortium. We also thank Dr.\
Romke Bontekoe for help with studying the IRAS data, and the referee Dr.\
Peter Wood for his suggestions that improved the presentation considerably. We
made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. This
research was partly supported by NWO under Pionier Grant 600-78-333.\\
(JvL: O trabalho mais importante foi feito por um anjo).}
|
\section{Introduction}
The light quark masses, despite being fundamental parameters of
the Standard Model, are surprisingly poorly known at present.
Since, in the standard (``large condensate'')
scenario for the chiral counting in Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT),
however, the ratio
$m_s/(m_u+m_d)=24.4\pm 1.5$ is known\cite{leutwylerqmasses}, fixing
either $m_s$ or $m_u+m_d$ is sufficient to determine
the other. In this paper we focus on $m_s$, which
has been the subject of several recent investigations,
employing both
QCD sum rules\cite{jm,narison95,cps,cfnp,jamin,km3388,dps,kmtau,pp98,cdh98}
and lattice QCD
\cite{rt97,al97,alrev,gough97,sesam,cppacs,ape,qcdsf,k98,gimenez,jlqcd,bsw99}.
On the lattice, reliable results are presently restricted to the
quenched approximation and vary somewhat depending on the fermion
implementation and on whether one chooses $m_K$ or $m_\phi$ when
matching to physical meson masses.
Unquenched calculations are at a more preliminary
stage, but suggest unquenching is likely
to lower quenched results\cite{rt97,sesam,cppacs,k98}.
Recent quenched results for $m_s$ (where here, as in what
follows, all masses, unless otherwise specified, will be
quoted at a scale $\mu=2$ GeV in the $\overline{MS}$ scheme) are
$110\pm 20 \pm 11$ MeV\cite{rt97},
$122\pm 20$ MeV\cite{al97}, $95\pm 16$ MeV\cite{gough97},
$115\pm 2\ (143\pm 6)$ MeV\cite{cppacs} (for $m_K\ (m_\phi )$
input), $111\pm 12$ MeV\cite{ape}, $98.1\pm 2.4$ MeV\cite{qcdsf}
(update as quoted by Kenway\cite{k98}), $130\pm 2\pm 18$
MeV\cite{gimenez}, $129\pm 12$ MeV\cite{jlqcd} and
$95\pm 26$ MeV\cite{bsw99}.
For dynamical
($N_f=2$) simulations, the CP-PACS results $m_s\sim 70\ (80)$
MeV (with $m_K \ (m_\phi )$ as input) and SESAM result $151\pm 30$
MeV\cite{sesam} do not appear compatible. (Note, however, that
there are unresolved issues of chiral extrapolations, renormalization
constants, and the lack of extrapolation to the continuum limit in
the SESAM result; for a further discussion of these issues see
Section
6 of the review by Bhattacharya and Gupta\cite{rt97}, and
Allton\cite{alrev}.)
Recent attempts to extract $m_s$ using QCD sum rules are
of four types. Two employ flavor-breaking differences
of vector and/or axial vector
current correlators, either the isovector-hypercharge
difference\cite{narison95,km3388} or the isovector-strange
difference\cite{kmtau,pp98,cdh98}.
The others involve analyses of the strange
scalar\cite{jm,cps,cfnp,jamin} and strange pseudoscalar\cite{jm,dps} channels.
For the vector current isovector-hypercharge difference, isospin-breaking
corrections are crucial due to
the high degree of cancellation on the hadronic side of the sum rule.
These are, for natural
reasons\cite{km3388,kmcvc}, larger than one would naively
expect, and can only
be obtained indirectly\cite{km3388}. The high degree of cancellation
also magnifies experimental and theoretical uncertainties,
leading to significant errors
on $m_s$ ($m_s=107\pm\sim 40$ MeV\cite{mw98}, if
one takes the isovector
spectral function from
hadronic $\tau$ decay data\cite{ALEPH,OPAL}).
The isovector-strange
difference, which employs $\tau$ decay data for the isovector
and strange spectral functions, is subject to complications
resulting from (1) very poor convergence of the
perturbative series for the longitudinal
contributions on the OPE side\cite{kmtau,pp98},
and (2) strong cancellation,
which again significantly magnifies
the effect of the (otherwise rather small) experimental errors.
Combining errors
in quadrature and translating to the scale $2$ GeV,
one finds
$m_s=163\pm 50$ MeV\cite{kmtau},
$143\pm 42$ MeV\cite{pp98} and $157\pm 37$ MeV\cite{cdh98}.
The third approach involves
the correlator
$\langle 0\vert T\left( J_{A,s} J^\dagger_{A,s}\right)\vert 0
\rangle$
(where $J_{A,s}\equiv\partial_\mu \bar{s}\gamma_5\gamma^\mu u$)\cite{jm,dps}.
In this case, the
$K$ pole contribution to $\rho (s)$ is known,
but contributions from the continuum ($K(1460)$, $K(1830)$ resonance
region) are not.
Both analyses of this type employ a sum-of-Breit-Wigner modulation
of the near-threshold tree-level ChPT form to deal with this problem,
together with some assumptions about the relative
size of the two unknown resonance decay constants. As discussed in
Refs.~\cite{cfnp,bgm}, this type of normalization procedure
for a continuum spectral ansatz can involve
potentially significant systematic errors.
For example, in the scalar strange
channel, it leads to a rather poor
representation of the actual spectral function (compare
the model versions of Refs.~\cite{jm,cps} with that
of Ref.~\cite{cfnp}).
In addition,
because both analyses employ Borel transformed (SVZ) sum rules\cite{svz},
they involve the conventional
``continuum'' (or local duality) approximation
to $\rho (s)$ above $s=s_0$ (where the
``continuum threshold'', $s_0$, is a parameter of the analysis).
Since, for Borel masses, $M$, in the stability windows of
both analyses, $M^2<<s_0$ is far from being
satisfied, there are potential systematic errors
resulting from violations of local duality in the
``continuum'' region. (That contributions from the ``continuum''
region are not numerically negligible can also be inferred, e.g.,
from the figures of Ref.~\cite{dps}). It is worth noting that
violations of local duality are, in general, expected in kinematic
regimes where typical resonance widths are comparable
to or smaller than typical resonance separations. This has been
quantified in
the isovector vector channel, where the hadronic spectral function
is known experimentally; violations
of local duality in that channel, even at scales $\sim m_\tau^2$,
are seen to be, in general, rather large\cite{kmfesr}.
Taking the results from Refs.~\cite{jm,cps}
which employ $\Lambda_{QCD}=380$ MeV
(which best corresponds to recent
experimental values for $\alpha_s(m_\tau^2)$\cite{ALEPH,OPAL}),
one finds, for $m_s$, the values $\simeq 100$ MeV\cite{jm}
(see Figure 5) and $115\pm 19$\cite{dps} (where the errors do not reflect
the systematic uncertainties discussed above).
The last approach involves the correlator, relevant to the strange
scalar channel,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi (q^2)\ &=&\ i\int\, dx\, e^{iq\cdot x}\langle 0\vert
T\left( J_s(x)\, J_s^\dagger (0)\right)\vert 0\rangle \nonumber\\
&=& i \left( m_s-m_u\right)^2\,
\int\, dx\, e^{iq\cdot x}\langle 0\vert
T\left( \bar{s}u(x)\, \bar{u}s(0)
\right)\vert 0\rangle\ ,
\label{scalarcorrelator}
\end{eqnarray}
which has been analyzed, in Refs.~\cite{jm,cps,cfnp,jamin},
using the Borel transformed sum rule method. This channel
is a favorable one for sum rule analyses because
the hadronic spectral function, $\rho (s)$, turns out to be
rather well-determinable
(albeit indirectly) from experimental data.
The reason is that since, experimentally,
$K\pi$ scattering is known to be purely elastic
up to $s=(1.58\ {\rm GeV})^2$\cite{LASS,dunwoodie},
the phase of the timelike scalar
$K\pi$ form factor, $d(s)$, is known up to this point.
$d(s)$, moreover, satisfies an Omnes
representation
\begin{equation}
d(s)=d(0)p(s)\, exp\left[ {\frac{s}{\pi}}\int_{th}^\infty\, dt
{\frac{\delta (t)}{t(t-s-i\epsilon )}}\right]\ ,
\label{omnes}
\end{equation}
where $p(s)$ is a polynomial normalized to $1$ at $s=0$,
$\delta (s)$ is the phase of $d(s)$, and the
normalization $d(0)$ is known from ChPT and $K_{e3}$\cite{glmff}. In order to
satisfy quark counting rules for the asymptotic behavior of
$d(s)$, $\delta$ must $\rightarrow (N+1)\pi$ as $s\rightarrow\infty$
if $p(s)$ is of degree $N$. In previous analyses $p(s)$ has
been assumed to be $1$ (or, equivalently,
very slowly varying in the range of $s$ important to the analysis).
The fact that, at the edge of the experimentally explored region,
$s=(1.7\ {\rm GeV})^2$,
the $I=1/2$ $K\pi$ phase shift is very nearly
$\pi$\cite{LASS,dunwoodie,estabrooks}, the asymptotic
value required if $p(s)\equiv 1$, suggests, first,
that this assumption is rather
plausible and, second, that the treatment of the
high energy behavior of the phase, $\delta (s)$,
employed in Ref.~\cite{cfnp}, {\it i.e.}
$\delta (s)=\pi$ for $s>(1.7\ {\rm GeV})^2$, is sensible.
We will also see below that, making these assumptions,
one obtains extremely well-satisfied sum rules, providing
strong {\it post facto} justification as well. With these assumptions,
the $K\pi$ contribution to $\rho$ is completely
determined, and multiparticle contributions
begin only above $s\sim 2.5\ {\rm GeV}^2$.
The resulting $K\pi$ contribution to $\rho (s)$ is, moreover,
much smaller in the
$K_0^*(1950)$ than in the $K_0^*(1430)$ region
(see Fig. 2 of Ref.~\cite{cfnp}). Since
the $K_0^*(1950)$ $K\pi$ branching fraction
is known to
be $\sim 50\%$\cite{pdg98}, the remaining multiparticle contributions
to $\rho$, in the $K_0^*(1950)$ region, will also be small.
This means that, to the extent that
one may expect
multiparticle contributions to $\rho$
to be resonance dominated, (1) such contributions will play only
a small role in the full spectral
function out to $s\sim 4\ {\rm GeV}^2$, and (2) in this region,
the magnitude of these contributions can
be obtained by combining information from
the Omnes-generated
$K\pi$ component and the known
experimental $K_0^*(1950)$ $K\pi$ branching fraction.
We do not quote results
from the analyses of Refs.~\cite{jm,cps}
since the spectral ansatz employed
there has been shown to be incompatible with
the Omnes representation\cite{cfnp}.
Results from Refs.~\cite{cfnp,jamin} are $m_s=\, 91\rightarrow 116\
{\rm MeV}$\cite{cfnp} and $116\pm 22\ {\rm MeV}$\cite{jamin}.
The main potential uncertainty in these analyses
is that associated with violations of local duality
in the ``continuum'' region, $s>s_0$.
That continuum contributions are non-negligible
may be seen from the lack of a stability plateau for $m_s$ in
the analysis of Ref.~\cite{jamin}.
Finite energy sum rules constructed using the extracted
values of $m_s$ from Refs.~\cite{cfnp,jamin} and
the Omnes-generated spectral ansatz of Ref.~\cite{cfnp}
(also used in Ref.~\cite{jamin}) as input have been shown to be
moderately well satisfied\cite{kmfesr}. The residual deficiencies
could arise from either shortcomings in the spectral ansatz or
approximations on the OPE side of the sum rules.
We will investigate this question
in what follows.
\section{The Strange Scalar Channel Analysis}
Unitarity and analyticity ensure that correlators like
$\Pi (q^2)$, defined above,
satisfy either appropriately subtracted conventional
dispersion relations or finite energy sum rules (FESR's).
Borel transformation of the former leads to the conventional\cite{svz}
(SVZ) form of QCD sum rules. In what follows we choose to
employ FESR's,
which are based on Cauchy's
theorem, rather than the Cauchy representation theorem,
and work with the
``Pac-man'' contour, which traverses both sides of the physical
cut, and is closed by a circle of radius $s_0$ in the complex-$s$
plane. One then has
\begin{equation}
\int_{s_{th}}^{s_0}\, ds\, \rho (s) w(s)\, =\,
{\frac{-1}{2\pi i}}\, \oint_{\vert s\vert =s_0}\, ds\, w(s)\Pi (s)\ ,
\label{basicfesr}
\end{equation}
valid for any function $w(s)$ analytic in the region of the contour,
where $\rho (s)$ is the spectral function and
$s_{th}$ the relevant physical threshold. To make this relation
useful, one wishes to use the physical spectral function, whose
extraction was described in the Introduction, on the LHS, and the
OPE for the correlator on the RHS. Since the OPE is proportional
to $\left( m_s-m_u\right)^2$, this provides a method for
extracting $m_s-m_u$.
To make the results of this analysis reliable,
$s_0$ should satisfy two criteria: (1) it should be
large enough to make the OPE representation of the RHS accurate,
and (2) it should be small enough that one still has
experimental information on $\rho (s)$ for $s<s_0$ on the LHS.
The latter criterion, in the present case, restricts us to
the region up to and including the $K_0^*(1950)$
(i.e., $s_0<4\ {\rm GeV}^2$ or so). Since,
even at $s=4\ {\rm GeV}^2$, resonance widths and
separations are comparable, one expects local duality
to be violated, creating potentially significant uncertainties
on the OPE side. It has been argued,
however, that even if local duality is not exactly
satisfied for given timelike $s_0$, the OPE may, nonetheless, provide
a good representation of the correlator on most of
the circle $\vert s\vert =s_0$ (i.e., except possibly for a region of
hadronic scale near the timelike real axis)\cite{pqw}.
The isovector vector channel,
for which the spectral function has been extracted
from hadronic $\tau$ decay data,
provides explicit empirical confirmation of this argument. First,
the conventional FESR treatment of these decays\cite{taudecay}
is very well satisfied,
presumably because it involves
a weight function (determined by kinematics) with a double
zero at $s=s_0$ which cuts out contributions from the
potentially dangerous part of the contour.
Second, one may demonstrate that using weights $s^k$ (with
no such zero at $s=s_0$) leads to significant violation of
local duality, even at scale $s_0=m_\tau^2$, whereas
FESR's based on weights having either a single or double zero
at $s=s_0$ are all extremely well satisfied, even at
scales significantly below $s_0=m_\tau^2$\cite{kmfesr}.
Using such FESR's one may, thus, hope to construct sum rules in which
the use of the ``continuum'' ansatz for the
high energy portion of $\rho (s)$ may be avoided.
In what follows, therefore, we
study FESR's for the correlator, $\Pi (q^2)$,
using weights of the form
\begin{equation}
w_A(s)=\left( 1-{\frac{s}{s_0}}\right)\left( A-{\frac{s}{s_0}}\right)\ .
\label{NORM}
\end{equation}
In Eq.~(\ref{NORM}), $A$ is a free parameter, to be chosen in such a way
as to optimize the reliability
of the analysis.
Since (1) instanton effects are known exactly only in dilute gas
single-instanton-background approximation\cite{bbb93,nason} and (2)
the instanton density used to obtain these results is known to be
altered by quark and gluon
condensate effects\cite{svzinst}, the magnitude of the resulting
instanton contributions (as stressed by the authors
of Refs.~\cite{bbb93,nason})
can be considered only a rough guide.
For this reason, we restrict our attention to
weights which, after
integration, yield
instanton effects (including corrections to the coefficients of both
the unit
operator and quark condensate in the OPE, as given in Ref.~\cite{nason})
which are small for all $s_0$ employed. While any $A>1$
turns out to satisfy this criterion, $A=2$ creates an optimal suppression
and we will display results below for this value of $A$.
We now discuss the input on the hadronic side of the
sum rules. The $K\pi$
and multiparticle portions of $\rho (s)$
are obtained, using the Omnes representation,
experimental $K\pi$ phases, and the experimental $K\pi$ branching
fractions of the $K_0^*(1430)$ and $K_0^*(1950)$, as described
in the Introduction. We employ two slightly different implementations
of this procedure, the difference in the resulting $m_s$ values
serving to quantify the effect of uncertainties in our knowledge of the
hadronic spectral function. In the first implementation,
the fit to the experimental $K\pi$ phases obtained in Ref.~\cite{jm} is
used as input to the Omnes representation, and
multiparticle contributions are allowed in both the
$K_0^*(1430)$ and $K_0^*(1950)$ regions, constrained by the
Particle Data Group's $K\pi$
branching fractions\cite{pdg98}. In the
second implementation we employ the LASS fit\cite{LASS,dunwoodie}
to the $K\pi$ phase shifts and inelasticities. For this fit,
the form of the parametrization of phase shift data used is slightly
different from that of Ref.~\cite{jm}. In addition, since
the fit to the $K\pi$ amplitude is
still purely elastic in the $K_0^*(1430)$
region, in employing this implementation
we allow multiparticle contributions to the spectral
function only from the $K_0^*(1950)$ region. (Note that the background
effective range parameters, $a$, $b$, and
$K_0^*(1430)$ resonance parameters, $m$, $\Gamma$,
were mis-recorded in Ref.~\cite{LASS},
and should actually be $m=1.412\ {\rm GeV}$,
$\Gamma =.294\ {\rm GeV}$\cite{dunwoodie,gnrmp},
and $a=2.19\ {\rm GeV}^{-1}$,
$b=3.74\ {\rm GeV}^{-1}$\cite{dunwoodie}. It has been checked that
these provide a satisfactory
representation of the amplitude and phase shift data of Ref.~\cite{LASS}.)
On the OPE side, it is convenient to work with $d^2\Pi (Q^2)/\left(
dQ^2\right)^2\equiv \Pi^{\prime\prime}(Q^2)$,
which satisfies a homogenous RG equation, so
all scale dependence can be absorbed into the running mass
and coupling. To improve the convergence of the perturbative
series, and significantly reduce residual scale dependence, we
follow standard practice and evaluate the OPE side
using the ``contour improvement''
prescription of Ref.~\cite{contourimproved},
first summing logarithms through the
renormalization scale choice $\mu^2=Q^2$, and then
performing the integral around
the circle $\vert s\vert =s_0$ numerically,
using the exact solutions for the
running mass and coupling which follow from the four-loop-truncated $\beta$
and $\gamma$ functions\cite{beta4,gamma4}.
The expressions for the dimension $D=0,2,4,6$
contributions to $\Pi^{\prime\prime}(Q^2)$
are all known from previous
work\cite{jm,cps,cfnp} and, for $\mu^2=Q^2$, are:
(1) for $D=0$\cite{jm,cps},
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[ \Pi^{\prime\prime}(Q^2)\right]_{D=0}&=&
\frac{3(m_s-m_u)^2(Q^2)}{8\pi^2 Q^2}\left\{
1 + \frac{11a(Q^2)}{3} + {a(Q^2)^2}\left(
\frac{5071}{144}-\frac{35}{2}\zeta(3)\right)\right.\nonumber\\
& &\left.\qquad +{a(Q^2)^3}\left(\frac{1995097}{5184}-\frac{\pi^4}{36}
-\frac{65869}{216}\zeta (3)+\frac{715}{12}\zeta (5)\right)\right\}\ ,
\label{d0}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a(Q^2)=\alpha_s (Q^2)/\pi$ and $\zeta (N)$ is the Riemann
zeta function; (2) for $D=2$\cite{jm,cps},
\begin{equation}
\left[ \Pi^{\prime\prime}(Q^2)\right]_{D=2}=
-\frac{3(m_s-m_u)^2(Q^2)m_s^2(Q^2)}{4\pi^2 Q^4}\left\{ 1 +
\frac{28a(Q^2)}{3}
+{a(Q^2)^2}\left(\frac{8557}{72}-\frac{77}{3}\zeta(3)\right)\right\}\ ;
\label{d2}
\end{equation}
(3) for $D=4$\cite{jm,cps},
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[ \Pi^{\prime\prime}(Q^2)\right]_{D=4} &=&
\frac{(m_s-m_u)^2(Q^2)}{Q^6}\left\{ 2\langle m_s\bar uu\rangle
\left(1 + \frac{23}{3}{a(Q^2)}\right)
-\frac{1}{9} I_G\left( 1 + \frac{121}{18} {a(Q^2)}
\right)
\right.\nonumber\\
& &\left. \ \
+ I_s\left( 1+\frac{64}{9}{a(Q^2)}\right)
-\frac{3}{7\pi^2}m_s^4(Q^2)\left(\frac{1}{a(q^2)}+
\frac{155}{24}\right)\right\}\ ,
\label{d4}
\end{eqnarray}
where $I_G$ and $I_s$ are the RG-invariant $D=4$ condensate combinations
of Ref.~\cite{cps}; and (4) for $D=6$\cite{jm},
\begin{equation}
\left[ \Pi^{\prime\prime}(Q^2)\right]_{D=6} =
\frac{(m_s-m_u)^2(Q^2)}{Q^8}\left\{ 3 m_s\langle
g\bar{u}\sigma F u\rangle -\frac{32}{9}\pi^2 \rho_{VSA} a
\left( \langle \bar{s}s\rangle^2 + \langle \bar{u}u\rangle^2
+9 \langle \bar{s}s\rangle \langle \bar{u}u\rangle\right)\right\}\ ,
\label{d6}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{VSA}$ is a parameter describing the deviation
of the four-quark condensates from their
vacuum saturation values.
In the above equations, factors of $m_{u,d}$
have been dropped, except in the overall
normalization $(m_s-m_u)^2$.
For the input required on the OPE side of the sum rule we employ
the following:
$\alpha_s(m_\tau^2)=.334\pm .022$\cite{ALEPH}
(needed as initial condition for
the RG running of $\alpha_s$); for the $D=4$
condensates,
$\langle \alpha_s G^2\rangle = 0.07\pm .01\ {\rm GeV}^4$\cite{narison97},
$\left( m_u+m_d\right)\langle \bar{u}u\rangle =-f_\pi^2 m_\pi^2$, and
$0.7< r_c \equiv
\langle \bar{s}s\rangle /\langle \bar{u} u\rangle <1$\cite{jm,cps};
for the $D=6$ condensates, $\langle g\bar{q}\sigma Fq\rangle
=\left( 0.8\pm 0.2\ {\rm GeV}^2\right)\langle \bar{q} q\rangle$\cite{jm}
and $\rho_{VSA}=5\pm 5$ (i.e., allowing, to be conservative,
up to an order of magnitude
deviation from vacuum saturation). We evaluate
$m_s-m_u$ by optimizing the match of the OPE and hadronic sides of
the sum rules in question
in the range $3\ {\rm GeV}^2\leq s_0\leq 4\ {\rm GeV}^2$,
for which the dominant $D=0$ contour-improved series is well behaved.
To convert the extracted values
of $m_s-m_u$ to those for $m_s$, we take the central ChPT value
for $m_s/m_u$\cite{leutwylerqmasses}.
The errors on the extracted value of $m_s$ associated with those on
the input OPE parameters, together with their sources, are
as follows (where we list only those cases where the error is greater
than $0.1$ MeV): due to $\alpha_s(m_\tau^2)$,
$\pm 1.0$ MeV; due to
$\rho_{VSA}$, $\pm 0.7$ MeV; due to $\langle \alpha_s G^2\rangle$,
$\pm 0.2$ MeV;
due to $r_c$, $\pm 0.2$ MeV. More significant, on the OPE side, is
the error associated with the truncation of the $D=0$ contributions
at four-loop order. If we assume continued geometric growth of the
expansion coefficients, including this estimate for the next order
term lowers $m_s$ by $2.8$ MeV. In the final results below we
have included this estimate of the five-loop order term
in arriving at the quoted value, and assigned
an error of {\it twice} the difference between the four-loop
result and five-loop estimate. If added in quadrature, this source
of error swamps all others on the OPE side.
The sources and errors on $m_s$
associated with uncertainties on the hadronic side
of the sum rules (where greater than $0.1$ MeV) are as follows:
due to the error on the $K_0^*(1430)$ $K\pi$ branching
fraction\cite{pdg98} (in the case of the first implementation described
above, where multiparticle contributions are allowed in the
$K_0^*(1430)$ region), $\pm 3.5$ MeV;
due to that on $m_{K_0^*(1430)}$, $\pm 0.6$ MeV; due to
that on $\Gamma_{K_0^*(1430)}$,
$\pm 3.8$ MeV; and due to that on $\Gamma_{K_0^*(1950)}$, $\pm 0.4$ MeV. There
is also a $0.4$ MeV difference between the extracted central values
for the two different implementations of the hadronic spectral
ansatz; this
uncertainty is, however, swamped by that associated
with the treatment of multiparticle contributions in the
$K_0^*(1430)$ region in the case of the
first implementation. We treat the latter as a systematic error
common to both hadronic implementations,
even though it is, strictly speaking,
not consistent to include
it in the case of the second
implementation, based on the LASS fit, which is purely elastic
in the $K_0^*(1430)$ region.
Taking the average of the central values associated with the two different
hadronic implementations, and adding errors in quadrature, we then
arrive at our final result,
\begin{equation}
m_s\left( 4 \ {\rm GeV}^2\right)=\left( 115.1\pm 5.7 \pm 5.2\right)
\ {\rm MeV}\ ,
\label{final}
\end{equation}
where the first error is associated with the OPE
side of the sum rule (and is completely
dominated by our estimate of the error due to trunctation of the
$D=0$ series) and the second with uncertainties on
the hadronic side (where
errors associated with the inelasticity in the $K_0^*(1430)$ region
and with the uncertainty in the $K_0^*(1430)$ width are roughly
equally important and, again, dominate all other sources).
This result corresponds to
\begin{equation}
m_s\left( 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2\right)=\left( 158.6\pm 7.9 \pm 7.2\right)
\ {\rm MeV}\ .
\label{onegev2}
\end{equation}
In Figure 1 we display the match between the OPE and hadronic
sides of the $A=2$ sum rule in the fit window,
for the optimized value of $m_s$. The agreement is
obviously excellent, increasing our confidence in both the
assumptions about the form of the Omnes representation of $d(s)$,
and the value of $m_s$ that results.
\section{Summary}
We have determined $m_s$ from a FESR analysis in which the
hadronic side of the sum rules employed is well determined by
experimental data, modulo questions about the presence or
absence of a polynomial factor in the Omnes representation
of $d(s)$ and the high energy behavior of the phase
$\delta (s)$. The excellent agreement between OPE and hadronic
sides shown in the Figure argues strongly, albeit {\it post facto},
for the reliability of the input assumptions $p(s)=1$ and $\delta (s)=\pi$
for $s>(1.7\ {\rm GeV})^2$. We have
attempted to make conservative estimates of the errors
associated with uncertainties on the hadronic and OPE sides
of the sum rules and conclude that $m_s\left( 4 \ {\rm GeV}^2\right)
=115\pm 8\ {\rm MeV}$, compatible with results from recent
quenched lattice calculations.
It is worth noting that systematic uncertainties
in the Borel transformed sum rule approach
associated
with the use of the ``continuum ansatz'' for the high energy
portion of the hadronic spectral function
are potentially significant in size on
the scale of the errors quoted above. In Ref.~\cite{cps}, for
example, a variation of $\pm 9$ MeV in $m_s\left( 1\ {\rm GeV}^2\right)$
results from variations of $\pm 0.5\ {\rm GeV}^2$ in
the continuum threshold
parameter, $s_0$. Such uncertainties are, of course,
absent in the FESR approach, and help to keep the final errors small.
\vskip .5in\noindent
\begin{figure} [htb]
\centering{\
\psfig{figure=ssmsfig.ps,height=10.cm}}
\vskip .3in
\caption{The OPE ($I_{OPE}$) and hadronic
($I_{had}$) sides of the $A=2$ FESR defined in the
text. The solid line gives the OPE side, the dashed
line the hadronic side.}
\label{figone}
\end{figure}
\acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Rajan Gupta, Tanmoy Bhattacharya
and Michael Pennington
for numerous useful discussions; Michael Pennington,
in addition, for pointing
out the existence of the transcription errors in the $K\pi$ parameters
of Ref.~\cite{LASS}; and W. Dunwoodie for confirming the
revised values of these parameters.
The ongoing support of the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the hospitality and
support of the
Special Research Centre for the Subatomic Structure of Matter at the
University of Adelaide, where much of this work was completed, are also
gratefully acknowledged.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{intro}
An intriguing aspect of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) in a dilute
atomic gas is that the internal atomic state of the condensate can be
manipulated to produce quite novel systems. A number of interesting
experiments have produced uncoupled multi-component condensates, in
which two or more internal states of the condensate exist together in
a magnetic or optical trap
\cite{Wieman1,Ketterle1,Ketterle2,exp1,exp2}. These experimental
studies, along with their theoretical counterparts, have investigated
various topics such as the ground state of the system
\cite{ho1,esry2,pu2,ho2,ohberg2,ao}, the elementary excitations
\cite{meystre1,busch1,walls3,pu1,esry1,ohberg3,savage}, and the
nonlinear dynamics of component separation \cite{sinatra}.
Many fascinating properties can be studied by applying an external
electromagnetic field that coherently couples the internal atomic
states of the
condensate~\cite{exp3,eschmann,williams1,Villain,ohberg,exp5,blakie,ZhangWalls,ZhangLiu}. In
the experiment described in \cite{exp3}, the relative phase between
two hyperfine components was measured using a technique based on
Ramsey's method of separated oscillating fields \cite{Ramsey} and
these results have motivated further theoretical investigation
\cite{sinatra,eschmann}. In this system, several key parameters can
be varied over a wide range of values, such as the coupling-field
intensity and frequency, the confining potentials, the total number of
atoms, and the temperature, making this a very rich system to explore.
Several theoretical papers \cite{williams1,Villain,ohberg} have
investigated the weak coupling limit of this system, where the
intensity of the external driving field is very low but is turned on
for a time long compared to the period of oscillation in the magnetic
trap. A clear analogy exists between this system and the Josephson
junction \cite{Barone}. In the Josephson junction, identical particles
in spatially separated condensates are coupled via the tunneling
mechanism
\cite{Walls2,Juha,Walls1,Wright,Legget1,Legget2,Smerzi1,Smerzi2,Clark}.
In this two-component system, however, two distinct internal states of
the condensate are coupled by an applied field. By adjusting the
magnetic fields that confine the atoms, the degree of spatial overlap
between the two components can be controlled.
Recently, there have been both experimental \cite{exp5} and
theoretical \cite{blakie} studies on the dressed states of a driven
two-component condensate, drawing an analogy to the dressed states of
a driven two-level atom in quantum optics. Due to the interplay
between the internal and external degrees of freedom, the condensate
dressed states have spatial structure that depends on the trap
parameters, the mean-field interaction, and the frequency and
intensity of the driving field \cite{blakie}. In the experiment
reported in \cite{exp5}, the dressed states were created via an
adiabatic passage by sweeping the detuning.
In this paper, we focus on the limit of a very strong and sustained
coupling between hyperfine states, which is the situation achieved
experimentally in \cite{exp5}. In that experiment, a BEC of about
$8\times 10^5$ atoms was produced in the $|F=1,M_F=-1\rangle$
hyperfine state of ${}^{87}$Rb, at a temperature close to zero,
$T\approx 0$. The atoms were confined in a time-averaged, orbiting
potential (TOP) magnetic trap by a harmonic potential with axial
symmetry along the vertical axis. An external field was then applied
that coupled the $|1,-1\rangle$ state to the $|2,1\rangle$ hyperfine
state via a two-photon transition. The Rabi frequency was five to ten
times larger than the vertical trap frequency and the detuning could
be adjusted arbitrarily. Due to their different magnetic moments and
the force of gravity, the two hyperfine states sit in shifted traps
offset along the vertical axis \cite{exp4}. The degree of separation
could be controlled by adjusting the magnetic trapping fields.
The subsequent behavior of the system described in \cite{exp5} was
quite unexpected: after the coupling field was turned on, the Rabi
oscillations between the states appeared to collapse and revive on a
time scale which was long compared to the Rabi period of 3 ms. An
example of this behavior taken from \cite{exp5} is shown in Fig.~1. It
was observed that the period of this modulation increased with
decreasing detuning. The behavior of the system also depended
critically on the separation between the traps for each state. As the
separation was taken to zero, the effect went away. The evolution of
the density of each component was also very interesting. Each
component cycled between a density profile with one peak and a profile
with two peaks. The two-peaked structure was most clearly visible
around the collapse time, which is $t \approx 20$ ms for the case
shown in Figure 1.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=FIG_1.eps,height=2.5in}}
\vspace{0.05cm}
\caption{This plot shows the modulation of the fractional population
in the (1,-1) state. The top line is experimental data
\protect\cite{exp5} while the bottom line is the result of a
numerical calculation of the three-dimensional, two-component
Gross-Pitaevskii equation Eq.~(\ref{main1}) (below). The coupling
strength and detuning were chosen for the calculation to be $\Omega =
350$ Hz and $\delta = -188$ Hz, respectively.}
\end{figure}
A numerical calculation of the three-dimensional, coupled
Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equations Eq.~(\ref{main1}) (below) describing
the system in the zero temperature limit agrees, at least
qualitatively, with the outcome of the experiment, as shown in Figure
1. Of course, the agreement between the numerical integration of
Eq.~(\ref{main1}) and the laboratory data does not in itself provide
an intuitive explanation of the underlying physical mechanism
responsible for the collapse-revival behavior. In this paper, we
present a detailed analysis of this problem, and arrive at a rather
simple model that explains the major features of the system's
behavior.
Before presenting the details of our analysis, it is useful to first
give an overview of the results. There are two main concepts that play
key roles in obtaining an intuitive understanding of this problem.
First, there is a clear separation of time scales: the period of Rabi
oscillations between internal states is much shorter than the period
of the trap. That is, the internal dynamics occur on a much shorter
time scale than the motional dynamics of the system. It is therefore
useful to go to a frame rotating at the effective Rabi frequency. In
this rotating frame, we show that there exists a weak coupling between
the low lying motional states which is proportional to the offset
between the two traps. This weak coupling has the effect of modulating
the amplitude of the fast Rabi oscillations in the lab frame.
The second key point is to understand exactly which motional states
are excited. They are not the linear response collective excitations
(normal modes) that have been studied frequently in the BEC literature
\cite{griffin,stringari3,fetter}. Instead, they are many-particle
topological modes determined by the self-consistent solutions to the
two-component GP equations Eq.~(\ref{selfcons}). The well known vortex
mode~\cite{edwards1,stringari1,sinha,rokhsar1} is one example of such
an excitation in which phase continuity requires quantized circulation
around a vortex core. The related excitation which plays a key role in
this paper does not exhibit circulation but has a node in the
wavefunction amplitude and exhibits odd-parity behavior characteristic
of such a dipole mode. For a single component in the limit of the
uniform gas, the exact solution of this mode is known as a dark
soliton~\cite{Clark}. In that case the scale of the density
perturbation around the node is the healing length and is determined
by a balance of kinetic and mean-field interaction energies. In the
problem we consider here, however, it is necessary to account for the
mean field of the the remaining population in the condensate ground
state. Consequently the two modes---the ground state and the dipole
mode---are inextricably linked and must be determined self
consistently.
We first present a detailed theoretical analysis in
Section~\ref{theory}. After making several reasonable approximations,
we arrive in Section~\ref{twomode} at the two-mode model -- a
simplified description that encapsulates the essential properties of
the system. In Section~\ref{casestudy} we present results of numerical
calculations that illustrate the behavior of the system and we compare
our model with the exact numerical solution of the coupled GP
equations. We finally summarize our work in Section~\ref{conclusion}
and suggest further studies based on our understanding of this
phenomenon.
\section{Theoretical Description} \label{theory}
The following theoretical development was motivated by the experiment
described in \cite{exp5}. Therefore, we have not tried to keep our
calculations general, but instead have made several assumptions based
on that particular situation. However, our approach could easily be
extended to treat a broader class of systems. We give a brief
discussion in the conclusion of the paper about possible extensions of
this work to other interesting systems.
We begin this section by writing down the coupled mean-field
equations, valid for zero temperature, that describe this driven,
two-component BEC. In Section~\ref{extint} we rewrite the mean-field
equation in a direct-product representation that clearly separates out
the external and internal dynamics. We then go to a frame rotating at
the effective Rabi frequency in Section~\ref{rotframe} in order to
focus on the slower motional dynamics of the system. After making
some approximations in Section~\ref{approx}, we finally arrive at the
main result of our study in Section~\ref{twomode}, the two-mode model.
\subsection{Coupled Mean-field Equations} \label{coupledmfeq}
A mean-field description of this many-body system that includes the
atom-field interaction has been developed, which generalizes the
standard Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation to treat systems with internal
state coupling~\cite{williams1,Villain,cirac1}. The resulting
time-dependent GP equation describing the driven, two-component
condensate is
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ccc}
i \left( \! \! \begin{array}{c}
\dot{\psi}_1 \\ \dot{\psi}_2 \end{array} \!\! \right)
\!\!\! &=& \!\!\! \left( \!\! \begin{array}{cc}
H_1^0 + H_1^{\rm{MF}} +
\delta/2 & \Omega/2 \\
\Omega/2 & H_2^0 + H_2^{\rm{MF}} - \delta/2
\end{array} \! \right) \!\! \left( \!\! \begin{array}{c}
\psi_1 \\ \psi_2 \end{array} \!\! \right) \,\, .
\end{array}
\label{main1}
\end{equation}
The Hamiltonians describe the evolution in the trap $H_i^0$ and the
mean field interaction $H_i^{\rm{MF}}$ for each component
\begin{eqnarray}
H_i^0 &=& -{1\over{2}} \nabla^2 + {1\over{2}}[({\rho\over\alpha})^2 +
(z + \gamma_i \,z_0)^2] \nonumber \\ H_i^{\rm{MF}} &=& N(\lambda_{ii}
|\psi_i|^2 + \lambda_{ij} |\psi_j|^2) \,\,,
\label{Hs}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\gamma_1=-1$ and $\gamma_2=1$, and $z_0$ is the shift of each
trap from the origin along the vertical axis. The factor
$\alpha=\omega_z/\omega_{\rho}$ is the ratio of axial and radial trap
frequencies. In the experiment reported in \cite{exp5}, $\alpha >
1$. The mean-field strength is characterized by $\lambda_{ij} = 4\pi
a_{ij}/z_{\rm{sho}}$, which depends on the scattering length $a_{ij}$
of the collision. In general there will be three different values,
one for each type of collision in this two-component gas: $a_{11}$,
$a_{22}$, $a_{12}$. The detuning between the driving field and the
hyperfine transition is given by $\delta$ while $\Omega$ denotes the
strength of the coupling. We work in dimensionless units: time is in
units of $1 / \omega_z$, energy is in terms of the trap level spacing
$\hbar \, \omega_z$, and position is in units of the harmonic
oscillator length $z_{\rm{sho}} = \sqrt{\hbar / m_{\rm{Rb}} \,
\omega_z}$. The complex functions $\psi_i({\bf{r}},t)$ are the
mean-field amplitudes of each component, where $i=\{1,2\}$. They obey
the normalization condition $\int (|\psi_i|^2 + |\psi_j|^2) d^3x =
1$. The total population is $N$.
The coupled mean-field equations Eq.~(\ref{main1}) can be solved
numerically using a finite-difference Crank-Nicholson algorithm
\cite{holland1}. We show results of such calculations in Fig.~1 for
the three-dimensional solution and in Section~\ref{casestudy} for a
one-dimensional version. However, in order to gain a more intuitive
understanding of the behavior shown in Fig. 1, we formulate a
simplified description of the system in the following section.
\subsection{External $\otimes$ Internal Representation} \label{extint}
The coupled mean-field equations Eq.~(\ref{main1}) can be rewritten in
a more illuminating form by making a clear separation of the external
and internal degrees of freedom. The system exists in a direct-product
Hilbert space ${\mathcal H = H_{\rm{ex}}\otimes H_{\rm{in}}}$, where
$\mathcal H_{\rm{ex}}$ is the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space
describing the motional state of the system in the trap and $\mathcal
H_{\rm{in}}$ is the two-dimensional Hilbert space describing the spin
of the system. A general operator in $\mathcal H$ can be written as a
sum over the direct-product of operators from $\mathcal H_{\rm{ex}}$
and $\mathcal H_{\rm{in}}$. We rewrite Eq.~(\ref{main1}) in this
representation as
\begin{equation}
i {\partial\over\partial t} |\psi(t)\rangle = [\hat{H}_{0} \otimes \hat{1} +
\hat{1} \otimes ({\Omega\over2}
\, \hat{\sigma}_x + {\delta \, \over 2} \hat{\sigma}_z) +
\hat{H}_{z} \otimes \hat{\sigma}_z] |\psi(t)\rangle
\label{main2}
\end{equation}
where $\{\hat{1},\hat{\sigma}_x,\hat{\sigma}_y,\hat{\sigma}_z\}$ are
the standard Pauli spin matrices. The state of the system
$|\psi(t)\rangle$ in general has a nonzero projection on the internal
states $|1\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$, represented by
$\psi_i({\bf{r}},t)=\langle {\bf{r}} | \langle i |\psi(t)\rangle$,
where $i = \{1,2\}$. The position representations of $\hat{H}_{0}$ and
$\hat{H}_{z}$ are local, i.e. $\langle
{\bf{r}}|\hat{H}_{0}|{\bf{r}}'\rangle = H_{0}({\bf{r}}) \,
\delta({\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}')$ and $\langle
{\bf{r}}|\hat{H}_{z}|{\bf{r}}'\rangle = H_{z}({\bf{r}}) \,
\delta({\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}')$, where $H_{0}({\bf{r}})$ and
$H_{z}({\bf{r}})$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{0}({\bf{r}}) &=& -{1\over{2}} \nabla^2 + {1\over{2}}[({\rho\over\alpha})^2 +z^2] + \langle \psi(t)|\hat{P}_{\bf{r}} \otimes \hat{\lambda}_{+} |\psi(t)\rangle\,\, , \nonumber \\
H_{z}({\bf{r}}) &=& - z_0 \, z + \langle \psi(t)|\hat{P}_{\bf{r}} \otimes \hat{\lambda}_{-} |\psi(t)\rangle \,\, .
\label{HSA}
\end{eqnarray}
The operator $\hat{P}_{\bf{r}}$ is the projector onto the position
eigenstates $\hat{P}_{\bf{r}}=|\bf{r}\rangle \langle \bf{r} |$, and
the matrix representations of $\hat{\lambda}_{+}$ and
$\hat{\lambda}_{-}$ are given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\lambda}_{+} &=& {N \over 2}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\lambda_1 + \lambda_{12} & 0 \\
0 & \lambda_2 + \lambda_{12}
\end{array} \right) \,\, , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\lambda}_{-} &=& {N \over 2}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\lambda_1 - \lambda_{12} & 0 \\
0 & \lambda_{12} - \lambda_2
\end{array} \right) \,\, .
\label{lambdaSA}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the harmonic potential in $\hat{H}_0$ is centered at the
origin. The mean-field interaction has been rewritten in terms of a
part that acts identically on both components $\langle
\psi|\hat{P}_{\bf{r}} \otimes \hat{\lambda}_{+} |\psi\rangle \otimes
\hat{1}$, and a part that acts with the opposite sign on each state
$\langle \psi|\hat{P}_{\bf{r}} \otimes \hat{\lambda}_{-} |\psi\rangle
\otimes \hat{\sigma}_z$.
The first two terms in Eq.~(\ref{main2}) separately describe the
external and internal dynamics of the system, respectively. The third
term in Eq.~(\ref{main2}), however, couples the internal state
evolution to the condensate dynamics in the trap and can lead to
interesting behavior. If the term $\hat{H}_{z}$ were identically zero,
then the problem would be completely separable in terms of the
external and internal degrees-of-freedom. The term $\hat{H}_{z}$ would
be zero if the trap separation $z_0$ were zero and if the scattering
lengths were all exactly equal. In fact, for ${}^{87}$Rb the three
scattering lengths are nearly degenerate, so the main effect of
$\hat{H}_{z}$ comes from the term $-z_0 z$, which is the difference in
the shifted traps. It causes there to be a spatially varying detuning
across the condensate.
\subsection{Rotating Frame} \label{rotframe}
As previously stated, we are concentrating on the situation where the
coupling strength is large, so that the frequency of the Rabi
oscillations $\Omega$ is significantly larger than the trap frequency
$\nu_z$. In this case, the internal spin dynamics and the motion of
the condensate in the trap occur on two different time
scales. Therefore, it is useful to go to a rotating frame that
eliminates the second term in Eq.~(\ref{main2}) describing the fast
Rabi oscillations between the two internal states. In the rotating
frame, we will be able to understand more clearly how the third term
in Eq.~(\ref{main2}), which couples the motional and spin dynamics of
the condensate, effects the system on a time scale much longer than
the period of Rabi oscillation.
We go to the rotating frame, or interaction picture, by making a
unitary transformation using the operator
\begin{equation}
U_I(t) = e^{-i \, \hat{1}\otimes \, ({\Omega \over2} \hat{\sigma}_x + {\delta
\over 2} \hat{\sigma}_z) \, t}
\,\, .
\label{U1}
\end{equation}
This can be rewritten in the equivalent form
\begin{equation}
U_I(t) = \hat{1}\otimes(\cos(\Omega_{\rm{eff}} / 2 \,t) \hat{1} - {i
\over \Omega_{\rm{eff}}} \sin(\Omega_{\rm{eff}}/2 \, t)[\Omega
\hat{\sigma}_x + \delta \hat{\sigma}_z]) \,\, ,
\label{U2}
\end{equation}
where $\Omega_{\rm{eff}}=\sqrt{\Omega^2 + \delta^2}$. The state
vector $|\psi^{(I)}(t) \rangle$ in the rotating frame is related to
the state vector in the lab frame $|\psi(t) \rangle$ by
\begin{equation}
|\psi^{(I)}(t) \rangle = U^\dagger_I \, |\psi(t) \rangle \,\, .
\end{equation}
In the rotating frame, the system evolves according to
\begin{equation}
i {\partial \over \partial t}|\psi^{(I)}(t) \rangle = \hat{H}^{(I)}(t)
|\psi^{(I)}(t) \rangle \,\, ,
\label{intpic}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{H}^{(I)}(t)$ is the interaction Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}^{(I)}(t)= \hat{H}_{0} \otimes \hat{1} + \hat{H}_{z} \otimes
(\alpha_{\rm{x}}(t) \hat{\sigma}_{\rm{x}} + \alpha_{\rm{y}}(t)
\hat{\sigma}_{\rm{y}} + \alpha_{\rm{z}}(t) \hat{\sigma}_{\rm{z}}) \,\,
.
\label{HofI}
\end{equation}
Note that $\hat{H}_{0}$ and $\hat{H}_{z}$ are unaffected by the
unitary transformation to the rotating frame. The time-varying
coefficients $\alpha_{\rm{x}}(t)$, $\alpha_{\rm{y}}(t)$, and
$\alpha_{\rm{z}}(t)$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_{\rm{x}}(t) &=& {\Omega \over \Omega_{\rm{eff}}} {\delta
\over \Omega_{\rm{eff}}} [1 - \cos(\Omega_{\rm{eff}}t)] \nonumber \\
\alpha_{\rm{y}}(t) &=& {\Omega \over \Omega_{\rm{eff}}}
\sin(\Omega_{\rm{eff}}t) \nonumber \\
\alpha_{\rm{z}}(t) &=& {\delta^2 \over \Omega_{\rm{eff}}^2}
+ {\Omega^2 \over \Omega_{\rm{eff}}^2} \cos(\Omega_{\rm{eff}}t) \,\,.
\label{alphas}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Approximations} \label{approx}
We now make three simplifications in order to extract out the dominant
behavior of the system. We first note that the coefficients
$\alpha_i(t)$ given in Eq.~(\ref{alphas}) oscillate rapidly at the
Rabi frequency. We expect the system in the rotating frame
$|\psi^{(I)}(t) \rangle$ to evolve on a much slower time scale than
the period of Rabi oscillation. We can utilize this fact in order to
simplify the interaction Hamiltonian $\hat{H}^{(I)}(t)$ given in
Eq.~(\ref{HofI}) by taking the average values of the coefficients
$\alpha_i(t)$ -- this is equivalent to coarse graining
Eq~(\ref{intpic}). The coefficients in Eq.~(\ref{alphas}) become time
independent and reduce to: $\alpha_{\rm{x}}=\delta \, \Omega /
\Omega_{\rm{eff}}^2$, $\alpha_{\rm{y}}=0$, and
$\alpha_{\rm{z}}=\delta^2 / \Omega_{\rm{eff}}^2$.
We make the additional assumption that the system is being driven
close to resonance, so that $\delta/ \Omega_{\rm{eff}} << 1$. We
therefore set $\alpha_{\rm{z}}=0$ since $\alpha_{\rm{z}}$ depends
quadratically on this small parameter.
Finally, we take advantage of the fact that the scattering lengths for
${}^{87}$Rb are nearly degenerate, with the ratios between inter- and
intra-species scattering lengths given by $\{a_2:a_{12}:a_1\} =\{
0.97:1:1.03\}$ \cite{exp2}. This allows us to simplify the two mean-field
terms appearing in Eq.~(\ref{HSA}). We first make the approximation
$\hat{\lambda}_{+} \approx \lambda\, N \cdot \hat{1}$ by assuming
equal scattering lengths, or $\lambda_1 \approx \lambda_2 \approx
\lambda_{12} \rightarrow \lambda$. We can also simplify the other term
$\hat{\lambda}_{-}$ by assuming that its predominant effect is to
shift the levels slightly. Instead of neglecting it altogether, we
simply replace it by a mean-field shift of the levels $\langle
\psi|\hat{P}_{\bf{r}} \otimes \hat{\lambda}_{-} |\psi\rangle
\rightarrow \delta_{\rm{MF}}$, where the shift is given by
$\delta_{\rm{MF}}= \Delta\lambda\int n^2({\bf{r}},0) d^3x / N$. Here
$n({\bf{r}},0)$ is the total density at $t=0$ and $\Delta\lambda=
(\lambda_1-\lambda_{12})=(\lambda_{12}-\lambda_2)$. We can absorb it
into the detuning $\delta$ by defining an effective detuning $\delta'$
that includes this mean-field shift $\delta \rightarrow \delta'=
\delta + \delta_{\rm{MF}}$.
After making the above approximations, we can now write the
interaction Hamiltonian $\hat{H}^{(I)}$ from Eq.~(\ref{HofI}) in a much
simpler form
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}^{(I)} = \hat{H}_{0}' \otimes \hat{1} + \hat{H}_{z}' \otimes
\hat{\sigma}_{\rm{x}} \,\, ,
\label{HofI2}
\end{equation}
where the position representations of $\hat{H}_{0}'$ and
$\hat{H}_{z}'$ are local, i.e. $\langle
{\bf{r}}|\hat{H}_{0}'|{\bf{r}}'\rangle = H_{0}'({\bf{r}}) \,
\delta({\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}')$ and $\langle
{\bf{r}}|\hat{H}_{z}'|{\bf{r}}'\rangle = H_{z}'({\bf{r}}) \,
\delta({\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}')$, where $H_{0}'({\bf{r}})$ and
$H_{z}'({\bf{r}})$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}_{0}'({\bf{r}}) &=& -{1\over{2}} \nabla^2 + {1\over{2}}
[({\rho\over\alpha})^2 +z^2] + \lambda \, n({\bf{r}},t) \,\, ,
\nonumber \\ \hat{H}_{z}'({\bf{r}}) &=& - \beta \, z \,\, .
\label{HSA2}
\end{eqnarray}
The total density is $n({\bf{r}},t)=N \,\langle
\psi(t)|\hat{P}_{\bf{r}} \otimes \hat{1}|\psi(t)\rangle$, and $\beta =
z_0 \, \delta \, \Omega / \Omega_{\rm{eff}}^2$. For the typical
values of the parameters in the experiment, $\Omega = 400$ Hz,
$\delta' = 100$ Hz, $z_0/z_{\rm{sho}} = 0.1$, this factor is rather
small $\beta \approx 0.02$ in harmonic oscillator units. Note that
$\hat{H}_{0}'$ still varies slowly in time through the nonlinear
mean-field term, which depends on the density. We refer to this result
Eq.~(\ref{HofI2}) as the coarse-grained, small detuning (CGSD) model to
distinguish it from the two-mode model presented below, which makes
further assumptions.
We have managed to greatly simplify the description of the system by
going to the rotating frame. The first term in Eq.~(\ref{HofI2})
contains the kinetic energy, a harmonic potential centered at the
origin, and a mean-field interaction term depending on the slowly
varying density $n({\bf{r}},t)$. The second term in Eq.~(\ref{HofI2})
represents a very weak coupling between the two internal states
$|1\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$, and between motional states
$|\phi_n\rangle$ and $|\phi_m\rangle$ via the dipole operator $z$. The
states $|\phi_n\rangle$ and $|\phi_m\rangle$ are the instantaneous
self-consistent eigenmodes of $\hat{H}_{0}'$. In the next subsection
we present a model that assumes only two motional states are coupled,
the self-consistent ground state $|\phi_0\rangle$ and the
self-consistent first-excited state $|\phi_1\rangle$, which has
odd-parity along the z-axis.
\subsection{Two-mode model}\label{twomode}
It is useful to define a basis of motional states with which to
describe the system in the rotating frame. A natural choice is the set
of instantaneous eigenstates of $\hat{H}_{0}'$, which satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
( -{1\over{2}} \nabla^2 + {1\over{2}} [({\rho\over\alpha})^2 +z^2] +
\lambda \, n({\bf{r}},t)) \phi_i({\bf{r}}) &=&
\epsilon_i \, \phi_i({\bf{r}}) \nonumber \\ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\phi_i({\bf{r}}) \, \phi_j({\bf{r}})\, d^3r &=& \delta_{i,j} \,\, ,
\label{selfcons}
\end{eqnarray}
where the index $i$ refers to all of the relevant quantum numbers that
uniquely specify each eigenstate, $i=\{n_z,n_{\rho},n_{\phi}\}$, given
the cylindrical symmetry of the system. In general, many modes
can be occupied and the state vector is written
\begin{equation}
|\psi^{(I)}(t)\rangle = \sum_i[c_i(t)|\phi_i\rangle|1\rangle
+ d_i(t)|\phi_i\rangle |2\rangle] \,\, ,
\label{state_selfcons}
\end{equation}
where $\phi_i({\bf{r}})=\langle {\bf{r}} | \phi_i \rangle$. The
density appearing in Eq.~(\ref{selfcons}) is then
\begin{equation}
n({\bf{r}},t) = N(| \sum_i c_i(t)\phi_i({\bf{r}})|^2
+ | \sum_i d_i(t)\phi_i({\bf{r}})|^2) \,\, .
\end{equation}
It is clear that the set of coupled eigenvalue equations given in
Eq.~(\ref{selfcons}) is nonlinear and requires a numerical procedure
that will converge upon the solution in a self-consistent manner. The
eigenstates $\phi_i({\bf{r}})$ and eigenenergies $\epsilon_i$ depend
on time implicitly through the coefficients $c_i(t)$ and
$d_i(t)$, however we do not show this time dependence in order to
simplify the notation. We assume that the eigenbasis evolves slowly in
time so that the adiabatic condition is satisfied \cite{Messiah}.
Based on the experiment reported in \cite{exp5} the initial motional state
of the system is $\psi_1^{(\rm{I})}({\bf{r}},0) = \phi_0({\bf{r}}-z_0
{\hat{z}})$; the system is in the ground state of $\hat{H}_{0}'$, but
displaced from the origin along the vertical axis by $z_0$. This
displacement is small compared to the width $w_z$ of the condensate
$z_0/w_z \approx 0.01$. We therefore approximate the initial state of
the system as $|\psi^{(I)}(t)\rangle =|\phi_0\rangle |1\rangle$.
The system in the rotating frame evolves according to the Hamiltonian
described by Eq.~(\ref{HofI2}) and Eq.~(\ref{HSA2}). The term
$\hat{H}_{z}' \otimes \hat{\sigma}_{\rm{x}}$ couples the internal
states $|1\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$ via ${\hat{\sigma}}_{\rm{x}}$. It
also drives transitions between motional states via the dipole
operator ${\hat{z}}$. The dipole matrix element $\langle z
\rangle_{ij} = \langle \phi_i | {\hat{z}} | \phi_j \rangle$ is the
largest between neighboring states and falls off quickly as $|i-j|$
increases. For a small coupling parameter $\beta$, we expect the
coupling to the first excited state $|\phi_1\rangle$ to dominate the
other transitions, making the evolution of the system predominantly a
two state evolution. We therefore make the approximation that the
system occupies only two modes
\begin{equation}
|\psi^{(I)}(t)\rangle = c_0(t)\,|\phi_0\rangle |1\rangle
+ d_1(t)\,|\phi_1\rangle |2\rangle \,\, ,
\label{twostate}
\end{equation}
where $|\phi_0\rangle$ is the ground state $i=\{0,0,0\}$ and
$|\phi_1\rangle$ is the first excited state with odd parity along the
z-axis $i=\{1,0,0\}$.
If we substitute this ansatz into Eq.~(\ref{intpic}), using the
Hamiltonian described by Eq.~(\ref{HofI2}) and Eq.~(\ref{HSA2}), we
get the equation of motion for the coefficients $c_0(t)$ and
$d_1(t)$
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ccc}
i \left( \! \! \begin{array}{c}
\dot{c}_0 \\ \dot{d}_1 \end{array} \!\! \right)
\!\!\! &=& \!\!\! \left( \!\! \begin{array}{cc}
\epsilon_0 & -\beta \, \langle z \rangle_{01} \\
-\beta \, \langle z \rangle_{01} & \epsilon_1
\end{array} \! \right) \!\! \left( \!\! \begin{array}{c}
c_0 \\ d_1 \end{array} \!\! \right)
\end{array} \,\, ,
\label{twostateevolve}
\end{equation}
where we have neglected the time rate-of-change of the slowly varying
adiabatic eigenbasis. This coupled pair of equations must be solved
numerically by updating the energies $\epsilon_i$ and the dipole
matrix element $\langle z \rangle_{01}$ from solving
Eq.~(\ref{selfcons}) at each time step. However, in order to see how
the behavior depends on the various physical parameters, one can
obtain a simple estimate of the solution by fixing $\epsilon_i$ and
$\langle z \rangle_{01}$ to their initial values. In this case the
solution of Eq.~(\ref{twostateevolve}) is trivial and is given by
$c_0(t) = \cos(\Omega_{01}/2 \, t) - i (\Delta \epsilon_{01} /
\Omega_{01}) \sin(\Omega_{01}/2 \, t)$ and $d_1(t) = -i (2\beta \langle
z \rangle / \Omega_{01}) \sin(\Omega_{01}/2 \, t)$, where $\Delta
\epsilon_{01} = \epsilon_1-\epsilon_0$ and $\Omega_{01} =
\sqrt{4\beta^2 \langle z \rangle^2 + \Delta \epsilon_{01}^2}$. In the
rotating frame, the system oscillates between the two states at a
frequency of $\Omega_{01}$, which is much slower than the effective
Rabi frequency $\Omega_{\rm{eff}}$.
The oscillation frequency $\Omega_{01}$ increases with increasing
detuning $\delta'$ and increasing trap separation $z_0$ through the
coupling parameter $\beta$. The amplitude of oscillation depends on
the energy spacing between modes $\Delta \epsilon_{01}$. Based on
numerical calculations, we have found that this effect is enhanced by
the mean-field interaction because $\Delta \epsilon_{01}$ decreases
with increasing population $N$. Also, the dipole matrix element
$\langle z \rangle$ increases with increasing $N$, since the width of
the condensate increases with increasing population.
The solution in the lab frame can be obtained by applying
$U_{\rm{I}}(t)$ from Eq~(\ref{U2}) to $|\psi^{\rm{(I)}}\rangle$ in
Eq.~(\ref{twostate}) to yield
\begin{eqnarray}
|\psi(t)\rangle &=& (\alpha_1(t) c_0(t)\,|\phi_0\rangle
+ \alpha_2(t) d_1(t)\,|\phi_1\rangle) |1\rangle \nonumber \\
&+& (\alpha_2(t) c_0(t)\,|\phi_0\rangle
+ \alpha_1^*(t) d_1(t)\,|\phi_1\rangle) |2\rangle \,\, ,
\label{twostatelab}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_1(t) = \cos(\Omega_{\rm{eff}}/2 \,t) - i(\delta' /
\Omega_{\rm{eff}}) \sin(\Omega_{\rm{eff}}/2 \,t)$ and $\alpha_2(t) =
-i (\Omega / \Omega_{\rm{eff}}) \sin(\Omega_{\rm{eff}}/2 \,t)$.
Eq.~(\ref{twostatelab}) is the main result of our study, with which we
can explain the essential properties of the system. During the first
few Rabi cycles $t \approx 1/\Omega_{\rm{eff}}$, the coefficient
$d_1(t) \approx 0$, so that the solution for short times is
$|\psi(t)\rangle = (\alpha_1(t)|1\rangle + \alpha_2(t)|2\rangle) \,
|\phi_0\rangle$. That is, for short times, the internal and external
degrees of freedom appear to be decoupled and the system simply
oscillates rapidly between internal states. However, for longer
times, the coefficient $d_1(t)$ grows in magnitude as $c_0(t)$
correspondingly decreases. This results in a modulation of the Rabi
oscillations. Furthermore, a two-peaked structure in the density
appears, associated with the first-excited state $|\phi_1 \rangle$.
\section{Results}\label{casestudy}
The main goal of this section is to illustrate the behavior of the
system by showing results of numerical calculations. For this
purpose, it is useful to treat the system in only one
dimension---along the vertical axis \cite{williams1}. We also assume
equal scattering lengths throughout this section, so that
$\delta_{\rm{MF}}=0$. Values of most of the physical parameters are
given in Table 1. Values of the remaining parameters are stated for
each case considered in the text.
\subsection{Understanding the dual dynamics}
In Figure 2 we plot the fractional population of state $|1\rangle$,
given by $N_1(t) = \int |\langle z | \langle 1|\psi(t)\rangle|^2 dz$,
for the case of $\Omega = 700$ Hz and $\delta = 100$ Hz. This is a
numerical solution of Eq.~(\ref{main1}). The population is cycling
rapidly at the effective Rabi frequency $\Omega_{\rm{eff}}=707$ Hz,
while simultaneously being modulated at a much lower frequency of
about 11 Hz.
In order to visualize how the spin and motional dynamics become
entangled over a time long compared to the Rabi period, we show
snapshots of the density of each state in Figure 3. Three different
sets of snapshots are shown, corresponding to the three circled
numbers in Figure 2. A full Rabi cycle is shown for each set. The
first set begins at $t=0$ with all of the atoms in the $|1\rangle$
internal state and in the mean-field ground state of the trap
$|\phi_0\rangle$. During this first Rabi cycle, the shape of the
density profile for each internal state does not change much---only
the height changes. That is, the motional state remains the ground
state while population cycles rapidly between internal states, as
discussed below Eq.~(\ref{twostatelab}).
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=FIG_2.eps,height=2.7in}}
\vspace{0.05cm}
\caption{This plot shows an example of the modulation of the Rabi
oscillations. The fractional population in state $|1\rangle$ is
plotted as a function of time, obtained from a numerical solution of
the one dimensional version of Eq.~(\ref{main1}). The values of the
various parameters are given in the text. In Figure 3, the densities
for both states are shown for three different Rabi cycles designated
by the circled numbers in this plot.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=FIG_3.eps,height=3.2in}}
\vspace{0.05cm}
\caption{This plot shows snapshots of the density of each state for
three different Rabi cycles corresponding to the three circled numbers
in Figure 2. The solid line is the density of the $|1\rangle$ state,
while the dashed line is that of the $|2\rangle$ state. Each snapshot
within a set is numbered in sequential order. The first set starts at
$t = 0$ ms, and runs for a full Rabi cycle 1.41 ms. The second and
third sets begin at $t = 45.2$ ms and $t = 90.3$ ms, respectively.
The time increment between snapshots is $\Delta t= 0.28$ ms for all
three sets.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=FIG_4.eps,height=2.7in}}
\vspace{0.05cm}
\caption{The fractional population of the $|1\rangle$ state in the
rotating frame is shown. The solid line is the solution given by the
CGSD model, while the dot-dashed line corresponds to the solution of
the two-mode model. If the two-mode model is extended to include
coupling to the first even-parity excited mode, then we get better
agreement to the CGSD model, as shown by the dashed line.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=FIG_5.eps,height=2.2in}}
\vspace{0.05cm}
\caption{The top strip of this plot shows snapshots of the density of
each state corresponding to the solution of the CGSD model given by
the solid line in Figure 4. The bottom strip shows the corresponding
two self-consistent eigenmodes given by the solution of
Eq.~(\ref{selfcons}). The times of each snapshot are shown in the
region between the two strips, in units of milliseconds. The solid
line corresponds to the density of the $|1\rangle$ state, while the
dashed is that of the $|2\rangle$ state.}
\end{figure}
The second set of snapshots in Figure 3 is taken at around $t=45$ ms,
which is halfway through the modulation. The density profiles for each
spin state cycle rapidly between a single-peaked and a double-peaked
structure. For example, in the first snapshot, the $|1\rangle$ state
is in the single-peaked structure, while the $|2\rangle$ state is in
the double-peaked structure, but halfway through the Rabi cycle the
situation is reversed, as shown in the third and fourth
snapshots. Finally, at about $t=90$ ms when the amplitude of the Rabi
oscillations has revived, the third set shows that the motional and
spin degrees of freedom appear to be decoupled again, with the density
profile of each spin state appearing as it did during the first Rabi
cycle.
As outlined in Section II, this peculiar behavior is most easily
understood by going to the rotating frame. In Figure 4, we plot the
fractional population in the $|1\rangle$ state in the rotating frame
$N_1^{(I)}(t) = \int |\langle z | \langle 1|\psi^{(I)}(t)\rangle|^2
dz$. The solid line corresponds to the CGSD model presented in
Section IID. In the rotating frame, population is slowly transferred
out of the $|1\rangle$ state due to the coupling from
${\hat{H}}_z'\otimes {\hat{\sigma}}_x$ in Eq.~(\ref{HofI2}).
In the rotating frame, the system is being excited out of the ground
state $|\phi_0\rangle$ due to the dipole coupling $H_z'$. This can be
seen in the top strip of snapshots in Figure 5, where the density of
each spin state in the rotating frame is shown, corresponding to the
solid line in Figure 4. Initially, all of the atoms are in the
$|1\rangle$ internal state and the mean-field ground state of the trap
$|\phi_0\rangle$. Due to the dipole coupling, population is
transferred out of the ground state.
The strongest coupling is between the ground $|\phi_0\rangle$ and the
first excited $|\phi_1\rangle$ modes. These eigenmodes are shown in
the bottom strip of Figure 5. They evolve slowly in time as the
coefficients $c_0(t)$ and $d_1(t)$ change. For example, initially the
ground state is just the Thomas-Fermi-like ground state, since all of
the population is in that state. However, at $t=45$ ms, about
one-third of the population is in the first excited mode, which
pinches the ground state due to the mean-field interaction term in
Eq.~(\ref{HSA2}). That is why the self-consistent ground state at
$t=45$ ms is narrower than at $t=0$.
It is clear from Figure 4 that the low-frequency modulation of the
rapid Rabi oscillations in the lab frame is just the frequency of
oscillation in the rotating frame between $|\phi_0\rangle|1\rangle$
and $|\phi_1\rangle |2\rangle$. This is reflected in the two-mode
solution given by Eq.~(\ref{twostatelab}), which also helps explain
the peculiar behavior of the densities shown in Figure 3. In the lab
frame the system is cycling rapidly between the two modes shown in
Figure 5. The initial values of the energies are $\epsilon_0=13.6 \,
\hbar \omega_z$ and $\epsilon_1=13.7 \, \hbar \omega_z$, which makes
$\Delta_{01}=0.1 \, \hbar \omega_z$. This small energy splitting is
due to the effect of the mean field, since in the limit
$N\rightarrow1$ these energies move apart by a factor of ten, which
greatly reduces the coupling between the modes and thus greatly
reduces the modulation effect.
If we make the two-mode ansatz and solve Eq.~(\ref{twostateevolve}),
we get the dot-dashed line in Figure 4. The discrepancy from the solid
line arises due to a weak coupling between the first $|\phi_1 \rangle$
and second $|\phi_2\rangle$ excited modes. If we extend our two-state
model to include this third mode, we get the dashed line in Figure 4,
which nearly sits on top of the solid line. In this case, the second
excited mode $|\phi_2\rangle$ gains less than $5 \%$ of the total
population.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=FIG_6.eps,height=3.1in}}
\vspace{0.05cm}
\caption{This plot shows the fractional population in the $|1\rangle$
state for four different values of the detuning, obtained from a
numerical solution of Eq~(\ref{main1}). Starting from the top, the
detuning is $\delta = 0$, $\delta = 50$ Hz, $\delta = 100$ Hz, and
$\delta = 200$ Hz. The values of the other parameters are given in the
text.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=FIG_7.eps,height=2.7in}}
\vspace{0.05cm}
\caption{This plot shows the period of modulation as a function of
detuning $\delta$. The dashed line corresponds to the numerical
solution of the one-dimensional version of Eq.~(\ref{main1}), while
the solid line was obtained from a numerical solution of the two-mode
model Eq.~(\ref{twostateevolve}). The Rabi frequency was $\Omega =
700$ Hz. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dependence on detuning}
In Figure 6, we show how the behavior of the system depends on the
detuning $\delta$. The Rabi frequency $\Omega=700$ Hz was held fixed
for each plot while the detuning was varied from zero at the top
$\delta = 0$ to $\delta = 200$ Hz in the bottom plot. As predicted by
the coupling parameter $\beta =z_0 \, \delta \, \Omega /
\Omega_{\rm{eff}}^2$ in the CGSD model, no coupling between motional
states occurs if $\delta = 0$, and thus the Rabi oscillations
experience no modulation. As $\delta$ is increased the motional-state
coupling becomes stronger and we expect the modulation frequency to
increase. The amplitude of modulation also increases as the detuning
is increased.
We show the dependence of the period of modulation on detuning more
explicitly in Figure 7. The dashed line is the numerical solution of
the full problem given by Eq.~(\ref{main1}), while the solid line is
the numerical solution of the two-mode model given by
Eq.~(\ref{twostateevolve}).
\subsection{Dependence on trap displacement}
In Figure 8, we show how the behavior of the system depends on the
trap displacement $z_0$. The Rabi frequency $\Omega=700$ Hz and the
detuning $\delta = 100$ Hz were held fixed, while the trap
displacement was varied from zero $z_0=0$ in the top plot to $z_0 = 1
\, \mu$m in the bottom plot. Again, the coupling parameter $\beta$
predicts no modulation if $z_0=0$. As $z_0$ is increased, the
frequency of modulation increases as the system is driven harder.
However, for the large separation in the bottom plot, the modulation
becomes highly irregular and the two-mode model most certainly breaks
down. This behavior may be chaotic and warrants further investigation.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=FIG_8.eps,height=3.1in}}
\vspace{0.05cm}
\caption{This plot shows the fractional population in the $|1\rangle$
state for four different values of the trap displacement $z_0$,
obtained from a numerical solution of Eq~(\ref{main1}). Starting from
the top, the displacement is $z_0=0$, $z_0 = 0.1 \, \mu $m, $z_0 = 0.4
\, \mu $m, and $z_0 = 1.0 \, \mu $m. The values of the other
parameters are given in the text.}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusion}
The gross features predicted by our model, such as double-peaked
structure in the density distribution, and the presence of collapses
and revivals in the relative population dynamics, are supported by
experimental observation~\cite{exp5}. Experiment-theory agreement on
finer points is only fair. The theory tends to underestimate the
contrast ratio of the collapses, for instance. Moreover, to match the
detuning trends shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 one needs to add by hand an
unexplained overall detuning offset. This is most likely due to there
actually being a spatial dependence of the bare Rabi frequency due to
the influence of gravity on the untrapped intermediate state of the
two-photon transition. To model the experimental situation in more
detail one would have to include this effect as well as inelastic loss
processes and finite-temperature effects neglected here. It may be
also that treating the TOP trap potential as purely static may be an
oversimplication.
In this paper we have demonstrated the possibility for quantum state
engineering of topological excitations through the interplay between
the internal and spatial degrees of freedom in a Bose condensed
gas. Due to the symmetry of the system we have analyzed, the
excitation in our case was the odd-parity dipole mode. The intriguing
possibility of exciting modes with alternative symmetries, such as a
vortex mode~\cite{Marzlin1,Walls,Zoller,Bagnato}, would require a
different trap geometry, but is a straight-forward extension of the
analysis presented here. Although we have focussed in this work on a
particular parameter regime, the system is a rich one for study and
exhibits complex and perhaps chaotic dynamics under strong excitation
conditions.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Howard Carmichael for highlighting the
analogies between this system and the bichromatically driven two-level
atoms~\cite{howard}, and also Allan Griffin and Eugene Zaremba for
insightful discussions. Finally, we would like to thank David Hall,
Mike Matthews, and Paul Haljan for working in parallel on the
experimental side of this project and for sharing the results of their
observations in the laboratory~\cite{exp5}. This work was supported by
the National Science Foundation. E.C. would also like to thank the
Office of Naval Research and the National Institute for Standards and
Technology for funding support.
\bibliographystyle{prsty} |
\section{Introduction}
The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) currently provides
the ``standard'' framework for the study of the physics beyond the Standard
Model. The MSSM model takes into account the constraints from
the negative searches so far
for an experimental signature for Supersymmetry and
gives circumstantial evidence for supersymmetric
unified theories, such as the unification of the gauge couplings or
the weak mixing angle prediction.
The aforementioned constraints and predictions may also be
fulfilled by other models, of string origin, and this would suggest that
the MSSM is only a {\it minimal} candidate model for the physics
beyond the Standard Model. Such string inspired models are regarded
as ``low-energy'' limits of string theory, and they
predict below the compactification
scale a much richer spectrum (than that of the MSSM) including
additional states at the high scale corresponding to predicted
vector-like states\footnote{Vector-like states are not protected by
the chiral symmetry of the SM and are therefore heavy \cite{georgi}.}
under standard model gauge group.
The presence of such additional
states in conjunction with the low-energy input can
lead to a phenomenology different from that
of the MSSM. As a specific example which we address in this letter,
consider the measurement of the strong coupling at
the electroweak scale. The world average value \cite{particledata}
of $\alpha_3(M_z)=0.119\pm 0.002$, situated rather close to the one
loop value predicted in the MSSM is {\it below} the two-loop MSSM
``bottom-up'' prediction (of $\approx 0.125$) obtained from the
RGE equations for the gauge couplings.
While at one-loop level this prediction depends on the
symmetry of the model and the multiplet content, at two-loop level a
dependence of $\alpha_3(M_z)$ on the high scale thresholds is induced,
and this may indicate that the mismatch between the MSSM two-loop
prediction and the experiment is due to our lack of understanding
of the physics at the high scale. For this reason at least, exploring
the phenomenological implications of string theory {\it predicted}
models with additional intermediate scales finds enough
justification and it may also help in selecting and restricting
the number of viable string inspired models.
The exact structure of the spectrum that string-inspired models predict to
exist (in addition to the MSSM spectrum\footnote{
In the following by MSSM spectrum we understand the three generations
of quarks and leptons with their superpartners, an appropriate
gauge sector containing the gauge bosons and gauginos and
the two Higgs doublets and superpartners, {\it without}
any $SU(3)$ Higgs triplets.}) depends in general on the
particular class of models one considers to investigate.
In reference \cite{witold1} the authors presented a
class of extended supersymmetric models, as the low-energy limit
of a string model with Calabi-Yau compactification \cite{116} and
Wilson line breaking \cite{wilson} mechanism for the $E_6$ symmetry.
In a generic example of this class of models, the ``low-energy'' spectrum
below the compactification scale contained \cite{witold1} the
MSSM spectrum plus (pairs of) complete five and ten-dimensional $SU(5)$
multiplets, ``vector-like'' under the Standard Model gauge group.
The phenomenological implications of this case were discussed in
\cite{grl,grlyuk} for the case when perturbation theory applies up to
the unification scale.
It was found that, due to a ``mixing''
between the heavy thresholds and the two-loop contributions of the
vector-like states to the running of the gauge couplings,
there is only a small (two-loop) increase in the unification scale
from the MSSM prediction. The increase factor was $\approx 3$,
too small to make an agreement with the weakly coupled heterotic string
prediction \cite{scale} which gives an unification scale
$\approx 20$ times larger than that of the MSSM.
The aforementioned factor of increase was
accompanied by a small (two-loop)
increase from the MSSM prediction for the
strong coupling at electroweak
scale\footnote{For the case when the unification of the
gauge couplings takes place
in the non-perturbative regime, when the unified coupling is assumed
to be large, one way to make predictions was presented
in \cite{sun}, although the errors which affect them might
be large as discussed in \cite{grlyuk} (Section 5).}.
Reference \cite{witold1} also predicted another interesting
possibility for the ``low-energy'' spectrum predicted by the same class
of string-inspired models and this will be
further analysed in this paper. This more specific model
predicts not only complete five dimensional representations
of $SU(5)$ in addition to the MSSM spectrum,
but also a ``split multiplet'' structure, triplet under
the $SU(3)$ group of the Standard Model.
The model has therefore \cite{witold1}
the nice feature of avoiding the ``doublet-triplet''
splitting problem which appears in the context of (Supersymmetric)
Grand Unified Group Theories (GUT).
In these theories, the Higgs multiplet content is a $5+{\overline 5}$
pair and consequently, the bare masses of the Higgs doublet and Higgs
colour triplet have to be equal. To avoid proton decay mediated by the
latter at a rate forbidden by the experimental constraints, the Higgs
(colour) triplet has to be heavy enough to suppress such processes.
In the meantime, the $SU(2)$ Higgs doublet must be light enough
to explain the mass origin at the electroweak scale.
This leads to the so-called ``doublet-triplet'' splitting
problem, specific to supersymmetric GUT theories as well as
to other theories which have such Higgs spectrum assignment.
In addition to avoiding the ``doublet-triplet'' splitting problem,
this last specific model provides \cite{witold1} the unification
of the gauge couplings, even in the absence
of a grand unified group such as $SU(5)$ or larger.
The spectrum predicted by this string inspired model
contains below the compactification scale\footnote{We refer here to
the model which in \cite{witold1} was called the ``unconventional'' case.}
a pair $3+{\overline 3}$ and an arbitrary number (say $n+1$) of
extra pairs $5+{\overline 5}$ of $SU(5)$ {\it in addition} to the
matter fields (three families) and the gauge sector of the
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, but without its Higgs content
\footnote{Equivalently, we can say that the spectrum just below the
compactification scale (and before the decoupling of any heavy state
as we lower the scale) contains $n$ pairs
$5+{\overline 5}$ and 2 pairs $3+{\overline 3}$ in addition
to the MSSM spectrum.}.
A coupling of the triplet of the
``incomplete'' $SU(5)$ representation, $3+{\overline 3}$,
to the triplet component of a five dimensional representation
of the form $\lambda {\tilde\phi} 3 {\bar 5}$
can naturally lead to a {\it large} mass (due to their
vector-like character under SM group) term for the triplets, via
a symmetry breaking mechanism when the (Standard Model singlet)
Higgs field $\tilde\phi$ acquires a v.e.v., through a
mechanism detailed in \cite{grl}.
The same mechanism applies to
the {\it extra} $n$ (vector-like) pairs of $5+{\overline 5}$ which also acquire
a {\it large} mass (through couplings $\lambda {\tilde\phi} 5 {\bar
5}$ via the same mechanism \cite{grl} which provides a natural explanation
for the origin of such mass terms).
The {\it bare} value of this mass, assumed to be the
same for all $5$'s is denoted by $\mu_g$ for further reference.
The (remaining) doublet components of
the initial pair $5+{\overline 5}$ are left uncoupled
and thus light and can therefore account for the Higgs content of the MSSM.
It is the purpose of this letter to examine in
some detail the phenomenological implications of
this model, in a two-loop analytical approach.
The predictions we make refer to the value of $\alpha_3(M_z)$,
the unification scale itself and the scale of the intermediate
matter\footnote{We take as an input parameter the unified gauge
coupling, to predict the intermediate scale and not vice-versa for
the reason that the intermediate scale tends to have a flat
behaviour for large range of values for $\alpha_g$, which can
induce numerical instabilities of the solution, see
Figures 3 and 4 of ref. \cite{grl} for a similar case.}, $\mu_g$.
The reason for performing a two-loop analytical investigation of
this model is three-fold; as mentioned, the discrepancy
between the MSSM prediction for $\alpha_3(M_z)$ and the experiment
arises mainly due to the two-loop corrections,
and thus threshold dependence at the high
scale plays a significant role. Moreover, any better candidate model
than the MSSM should eliminate such discrepancy at this
level of accuracy. Finally, the spectrum predicted by our
model contains in addition to the $SU(3)$ triplet components, complete $SU(5)$
representations which are known to change the low energy prediction
for $\alpha_3(M_z)$ at two-loop level \cite{grl} only\footnote{A similar
situation exists for the unification scale prediction as well.}.
The present approach also provides an analytical method to examine,
in two loop order the RGE prediction for the strong coupling and may
be applied to other (string-inspired) models with spectrum different
from that of the MSSM.
We show that $\alpha_3(M_z)$ can be reduced from the MSSM
value (of $\approx 0.125$ or larger\footnote{The
exact value of the strong coupling prediction in the MSSM
depends on the assumptions made for the low energy (TeV scale) supersymmetric
spectrum.}) and be brought within the experimental
limits \cite{particledata} of $0.119\pm 0.002$, while keeping the
unification scale $M_g$ close to that of the MSSM
for an intermediate scale $\mu_g$ within one order of magnitude below
$M_g$.
\section{Predictions from the Renormalisation Group Evolution}
The standard tool to exploring the phenomenological consequences
of our model is the Renormalisation Group Evolution (RGE)
for the gauge couplings, for which we take as (low-energy)
boundary conditions
the well known values of $\alpha_1(M_z)$ and $\alpha_2(M_z)$,
obtained from measured electromagnetic coupling and weak mixing angle
at the electroweak scale. To apply this tool we need to know the
multiplet content, which was detailed in the Introduction,
and the symmetry group,
which is {\it just} the Standard Model gauge group, with
$SU(5)$ normalisation for the $U(1)_Y$ coupling.
Thus, the one-loop beta function before the decoupling of any
extra (complete or incomplete) multiplet is given by
\begin{equation}
b^*_i=b_i+\Delta b_i+n
\end{equation}
with $b_i$ the MSSM one-loop beta function, $b_i=(33/5,1,-3)$,
and with $\Delta b_i=4 \times\{1/5, 0, 1/2\}$ to account for two pairs
of triplets or equivalently four triplet states, hence the factor 4 in
the definition of $\Delta b_i$. After the decoupling of all additional
states, the one-loop beta function is just that of the MSSM, namely $b_i$.
With some loss of generality we restrict ourselves to the case
when the extra states (triplets and 5-plets) have the same {\it bare} mass
which we called $\mu_g$ and this assumption does not reintroduce
the ``doublet-triplet'' problem. The general case of
considering different masses for $3+\bar 3$
and $5+\bar 5$ pairs can be done following the present approach, although
introducing one further mass parameter would make the analysis less
tractable.
To evaluate the full two-loop ``running'' of the gauge couplings,
including the effects of the heavy thresholds, we use
the integral form of the ``NSVZ beta function''. This has
been computed in \cite{novikov} and \cite{murayama1} (see also
\cite{shifman2}) and is given by
\begin{equation}
\beta (\alpha )^{NSVZ}\equiv \frac{d\alpha }{d(\ln \mu )}=-\frac{\alpha ^{2}%
}{2\pi }\left[ 3T(G)-\sum_{\sigma }^{{}}T(R_{\sigma })(1-\gamma _{\sigma
}^{NSVZ})\right] \left( {1-T(G)\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\right) ^{-1}
\label{shifmanbetaalpha}
\end{equation}
with the definition ($\mu $ is the running scale)
\[
\gamma _{\sigma }^{NSVZ}=-\frac{d\ln Z_{\sigma }}{d\ln \mu }
\]
and where $T(G)$ and $T(R_{\sigma })$ represent the Dynkin index for the
adjoint representation and for $R_{\sigma }$ representation respectively
(not necessarily the fundamental one).
The above sum runs over {\it all} matter fields $\sigma $ in
representation $R_{\sigma }$ and this includes the extra heavy
states in addition to the low
energy spectrum of the MSSM.
Following the details given in \cite{grlyuk} to
integrate the beta function given above, we find that, to all orders in
perturbation theory, the gauge couplings run, in the presence of the
extra matter, as follows
\begin{eqnarray} \label{intalph}
\alpha _{i}^{-1}(M_{z}) &=&-\delta _{i}+\alpha _{g}^{-1}+\frac{b_{i}}{2\pi }
\ln \frac{M_{g}}{M_{z}}+\frac{n+\Delta b_i}
{2\pi }\ln \frac{M_{g}}{\mu _{g}}-\frac{
\beta _{i,H_{1}}}{2\pi }\ln Z_{H_{1}}(M_{z})-\frac{\beta _{i,H_{2}}}{2\pi }
\ln Z_{H_{2}}(M_{z}) \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{\beta _{i,g}}{2\pi }\ln \left[ \frac{\alpha _{g}}{\alpha _{i}(M_{z}
}\right] ^{1/3}-\sum_{j=1}^{3}\sum_{\phi _{j}}{}\frac{\beta _{i,\phi _{j}}}
2\pi }\ln Z_{\phi _{j}}(M_{z})
\end{eqnarray}
where $b_{1}=33/5$, $\,b_{2}=1$, $\,b_{3}=-3$ and where $\beta _{i,\phi
_{j}}\equiv T(R_{\phi _{j}}^{i})$, $i=\{1,2,3\}$, are the contributions to
one-loop beta function\footnote{%
We also used that the one-loop beta function is $b=-3 T(G)+ \sum T(R_\phi)$,
where the sum runs over all chiral supermultiplets in representation $R_\phi$%
.} of the matter fields $\phi _{j}$ (j=generation index), while $\beta
_{i,g}\equiv T^{i}(G)$ is the one-loop beta function for the pure gauge
(+gaugino) sector; the Higgs (+higgsino) sector contribution is included
separately via the terms proportional to $\beta _{i,H1,2}$;
finally, $\alpha_g$ is the unified coupling while $M_g$ stands for the
unification scale of our model.
We have
\begin{equation}
\beta _{i,\phi _{j}}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\frac{3}{10} & \frac{1}{10} & \frac{3}{5} & \frac{4}{5} & \frac{1}{5} \\
& & & & \\
\frac{1}{2} & \frac{3}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
& & & & \\
\ 0 & 1 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2}
\end{array}
\right) _{i,\phi _{j}}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\beta _{i,g}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
\\
-6 \\
\\
-9
\end{array}
\right) ;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\beta _{i,H_{1,2}}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{3}{10} \\
\\
\frac{1}{2} \\
\\
0
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
with $\beta _{i,\phi _{j}}$
independent of the values of $j$. The field $\phi _{j}$ runs over the set $%
\phi _{j}=\{l_{L},q_{L},e_{R},u_{R},d_{R}\}_{j}$, in this order, with $j$ as
generation index. The coefficients $\delta_i$ in eq.(\ref{intalph})
represent the low energy supersymmetric thresholds and they would be equal
to zero if supersymmetry were
valid at the electroweak scale. Their exact expressions
will not be of concern to us as we will present our phenomenological
predictions as a change to the MSSM predictions\footnote{
The MSSM quantities used as an input in our
calculation will be the unified coupling, the unification scale and
the value of the strong coupling at electroweak scale.}
which implicitly contain
the dependence on $\delta_i$. ($\delta_i$ also contain conversion
scheme factors (${\overline {MS}}\rightarrow {\overline {DR}}$)
which in our calculation will cancel against those of the MSSM
of equal value). The uncertainty in the low-energy
supersymmetric spectrum (i.e. the value of $\delta_i$)
can be taken into account in our present approach
by allowing in our final results,
a {\it range} of values for the MSSM variables which are present
in our final expressions.
To compute the two-loop running for the gauge couplings,
only a one-loop expression for the wavefunction renormalisation
coefficients is required.
Note that in the two-loop approximation there is no regularisation
ambiguity which arises only in three-loop order \cite{jones}.
At $M_z$ scale the one-loop expressions for $Z$'s
have the following structure
\begin{eqnarray} \label{zzss}
Z_{F}(M_z)&=&\prod_{k=1}^{3} \left[\frac{\alpha_g}{\alpha_k(\mu_g)}
\right]^{-\frac{2 C_k(F)}{b^*_k}}
\left[\frac{\alpha_k(\mu_g)}{\alpha_k(M_z)}\right]^{-\frac{2
C_k(F)}{b_k}}
\nonumber\\
&=&\prod_{k=1}^{3} \left[\frac{\alpha_g}{\alpha_k(\mu_g)}
\right]^{\frac{2 C_k(F)}{b_k}\frac{n+\Delta b_k}{b^*_k}}
\left[\frac{\alpha_g}{\alpha_k(M_z)}\right]^{-\frac{2 C_k(F)}{b_k}}
\end{eqnarray}
where $F$ stands for any Higgs or MSSM chiral field.
Strictly speaking in the expressions of $Z$ factors
we should have used the mean mass of the extra
states ${\tilde \mu}$ instead of $\mu_g$; however
this difference is an additional radiative effect and thus
is of two-loop order for $Z$'s or of three loop order for
the gauge couplings, and can be neglected in our two
loop calculation.
From equations (\ref{intalph}) and (\ref{zzss}) we find
the following RGE equations
\begin{eqnarray} \label{HHMSSM}
&\alpha_i^{-1}(M_z)=&-\delta_i+\alpha_g^{-1}+
\frac{b_i}{2\pi}\ln \left[\frac{%
M_g}{M_z}\right]+\frac{n+\Delta b_i}{2\pi}
\ln\left[\frac{M_g}{\mu_g} \right]-\frac{1}{%
2\pi}\sum_{j=1}^{3}{\tilde Y}_{ij}\ln
\left[\frac {\alpha_g}{\alpha_j(\mu_g)}\right]
\nonumber \\
& &+\frac{1}{4\pi}\sum_{j=1}^{3} \frac{b_{ij}}{b_j}
\ln\left[\frac{\alpha_g}{%
\alpha_j(M_z)}\right]
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation} \label{whywhy}
{\tilde Y}_{ij}=\frac{n+\Delta b_j}{b^*_j}
\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{b_{ij}}{b_j}-\delta_{ij}\lambda_j\right]
\end{equation}
with $\lambda_1=0,\,\lambda_2=2, \,\lambda_3=3$ while $\delta_i$,
$i=\{1,2,3\}$, stand for the low-energy (TeV scale)
supersymmetric thresholds.
From eq.(\ref{HHMSSM}) we can again see
that the presence of $\mu_g$ in the two-loop
term $\ln(\alpha_g/\alpha(\mu_g))$
instead of the mean physical mass ${\tilde\mu}$ of the additional
multiplets we consider would account for an additional
(three-loop) radiative effect and we neglect it,
as it is beyond our two-loop approximation for the running of
the gauge couplings.
Thus, we can say that in two-loop order
the extra states contribute to the gauge couplings running
through their common bare mass only.
At this point we would like to emphasize that the result
of equation (\ref{HHMSSM}) can also be obtained
using the ``standard'' RGE equations, integrated in two-loop order,
with appropriate taking into account of the heavy thresholds that
the additional states we consider bring in.
Using a radiative dressing of the masses of the additional states
and following the approach of ref. \cite{grl}
one will obtain the same result. As it was the case
there, there is a cancellation of
the heavy thresholds against the two-loop contributions
of the additional states we considered and as a consequence
in eq.(\ref{HHMSSM}) only the two-loop MSSM beta function appears,
and {\it not} that
in the presence of additional states\footnote{Also note the strong similarity
of eq.(\ref{whywhy}) with that of eq.(7) of ref.\cite{grl}.}
$5+{\overline 5}$ or $3+{\overline 3}$.
Eq.(\ref{HHMSSM}) is actually more general; if one considers vector-like
matter in addition to the MSSM sector, with some arbitrary $\delta b_j$
contribution to one-loop beta function, the two-loop RGE equations have
a form similar to that of eqs.(\ref{HHMSSM}) and (\ref{whywhy}) with the
replacements $n+\Delta b_i\rightarrow \delta b_i$
and $b_j^*\rightarrow b_j+\delta b_j$.
To compute the unification scale $M_g$, the strong coupling
$\alpha_3(M_z)$ and the value
of the mass scale $\mu_g$ we must make some assumptions about the low
energy supersymmetric spectrum which affects the running of the gauge
couplings through the terms $\delta_i$, as seen from eq.(\ref{HHMSSM}).
Since the effects of the low energy supersymmetric
thresholds on the predictions
of the MSSM are relatively known \cite{lan},
we prefer to express our predictions as a change to the
MSSM predictions which all have this dependence included
(and assume that $\delta_i$'s have equal values to those of the MSSM).
We therefore consider the two-loop running of the gauge
couplings in the MSSM, which is of the form
(the MSSM variables are labelled with an ``o''
index to distinguish them from those of our extended model)
\begin{equation}
\alpha _{i}^{o-1}(M_{z})=-\delta _{i}+\alpha _{g}^{o-1}+\frac{b_{i}}{%
2\pi }\ln \left[ \frac{M_{g}^{o}}{M_{Z}}\right] +\frac{1}{4\pi }%
\sum_{j=1}^{3}\frac{b_{ij}}{b_{j}}\ln \left[ \frac{\alpha _{g}^{o}}{\alpha
_{j}^{o}(M_{Z})}\right] \label{MSSM}
\end{equation}
We can then substitute\footnote{In the MSSM
we have $\alpha_g^o\approx 0.0433$, $M_g^o\approx 3\times 10^{16}$ GeV
and $\alpha_3^o(M_z)=0.125$ or larger. These results are obtained in two
loop approximation, using $\alpha_1(M_z)$ and $\alpha_2(M_z)$
as an input from experimental values for electromagnetic coupling and
weak mixing angle.}
the values of $\delta_i$ from the above
equation into eq.(\ref{HHMSSM}) and impose that
in both the MSSM and our model, the values of $\alpha_1(M_z)$
and $\alpha_2(M_z)$ are taken equal with the corresponding experimental
value, so $\alpha_1^o(M_z)=\alpha_1(M_z)$ and
$\alpha_2^o(M_z)=\alpha_2(M_z)$. We then
compute the analytical expressions for
the factor of increase of the unification
scale $M_g/M^o_g$, the strong coupling $\alpha_3(M_z)$ (in terms of
$\alpha_3^o(M_z)$), and the bare mass of the extra states, $\mu_g$.
This can be done following
the approach of \cite{grl} and using that, under two-loop terms
we can substitute the arguments of the ``log'' terms by their one
loop values, as the difference would be of higher order.
This means that $\ln(\alpha_g/\alpha_j(\mu_g))=\ln(1+b_j^*\alpha_g/(2\pi)
\ln(M_g/\mu_g))$ and we further replace $\ln(M_g/\mu_g)$
by its one loop analytical expression, which is correct for a two loop
running for the gauge couplings.
After some tedious algebra we find the following two-loop analytical results
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ores1}
\frac{M_g}{M_g^o}&=&
exp\left\{\frac{2\pi}{7n-1}\left(\alpha_g^{-1}-\alpha_g^{o-1}\right)\right\}
\left[\frac{\alpha_g}{\alpha_g^o} \right]^{{\cal E}_1}
\left\{1+\frac{18\,\alpha_3^o(M_z)}{1-7n}
\left(\alpha_g^{-1}-\alpha_g^{o-1}\right)\right\}^{{\cal E}_2}
\nonumber\\
&&\times\prod_{j=1}^{3} \left\{1+\frac{7b^*_j}{1-7n}
\left[1-\frac{\alpha_g}{\alpha_g^o}\right]\right\}^{{\cal D}_j}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ores4}
\alpha_3^{-1} (M_z)&=&\alpha_3^{o-1}(M_z)+
\frac{18(\alpha_g^{-1}-\alpha_g^{o-1})}{1-7n}
+\frac{73+17n}{2(7n-1)\pi}\ln\left\{1+\frac{18\,\alpha_3^o(M_z)}{1-7n}
\left(\alpha_g^{-1}-\alpha_g^{o-1}\right)\right\}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{2(467+235n)}{11\pi(1-7n)}\ln\left[\frac{\alpha_g}{\alpha_g^o}\right]
+ \sum_{j=1}^{3} \ln\left\{1+\frac{7b^*_j}{1-7n}
\left[1-\frac{\alpha_g}{\alpha_g^o}\right]\right\}^{{\cal A}_j}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ores2}
\frac{\mu_g}{M_g^o}&=&
exp\left\{\frac{16\pi}{7n-1}\left(\alpha_g^{-1}-\alpha_g^{o-1}\right)\right\}
\left[\frac{\alpha_g}{\alpha_g^o} \right]^{{\cal E}_3}
\left\{1+\frac{18\,\alpha_3^o(M_z)}{1-7n}
\left(\alpha_g^{-1}-\alpha_g^{o-1}\right)\right\}^{{\cal E}_4}
\nonumber\\
&&\times\prod_{j=1}^{3}\left\{1+\frac{7b^*_j}{1-7n}
\left[1-\frac{\alpha_g}{\alpha_g^o}\right]\right\}^{{\cal H}_j}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
{\cal E}_1={\frac{285+341n}{33(7n-1)}},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
{\cal E}_2=\frac{4(3+n)}{3(1-7n)},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
{\cal E}_3=\frac{2621+341n}{33(7n-1)},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
{\cal E}_4=\frac{100+4n}{3(1-7n)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\cal D}_j=\left\{\frac{(18-77n)(-4-5n)}{660(7n-1)b^*_1},
\frac{-3n(14+13n)}{4(7n-1)b^*_2},
\frac{4(2+n)(3+n)}{3(7n-1)b^*_3}\right\}_j
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}_j=\left\{\frac{(-29+56n)(-4-5n)}{220(7n-1)\pi b^*_1},
\frac{81n(5+2n)}{4(7n-1)\pi b^*_2},
\frac{2(2+n)(-19+n)}{(7n-1)\pi b^*_3}\right\}_j
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_j=\left\{\frac{-268-27n+385n^2}{660(7n-1)b^*_1},
\frac{-3n(125+13n)}{4(7n-1)b^*_2},
\frac{4(50+27n+n^2)}{3(7n-1)b^*_3}\right\}_j
\end{equation}
The above analytical solution to eq.(\ref{HHMSSM})
agrees well with the numerical one.
To find a numerical solution we just solved numerically
the system of three equations obtained from subtracting eq.(\ref{MSSM})
from (\ref{HHMSSM}) to eliminate the $\delta_i$'s and also replaced
$\ln(\alpha_g/\alpha_j(\mu_g))$ by
$\ln(\alpha_g/\alpha_j(\mu_g))=\ln(1+b_j^*\alpha_g/(2\pi)
\ln(M_g/\mu_g))$. The agreement between the two approaches
is good, within less than $1\%$ relative error for $\alpha_3(M_z)$,
$5\%$ relative error for the factor $M_g/M_g^o$, and $10\%$
relative error for $\mu_g/M_g^o$.
The larger error exists when the coupling $\alpha_g$ is larger
and is also due to the presence of the logarithmic dependence the terms
involving $M_g$ and $\mu_g$ come with in the RGE equations.
\section{Numerical Results}
In this section we analyse the results and the phenomenological
implications of eqs.(\ref{ores1}),(\ref{ores4}) and
(\ref{ores2}).
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\parbox{8cm}
{\psfig{figure=mgmgo.ps,height=8
cm,width=9cm}}
\end{center}
\caption{ The values of $M_g/M_g^o$ plotted in function of
the ratio $\alpha_g/\alpha_g^o$ for different values of $n$.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbhp]
\begin{center}
\parbox{8cm}
{\psfig{figure=alfap.ps,height=8cm,width=9cm}}
\end{center}
\caption{ The values of $\alpha_3(M_z)$ plotted in function of
the ratio $\alpha_g/\alpha_g^o$ for different values of $n$.}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbhp]
\begin{center}
\parbox{8cm}
{\psfig{figure=logmiugmgo.ps,height=8
cm,width=9cm}}
\end{center}
\caption{ The values of $Log_{10}[\mu_g/M_g^o]$ plotted in function of
the ratio $\alpha_g/\alpha_g^o$ for different values of $n$.}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
Figure 1 shows the ratio of the unification
scales $M_g/M_g^o$ for different values of $n$ in function of the ratio
$\alpha_g/\alpha_g^o$.
We observe that this ratio is less than
unity for most of the parameter space and the effect
of extra states we added does not bring the unification scale
closer to the weakly coupled heterotic string scale which is a factor
of $\approx 20$ above the MSSM value.
However, for {\it large} $n$
the ratio $M_g/M_g^o$
is very close to unity, and therefore the change induced in this
case from the MSSM scale, is very small. (Note that
the perturbative calculation is valid for large $n$, as
long as $n\alpha\approx \kappa {\cal O}(4\pi)$, with
$\kappa <1$). For $n\geq 20$
we find $M_g$ above $0.8M_g^o$ for most values of $\alpha_g$,
and therefore the change induced by the extra matter
to the MSSM unification scale is insignificant.
This is a result of the presence of two competing effects, the
reducing of the scale (at one-loop level)
due to the $SU(3)$ triplet states and the opposite
effect of increasing the scale due to the
complete five dimensional multiplets.
Such opposite effects are also manifest in the predicted value of
$\alpha_3(M_z)$. In Figure 2 we presented this value
for different $n$ in function of the ratio
$\alpha_g/\alpha_g^o$. We observe that we can accommodate
values of $\alpha_3(M_z)$ smaller than in
the MSSM and in better agreement with the experimental
value \cite{particledata} $\alpha_3(M_z)_{exp}=0.119\pm 0.002$,
provided that the value of the
unified coupling is marginally increased from the MSSM value,
for the case of small $n$. For $n\geq 20$ $\alpha_3(M_z)$
is within the experimental limits for a larger range of values of $\alpha_g$.
The effect of reducing the strong coupling
is essentially due to the presence of the colour triplets we
considered. The result is somewhat expected as, unlike
models which include complete $SU(5)$ representations to the MSSM
spectrum and
where complete representations introduced the same
term $n\ln(M_g/\mu_g)$ in the running of the gauge couplings \cite{grl},
the situation here is different because the similar contribution
is now $(n+\Delta b_i)\ln(M_g/\mu_g)$, with $\Delta b_i$
standing for the triplets' contribution (see eqs.(\ref{intalph}),
(\ref{HHMSSM})). This means that the {\it
relative} behaviour of the gauge couplings running is already changed
at one-loop order from the MSSM prediction due to the presence of the
$SU(3)$ triplets while the complete five dimensional multiplets
bring a two-loop additional increasing effect \cite{grl}.
We would like to note
that the input MSSM value for $\alpha_3^o(M_z)$ considered here was
$0.125$; this represents the lower limit prediction of a ``bottom-up''
approach in the MSSM case, and therefore the predictions we made
for $\alpha_3(M_z)$
could increase
slightly if the input for $\alpha_3^o(M_z)$ is
above this value.
Figure 3 shows the ratio $\mu_g/M_g^o$ in terms of $\alpha_g$
and this determines the value of one of these when the other is fixed.
For the parameter space with good predictions
for $\alpha_3(M_z)$ we find that the (bare) intermediate scale is in the
region of $3\times 10^{15}$ GeV, only a factor of $\approx 10$ below the standard
MSSM unification scale. The large value for the intermediate scale
avoids an enhancement of the proton decay rate by
the colour triplet states.
\section{Conclusions}
In this work we have considered the phenomenological implications
of a string-motivated model,
which predicts below the compactification scale the existence
of $n$ extra pairs $5+{\overline 5}$ of $SU(5)$ states and 2 pairs
of $SU(3)$ triplets in addition to the MSSM spectrum.
The motivation for studying this model originates in the
suggestion that this might also solve the ``doublet-triplet'' splitting
problem, commonly faced by Grand Unified Group-based theories.
The strong coupling at the electroweak
scale can be reduced below the value of the two-loop
MSSM prediction and be brought into better
agreement with the experiment while the
value of the unification scale, in two-loop order, remains close
to the MSSM prediction.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The author thanks Graham Ross and Witold Pokorski for useful discussions.
D.G. acknowledges the financial support from Oxford University
(Leverhulme Trust research grant).
|
\section{Introduction}
Numerical computations are still very important in computer
applications. But until recently there was a discrepancy
between numerical methods and
software/hardware tools for scientific calculations.
In particular, numerical programming was not much influenced by the
progress in Mathematics, programming languages and technology.
Modern tools for numerical calculations are not unified, standardized
and reliable enough. It is difficult to ensure
the necessary accuracy and safety of calculations without loss of the
efficiency and speed of data processing. It is difficult to get
correct and exact estimations of calculation errors. For example,
standard methods of interval arithmetic \cite{2} do not allow to
take into account the error auto-correction effects
\cite{19} and, as a result, to
estimate calculation errors accurately.
However, new ideas in Mathematics and Computer Science lead to a very
promising approach (initially presented in \cite{20}--\cite{22}).
An essential aspect of this approach is developing a system
of algorithms, utilities and programs based on a new mathematical
calculus which is called {\it Idempotent Analysis}
or {\it Idempotent Calculus}, or {\it Idempotent Mathematics} etc.
For many problems in optimization and
mathematical modeling this Idempotent Calculus plays the same unifying
role as Functional Analysis in Mathematical Physics, see, e.g., \cite{14},
\cite{17}, \cite{28}--\cite{30} and surveys \cite{15}, \cite{21}.
Idempotent Analysis is based on replacing the usual arithmetic
operations by a new set of basic operations (such as maximum
or minimum). There are a lot of such new arithmetics which are associated
with sufficiently rich algebraic structures called idempotent
semirings. It is very important that many problems, nonlinear in the
usual sense, become linear with respect to an appropriate new
arithmetic, i.e. linear over a suitable semiring (the so-called
{\it idempotent superposition principle} \cite{26}, \cite{27}, \cite{17},
which is a natural analog of the well-known superposition
principle in Quantum Mechanics). This `linearity'
considerably simplifies explicit constructions of their solutions.
Examples are the Bellman equation and its generalizations, the
Hamilton--Jacobi equation etc. The idempotent analysis is a powerful
heuristic tool to construct new algorithms and apply unexpected
analogies and ideas borrowed, e.g., from mathematical physics and
quantum mechanics.
The abstract theory is well advanced and includes,
in particular, a new integration theory, linear algebra
and spectral
theory, idempotent functional analysis, idempotent Fourier transforms
and so on. Its applications include various optimization problems
such as multi-criteria decision making, optimization on graphs,
discrete optimization with a large parameter (asymptotic problems),
optimal design of computer systems and computer media, optimal
organization of parallel data processing, dynamic programming,
applications to differential equations, numerical analysis,
discrete event systems, computer science, discrete mathematics,
mathematical logic, etc. (see, e.g. \cite{1}, \cite{3},
\cite{5}--\cite{15},
\cite{17}, \cite{21}, \cite{26}--\cite{32}
and references therein).
It is possible to obtain an implementation of the new approach
to scientific and numeric calculations in the form of a powerful
software system
based on unified algorithms. This approach ensures the arbitrary
necessary accuracy and safety of numerical calculations and
a working time
reduction for programmers and users because of a software unification.
Our approach uses the techniques of object oriented and functional
programming (see, for example, \cite{25}, \cite{16}) which is very
convenient for the design of our (suggested) software system.
A computer algebra techniques \cite{4} is also used. The modern
techniques of systolic processors and VLSI realizations of
numerical algorithms including parallel algorithms of linear algebra
(see, for example, \cite{18}, \cite{31}) is convenient for effective
implementations of the proposed approach to hardware design.
There is a regular method based on the theory for constructing
back-end processors and technical devices intended for a
realization of basic algorithms of idempotent calculus and
mathematics of semirings. These hardware facilities can increase the
speed of data processing.
\section{Mathematical objects and their computer representations}
Numerical algorithms are combinations of basic operations.
Usually these basic operations deal with `numbers'. In fact these
`numbers' are thought of as members of some numerical {\it domains}
(real numbers, integers etc.). But every computer calculation
deals with finite {\it models} (or finite {\it computer representations})
of these numerical
domains. For example, integers can be modeled by integers modulo a
power of number 2, real numbers can be represented
by rational numbers or floating-point numbers etc. Discrepancies
between mathematical objects (e.g. `ideal' numbers) and their
computer models
(representations) lead to calculation errors.
Due to imprecision of sources of input data in real-world problems, the
data usually come in the form of confidence intervals or other
number sets
rather than exact quantities. Interval Analysis (see, e.g.,~\cite{2})
extends operations of traditional calculus from numbers to
number intervals to make possible processing such imprecise data and
controlling rounding errors in computational mathematics.
However, there are no universal models which are good in all
cases and we have to use varieties of computer models. For
example, real numbers can be represented by the following computer
models:
standard floating-point numbers,
double precision floating-point numbers,
arbitrary precision floating-point numbers,
rational numbers,
finite precision rational numbers,
floating-slash and fixed-slash rational numbers,
interval numbers, etc.
To examine an algorithm it is often useful to have a possibility
to change computer representations of input/output data. For this aim
the corresponding algorithm (and its software implementation)
must be universal enough.
\section{Universal algorithms}
It is very important that many algorithms do not depend on
particular models of a numerical domain and even on this domain
itself. Algorithms of linear algebra (matrix multiplication, Gauss
elimination etc.) are good examples of algorithms of this
type.
Of course, one algorithm may be more universal than another algorithm of
the same type. For example, numerical integration algorithms based on
the Gauss--Jacobi quadrature formulas actually depend on computer
models because they use finite precision constants. On the contrary,
the rectangular formula and the trapezoid rule do not depend
on models and in principle can be used even in the case of
idempotent integration (see below).
The so-called object oriented software tools and
programming languages (like $C^{++}$ and Java, see, e.g., \cite{25})
are very convenient for computer implementation of universal
algorithms.
In fact there are no reasons to restrict ourselves with
numerical domains only. Actually it may be a ring of polynomials, a
field of rational functions, or an idempotent semiring. The case
of idempotent semirings
is extremely important because of numerous applications.
\section{Idempotent correspondence principle}
There is a nontrivial analogy between Mathematics of semirings and
Quantum Mechanics. For example, the field of real numbers can be
treated as a `quantum object' with respect to idempotent semirings.
So idempotent semirings can be treated as `classical' or
`semi-classical' objects with respect to the field of real
numbers.
Let $\Bbb{R}$ be the field of real numbers and $\Bbb{R}_+$ the subset
of all non-negative numbers. Consider the following change of variables:
$$
u \mapsto w = h \ln u,
$$
where $u \in \Bbb{R}_+ \setminus \{0\}$, $h > 0$; thus $u = e^{w/h}$,
$w \in
\Bbb{R}$. Denote by $\bf{0}$ the additional element $-\infty$ and by $S$
the extended real line $\Bbb{R} \cup \{\bf{0}\}$. The above change of
variables has a
natural extension $D_h$ to the whole $S$ by $D_h(0) = \bf{0}$; also, we
denote $D_h(1) = 0 = \bf{1}$.
Denote by $S_h$ the set $S$ equipped with the two operations $\oplus_h$
(generalized addition) and $\odot_h$ (generalized multiplication)
such that
$D_h$ is a homomorphism of $\{\Bbb{R}_+, +, \cdot\}$ to $\{S, \oplus_h,
\odot_h\}$. This means that $D_h(u_1 + u_2) = D_h(u_1) \oplus_h D_h(u_2)$
and $D_h(u_1 \cdot u_2) = D_h(u_1) \odot_h D_h(u_2)$, i.e., $w_1 \odot_h
w_2 = w_1 + w_2$ and $w_1 \oplus_h w_2 = h \ln (e^{w_1/h} + e^{w_2/h})$.
It is easy to prove that $w_1 \oplus_h w_2 \to \max\{w_1, w_2\}$
as $h \to 0$.
Denote by $\rset_{\max}$ the set $S = \Bbb{R} \cup \{\bf{0}\}$ equipped
with operations
$\oplus = \max$ and $\odot = +$, where ${\bf{0}} = -\infty$, ${\bf{1}} = 0$
as above.
Algebraic structures in $\Bbb{R}_+$ and $S_h$ are isomorphic; therefore
$\rset_{\max}$ is a result of a deformation of the structure in $\Bbb{R}_+$.
We stress the obvious analogy with the quantization procedure,
where $h$ is
the analog of the Planck constant. In these terms, $\Bbb{R}_+$
(or $\Bbb{R}$)
plays the part of a `quantum object' while $\rset_{\max}$ acts as a
`classical' or `semi-classical' object that arises as the result
of a {\it dequantization} of this quantum object.
Likewise, denote by $\rset_{\min}$ the set $\Bbb{R} \cup \{\bf{0}\}$ equipped with
operations $\oplus = \min$ and $\odot = +$, where ${\bf{0}} = +\infty$ and
${\bf{1}} = 0$. Clearly, the corresponding dequantization procedure is
generated by the change of variables $u \mapsto w = -h \ln u$.
Consider also the set $\Bbb{R} \cup \{\bf{0}, \bf{1}\}$, where ${\bf{0}} = -\infty$,
${\bf{1}} =+\infty$, together with the operations $\oplus = \max$
and $\odot=\min$.
Obviously, it can be obtained as a result of a `second dequantization'
of $\Bbb{R}$ or $\Bbb{R}_+$.
The algebras presented in this section are the most important
examples of idempotent semirings,
the central algebraic structure of Idempotent Analysis.
Consider a set $S$ equipped with two algebraic operations: {\it addition}
$\oplus$ and {\it multiplication} $\odot$. The triple $\{S, \oplus,
\odot\}$ is an {\it idempotent semiring} if it
satisfies the following conditions (here and below, the symbol $\star$
denotes any of the two operations $\oplus$, $\odot$):
\begin{itemize}
\item the addition $\oplus$ and the multiplication $\odot$ are
associative: $ x \star (y \star z) = (x \star y) \star z$ for all
$x, y, z\in S$;
\item the addition $\oplus$ is commutative: $x \oplus y = y \oplus
x$ for all $x,y \in S$;
\item the addition $\oplus$ is {\it idempotent}: $x \oplus x = x$
for all $x\in S$;
\item the multiplication $\odot$ is {\it distributive} with respect to
the
addition $\oplus$: $x\odot(y\oplus z) = (x\odot y)\oplus(x\odot z)$ and
$(x\oplus y)\odot z = (x\odot z)\oplus(y\odot z)$ for all $x, y, z\in
S$.
\end{itemize}
A {\it unity} of a semiring $S$ is an element ${\bf{1}}\in S$ such that
for all
$x \in S$
$$
{\bf{1}} \odot x = x \odot {\bf{1}} = x.
$$
A {\it zero} of a semiring $S$ is an element ${\bf{0}} \in S$ such
that $\bf{0} \neq
\bf{1}$ and for all $x \in S$
$$
{\bf{0}}\oplus x = x,\qquad {\bf{0}}\odot x = x\odot {\bf{0}} = {\bf{0}}.
$$
A semiring $S$ is said to be {\it commutative} if $x\odot y=y\odot x$
for all $x,y\in S$. A commutative semiring is called a {\it
semifield} if every nonzero element of this semiring is invertible.
It is clear that $\Bbb R_{\max}$ and $\Bbb R_{\min}$ are semifields.
Note that different versions of this axiomatics are used, see, e.g.,
\cite{1}, \cite{3}, \cite{5}, \cite{6}, \cite{12}, \cite{13}--\cite{15},
\cite{17}, \cite{21}, \cite{23}, \cite{30} and some literature
indicated in these books and papers.
Many nontrivial examples of idempotent semirings can be found, e.g.,
in \cite{1}, \cite{5}, \cite{6}, \cite{12}, \cite{13}, \cite{14},
\cite{17}, \cite{21}, \cite{23}, \cite{24}, \cite{30}. For example,
every vector lattice or ordered group can be treated as an idempotent
semifield.
The addition $\oplus$ defines the following {\it standard partial order}
on $S$: $x\preceq y$ if and only if $x\oplus y=y$. If $S$ contains a zero
$\bf{0}$, then ${\bf{0}}\preceq x$ for all $x\in S$. The operations $\oplus$ and
$\odot$ are consistent with this order in the following sense: if
$x\preceq y$, then $x\star z\preceq y\star z$ and $z\star x\preceq z\star y$
for all $x,y,z \in S$.
The basic object of the traditional calculus is a {\it function}
defined on some set $X$ and taking its values in the field $\Bbb{R}$
(or $\Bbb{C}$); its idempotent analog is a map $X \to S$, where $X$ is
some set and $S =\rset_{\min}$, $\rset_{\max}$, or another idempotent semiring. Let us
show that redefinition of basic constructions of traditional calculus in
terms of Idempotent Mathematics can yield interesting and nontrivial
results
(see, e.g., \cite{17}, \cite{21}, \cite{23}, \cite{24}, for details,
additional examples and generalizations).
{\sc Example 1. Integration and measures.} To define an idempotent
analog of the Riemann integral, consider a Riemann sum for a function
$\varphi(x)$, $x \in X = [a,b]$, and substitute semiring
operations $\oplus$
and $\odot$ for operations $+$ and $\cdot$ (usual addition and
multiplication) in its expression (for the sake of being definite,
consider the semiring $\rset_{\max}$):
$$
\sum_{i = 1}^N \varphi(x_i) \cdot \Delta_i \quad\mapsto\quad
\bigoplus_{i = 1}^N \varphi(x_i) \odot \Delta_i
= \max_{i = 1, \ldots, N}\, (\varphi(x_i) + \Delta_i),
$$
where $a = x_0 < x_1 < \cdots < x_N = b$, $\Delta_i = x_i - x_{i - 1}$, $i
= 1,\ldots,N$. As $\max_i \Delta_i \to 0$, the integral sum tends to
$$
\int_X^\oplus \varphi(x)\, dx = \sup_{x \in X} \varphi(x)
$$
for any function $\varphi$:~$X \to \rset_{\max}$ that is bounded. In general,
for any set $X$ the set function
$$
m_\varphi(B) = \sup_{x \in B} \varphi(x), \quad B \subset X,
$$
is called an $\rset_{\max}$-{\it measure} on $X$;
since $m_\varphi(\bigcup_\alpha
B_\alpha) = \sup_\alpha m_\varphi(B_\alpha)$, this measure is completely
additive. An idempotent integral with respect to this measure
is defined as
$$
\int_X^\oplus \psi(x)\, dm_\varphi
= \int_X^\oplus \psi(x) \odot \varphi(x)\, dx
= \sup_{x \in X}\, (\psi(x) + \varphi(x)).
$$
Using the standard partial order it is possible to generalize these
definitions for the case of arbitrary idempotent semirings.
{\sc Example 2. Fourier--Legendre transform.} Consider the topological
group $G = \Bbb{R}^n$. The usual Fourier--Laplace transform is defined as
$$
\varphi(x) \mapsto \widetilde\varphi(\xi)
= \int_G e^{i\xi \cdot x} \varphi(x)\, dx,
$$
where $\exp(i\xi \cdot x)$ is a {\it character} of the group $G$, i.e.,
a solution of the following functional equation:
$$
f(x + y) = f(x)f(y).
$$
The idempotent analog of this equation is
$$
f(x + y) = f(x) \odot f(y) = f(x) + f(y).
$$
Hence `idempotent characters' of the group $G$ are linear
functions of the
form $x \mapsto \xi \cdot x = \xi_1 x_1 + \cdots + \xi_n x_n$. Thus
the Fourier--Laplace transform turns into
$$
\varphi(x) \mapsto \widetilde\varphi(\xi)
= \int_G^\oplus \xi \cdot x \odot \varphi(x)\, dx
= \sup_{x \in G}\, (\xi \cdot x + \varphi(x)).
$$
This is the well-known Legendre (or Fenchel) transform.
These examples suggest the following formulation of the idempotent
correspondence principle \cite{20}, \cite{21}:
\begin{quote}
{\it There exists a heuristic correspondence between interesting, useful,
and important constructions and results over the field of real (or
complex) numbers and similar constructions and results over idempotent
semirings in the spirit of N. Bohr's correspondence principle in
Quantum Mechanics.}
\end{quote}
So Idempotent Mathematics can be treated as a `classical shadow (or
counterpart)' of the traditional Mathematics over fields.
In particular, an idempotent version of Interval Analysis can
be constructed
\cite{24}. The idempotent interval arithmetics appear to be remarkably
simpler than their traditional analog. For example, in the traditional
interval arithmetic multiplication of intervals is not distributive with
respect to interval addition, while idempotent interval arithmetics
conserve distributivity. Idempotent interval arithmetics are useful
for reliable computing.
\section{ Idempotent linearity}
Let $S$ be a commutative idempotent semiring.
The following example of a noncommutative idempotent semiring is
very important.
{\sc Example 3.} Let $\rm{Mat}_n(S)$ be a set of all
$S$-valued matrices, i.e. coefficients of these matrices are elements
of $S$. Define the sum $\oplus$ of matrices $A = \|a_{ij}\|$,
$B = \|b_{ij}\| \in \rm{Mat}_n(S)$ as $A \oplus B = \|a_{ij} \oplus b_{ij}\|
\in \rm{Mat}_n(S)$. The {\it product} of two matrices $A \in \rm{Mat}_n(S)$ and
$B \in \rm{Mat}_n(S)$ is a matrix $AB \in \rm{Mat}_n(S)$ such that $AB =
\|\bigoplus_{k = 1}^m a_{ik} \odot b_{kj}\|$. The set $\rm{Mat}_n(S)$
of square matrices is an idempotent semiring with respect to these
operations. If $\bf{0}$
is the zero of $S$, then the matrix $O = \|o_{ij}\|$, where $o_{ij} = \bf{0}$,
is the zero of $\rm{Mat}_n(S)$; if $\bf{1}$ is the unity of $S$,
then the matrix $E = \|\delta_{ij}\|$, where $\delta_{ij} = \bf{1}$ if $i = j$
and $\delta_{ij} = \bf{0}$ otherwise, is the unity of $\rm{Mat}_n(S)$.
Now we discuss an idempotent analog of a linear space. A set $V$ is
called a {\it semimodule} over $S$ (or an $S$-semimodule) if it
is equipped with an idempotent commutative associative addition operation
$\oplus_V$ and a multiplication $\odot_V$:~$S \times V \to V$
satisfying the
following conditions: for all $\lambda$, $\mu \in S$, $v$, $w \in V$
\begin{itemize}
\item $(\lambda \odot \mu) \odot_V v = \lambda \odot_V (\mu \odot_V v)$;
\item $\lambda \odot_V (v \oplus_V w)
= (\lambda \odot_V v) \oplus_V (\lambda \odot_V w)$;
\item $(\lambda \oplus \mu) \odot_V v
= (\lambda \odot_V v) \oplus_V (\mu \odot_V v)$.
\end{itemize}
An $S$-semimodule $V$ is called a {\it semimodule with zero} if
${\bf{0}} \in S$ and there exists a {\it zero} element
${\bf{0}}_V \in V$ such that for all $v \in V$, $\lambda \in S$
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\bf{0}}_V \oplus_V v = v$;
\item $\lambda \odot_V {\bf{0}}_V = {\bf{0}} \odot_V v = {\bf{0}}_V$.
\end{itemize}
{\sc Example 4. Finitely generated free semimodule.} The simplest
$S$-semimodule is the direct product $S^n = \{\, (a_1, \ldots, a_n) \mid
a_j \in S, j = 1, \ldots, n \,\}$. The set of all endomorphisms $S^n \to
S^n$ coincides with the semiring $\rm{Mat}_n(S)$ of all $S$-valued matrices
(see example~3).
The theory of $S$-valued matrices is similar to the well-known
Perron--Fro\-be\-ni\-us theory of nonnegative matrices, well advanced
and has very many applications, see, e.g., \cite{1}, \cite{3},
\cite{5}--\cite{15}, \cite{17}, \cite{21}, \cite{24}, \cite{29},
\cite{30}--\cite{32}).
\medskip
{\sc Example 5. Function spaces.} An {\it idempotent function space}
${\cal{F}}(X;S)$ consists of functional defined on a set $X$ and
taking their values in an idempotent semiring $S$. It is a subset
of the set of all maps $X \to S$ such that
if $f(x)$, $g(x) \in {\cal{F}}(X;S)$ and $c \in S$, then $(f
\oplus g)(x) = f(x) \oplus g(x) \in {\cal{F}}(X;S)$
and $(c \odot f)(x) = c \odot f(x) \in
{\cal{F}}(X;S)$; in other words, an idempotent function space is another
example of an $S$-semimodule. If the semiring $S$ contains
a zero element
$\bf{0}$ and ${\cal{F}}(X;S)$ contains the zero constant function $o(x) =
\bf{0}$, then the function space ${\cal{F}}(X;S)$ has the structure of a
semimodule with zero $o(x)$ over the semiring $S$. If the set $X$
is finite
we get the previous example.
Recall that the idempotent addition defines a standard partial order in
$S$. An important example of an idempotent functional space is the space
${\cal{B}}(X;S)$ of all functions $X \to S$ bounded from above with
respect to the partial order $\preceq$ in $S$. There are many interesting
spaces of this type including ${\cal{C}}(X;S)$ (a space of continuous
functions defined on a topological space $X$), analogs of the Sobolev
spaces, etc (see,
e.g., \cite{17}, \cite{21}, \cite{23}, \cite{28}--\cite{30}
for details).
According to the correspondence principle, many important concepts, ideas
and results can be converted from usual Functional Analysis to Idempotent
Analysis. For example, an idempotent scalar product in ${\cal{B}}(X;S)$
can be defined by the formula
$$
\langle\varphi,\psi\rangle = \int_X^\oplus \varphi(x) \odot \psi(x)\, dx,
$$
where the integral is defined as the `$\sup$' operation (see example 1).
\medskip
{\sc Example 6. Integral operators.} It is natural to construct
idempotent analogs of integral operators of the form
$$
K:\, \varphi(y) \mapsto (K\varphi)(x)
= \int_Y^\oplus K(x,y) \odot \varphi(y)\, dy,
$$
where $\varphi(y)$ is an element of a functional space ${\cal{F}}_1(Y;S)$,
$(K\varphi)(x)$ belongs to a space ${\cal{F}}_2(X;S)$ and $K(x,y)$ is a
function $X \times Y \to S$. Such operators are {\it linear}, i.e. they are
homomorphisms of the corresponding functional semimodules. If $S = \rset_{\max}$,
then this definition turns into the formula
$$
(K\varphi)(x) = \sup_{y \in Y}\, (K(x,y) + \varphi(y)).
$$
Formulas of this type are standard for optimization problems.
\section{Superposition principle}
\quad\ In Quantum Mechanics the superposition principle means that the
Schr\"odi\-n\-ger equation (which is basic for the theory) is linear.
Similarly in Idempotent Mathematics the idempotent superposition
principle means that some important and basic problems and equations
(e.g., optimization problems, the Bellman equation and its versions
and generalizations, the Hamilton-Jacobi equation) nonlinear in the
usual sense can be treated as linear over appropriate idempotent
semirings, see \cite{26}--\cite{30}, \cite{17}.
The linearity of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation over $\Bbb{R}_{\min}$
(and $\Bbb{R}_{\max}$) can be deduced from the usual linearity (over
$\Bbb{C}$) of the corresponding Schr\"odinger equation by means of the
dequantization procedure described above (in Section 4). In this case
the parameter $h$ of this dequantization coincides with $i\hbar$ ,
where $\hbar$ is the Planck constant; so in this case $\hbar$ must take
imaginary values (because $h>0$; see \cite{23} for details). Of
course, this is closely related to variational principles of
mechanics.
The situation is similar for the differential Bellman equation, see
\cite{17}.
It is well-known that discrete versions of the Bellman equation can be
treated as linear over appropriate idempotent semirings. The
so-called {\it generalized stationary} (finite dimensional)
{\it Bellman equation} has the form
$$
X = AX \oplus B,
$$
where $X$, $A$, $B$ are matrices with elements from an idempotent
semiring and the corresponding matrix operations are described in
example 3 above; the matrices $A$ and $B$ are given (specified)
and it is necessary to determine $X$ from the equation.
B.A. Carr\'e \cite{5} used the idempotent linear algebra to
show that different optimization problems for finite graphs can be
formulated in a unified manner and reduced to solving these
Bellman equations, i.e., systems of linear algebraic equations over
idempotent semirings. For example, Bellman's method of solving
shortest path problems corresponds to a version of the Jacobi method
for solving systems of linear equations, whereas Ford's algorithm
corresponds to a version of the Gauss-Seidel method.
\section{Correspondence principle for computations}
Of course, the idempotent correspondence principle is valid for
algorithms as well as for their software and hardware implementations
\cite{20}--\cite{22}. Thus:
\begin{quote}
{\it If we have an important and interesting numerical algorithm, then
there is a good chance that its semiring analogs are important and
interesting as well.}
\end{quote}
In particular, according to the superposition principle,
analogs of linear
algebra algorithms are especially important. Note that
numerical algorithms
for standard infinite-dimensional linear problems over idempotent
semirings (i.e., for
problems related to idempotent integration, integral operators and
transformations, the Hamilton-Jacobi and generalized Bellman equations)
deal with the corresponding finite-dimensional (or finite) `linear
approximations'. Nonlinear algorithms often can be approximated by linear
ones. Thus the idempotent linear algebra is a basis for the idempotent
numerical analysis.
Moreover, it is well-known that linear algebra algorithms are convenient
for parallel computations; their idempotent analogs admit
parallelization as
well. Thus we obtain a systematic way of applying parallel computation to
optimization problems.
Basic algorithms of linear algebra (such as inner product of two vectors,
matrix addition and multiplication, etc.) often do not depend on
concrete semirings, as well as on the nature of domains containing the
elements of vectors and matrices. Algorithms to construct the closure
$A^*={\bf{1}}\oplus A\oplus A^2\oplus\cdots\oplus A^n\oplus\cdots=
\bigoplus^{\infty}_{n=1} A^n$ of an idempotent matrix $A$ can be derived
from standard methods for calculating $({\bf{1}} -A)^{-1}$. For the
Gauss--Jordan
elimination method (via LU-decomposition) this trick was used in \cite{31},
and the corresponding algorithm is universal and can be applied both to
the Bellman equation and to computing the inverse of a real (or complex)
matrix $({\bf{1}} - A)$. Computation of $A^{-1}$ can be derived
from this universal
algorithm with some obvious cosmetic transformations.
Thus it seems reasonable to develop universal algorithms that can deal
equally well with initial data of different domains sharing the same
basic structure \cite{21}, \cite{22}.
\section{Correspondence principle for hardware design}
A systematic application of the correspondence principle to computer
calculations leads to a unifying approach to software and hardware
design.
The most important and standard numerical algorithms have many hardware
realizations in the form of technical devices or special processors.
{\it These devices often can be used as prototypes for new hardware
units generated by substitution of the usual arithmetic operations
for its semiring analogs and by addition tools for performing neutral
elements $\bf{0}$ and} $\bf{1}$ (the latter usually is not difficult). Of course,
the case of numerical semirings consisting of real numbers (maybe except
neutral elements) is the most simple and natural \cite{20}--\cite{22}.
Note that for semifields (including $\Bbb R_{\max}$ and $\Bbb R_{\min}$)
the operation of division is also defined.
Good and efficient technical ideas and decisions can be transposed
from prototypes into new hardware units. Thus the correspondence
principle generated a regular heuristic method for hardware design.
Note that to get a patent it is necessary to present the so-called
`invention formula', that is to indicate a prototype for the suggested
device and the difference between these devices.
Consider (as a typical example) the most popular and important algorithm
of computing the scalar product of two vectors:
\begin{equation}
(x,y)=x_1y_1+x_2y_2+\cdots + x_ny_n.
\end{equation}
The universal version of (1) for any semiring $A$ is obvious:
\begin{equation}
(x,y)=(x_1\odot y_1)\oplus(x_2\odot y_2)\oplus\cdots\oplus
(x_n\odot y_n).
\end{equation}
In the case $A=\Bbb R_{\max}$ this formula turns into the following one:
\begin{equation}
(x,y)=\max\{ x_1+y_1,x_2+y_2, \cdots, x_n+y_n\}.
\end{equation}
This calculation is standard for many optimization algorithms, so
it is useful to construct a hardware unit for computing (3). There
are many different devices (and patents) for computing (1) and every
such device can be used as a prototype to construct a new device for
computing (3) and even (2). Many processors for matrix multiplication
and for other algorithms of linear algebra are based on computing
scalar products and on the corresponding `elementary' devices
respectively, etc.
There are some methods to make these new devices more universal than
their prototypes. There is a modest collection of possible operations
for standard numerical semirings: max, min, and the usual arithmetic
operations. So, it is easy to construct programmable hardware
processors with variable basic operations. Using modern technologies
it is possible to construct cheap special-purpose multi-processor
chips implementing examined algorithms. The so-called
systolic processors are
especially convenient for this purpose. A systolic array is a
`homogeneous' computing medium consisting of elementary
processors, where the general scheme and processor connections
are simple and regular. Every elementary processor pumps data in and
out performing elementary operations in a such way that the
corresponding data flow is kept up in the computing medium; there
is an analogy with the blood circulation and this is a reason for the
term `systolic', see e.g. \cite{18}, \cite{31}.
Of course, hardware implementations for important and popular basic
algorithms can increase the speed of data processing.
\section{ Correspondence principle for software design}
Software implementations for universal semiring algorithms are not
so efficient as hardware ones (with respect to the computation speed)
but are much more flexible. Program modules can deal with abstract (and
variable) operations and data types. Concrete values for these
operations and data types can be defined by the corresponding
input data. In this case concrete operations and data types are generated
by means of additional program modules. For programs written in
this manner it is convenient to use a special techniques of the
so-called object oriented (and functional) design, see, e.g.,
\cite{25}, \cite{16}. Fortunately, powerful tools supporting the
object-oriented software design have recently appeared including compilers
for real and convenient programming languages (e.g. $C^{++}$ and Java).
There is a project to obtain an implementation of the correspondence
principle approach to scientific calculations in the form of a
powerful software system based on a collection of universal
algorithms. This approach ensures a working time reduction for
programmers and users because of the software unification.
The arbitrary
necessary accuracy and safety of numeric calculations can be ensured
as well.
The system contains several levels (including programmer and
user levels) and many modules.
Roughly speaking, it is divided into three parts. The first part
contains modules that implement domain
modules (finite representations of
basic mathematical objects). The second part implements universal
(invariant) calculation methods. The third part contains modules
implementing model dependent algorithms. These modules may be
used in user programs written in $C^{++}$ and Java.
\centerline{The following modules and algorithms
implementations are in
progress:}
\medskip
\centerline{Domain modules:}
\smallskip
infinite precision integers;
rational numbers;
finite precision rational numbers;
finite precision complex rational numbers;
fixed- and floating-slash rational numbers;
complex rational numbers;
arbitrary precision floating-point real numbers;
arbitrary precision complex numbers;
p-adic numbers;
interval numbers;
ring of polynomials over different rings;
idempotent semirings $R(\max, \min)$,
$R(\max, +)$, $R(\min, +)$, interval idem-
potent semirings
and others.
\centerline{Algorithms:}
linear algebra;
numerical integration;
roots of polynomials;
spline interpolations and approximations;
rational and polynomial interpolations and approximations;
special functions calculation;
differential equations;
optimization and optimal control;
idempotent functional analysis
and others.
This software system may be especially useful for designers
of algorithms, software engineers, students and mathematicians.
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The averaged null energy condition (ANEC, for short) has attracted
some interest during the past several years as a possible candidate
for a stability condition in semiclassical gravity. In its simplest
form, this condition requires that in quantum field theory (on any
spacetime manifold) the integral of the expectation value, $\langle
T_{\mu\nu} \rangle$, of the energy-momentum tensor in any physical state,
along any complete, lightlike geodesic $\gamma} \def\G{\Gamma$ is always non-negative:
$$ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \langle T_{\mu\nu}(\gamma} \def\G{\Gamma(s))\rangle k^{\mu}k^{\nu}\,ds
\ge 0\,,$$
where $s$ is an affine parameter and $k^{\mu}$ the (parallelly
propagated) tangent of $\gamma} \def\G{\Gamma$. (For a formulation not
requiring the existence of the integral, see below.)
We shall briefly indicate the origin and development of this
condition, however, we are
not attempting to properly review this area of research and refer the
reader to the articles \cite{FlaWa,Y1,Y2,FR,WalYu} for further discussion
and additional references.
In the theory of classical gravity, one central object of study is the
behaviour of solutions to Einstein's equations,
$$ G_{\mu \nu}(x) = 8\pi T_{\mu\nu}(x)\,,$$
for classical matter described by the energy-momentum tensor
$T_{\mu\nu}$. There are important results asserting that a certain
qualitative behaviour of these solutions must necessarily occur,
within a broad range of initial conditions, as soon as certain
stability requirements are imposed on $T_{\mu\nu}$. It is significant that
such qualitative behaviour typically reflects a stability of
causality, i.e.\ an initially causally well-behaved spacetime will not
end up to develop, e.g., closed timelike curves. Most prominent among
those results are the singularity theorems \cite{HE,WaldI}; the
typical stability requirements in this context are the null energy
condition,
\begin{equation}
T_{\mu\nu}(x)k^{\mu}k^{\nu} \ge 0
\end{equation}
for all lightlike vectors $k^{\mu}$ at any point $x$ in spacetime, or
the weak energy condition, where (1.1) is to hold for all causal
vectors $k^{\mu}$ at any point $x$, and related variants, like the
strong energy condition or the dominant energy condition, cf.\
\cite{HE,WaldI}.
The common feature of these conditions is that they impose a local
(even pointlike) positivity constraint like in eq.\ (1.1) on the
energy-momentum tensor. For energy-momentum tensors of
phenomenological models for classical matter, such local positivity
constraints have largely been found to be physically realistic. In
contrast, it is known that, under very general hypotheses, similar
local positivity constraints cannot hold for the expectation values of
the energy-momentum tensor $\langle
\psi,T_{\mu\nu}(x)\psi \rangle$ of a quantum field in Minkowski-spacetime
for a dense set of state vectors $\psi$ \cite{EGJ}.
Now, in semiclassical gravity, one investigates the semiclassical
Einstein equation
\begin{equation}
G_{\mu \nu}(x) = 8\pi\langle T_{\mu\nu}(x)\rangle
\end{equation}
where $\langle T_{\mu\nu}(x)\rangle$ is the expectation value of the
energy-momentum tensor in a physical state of a quantum field
propagating in a classical background spacetime whose Einstein tensor
is $G_{\mu \nu}$. The question arises if there is a realistic replacement
for the local positivity constraints on $\langle T_{\mu\nu}(x)\rangle$
leading to similar implications, i.e.\ the necessity of a certain,
causally stable behaviour of solutions to (1.2) to occur. And in fact,
candidates for such replacements have been found. In \cite{Tip} it was
observed that nonlocal, ``averaged'' versions of the local positivity
constraints on the classical energy-momentum tensor still lead to
essentially the same singularity theorems which result from imposing
local positivity constraints (see also \cite{ChiEh,Borde,Rom} for
discussion and further results). The ``averaged'' refers to
integrating the energy-momentum tensor along causal geodesics. The
condition used in \cite{Tip} is that
$$ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left(T_{\mu\nu} -
\mbox{$ \frac{1}{2}$} g_{\mu \nu}T^{\sigma}{}_{\sigma}\right)\!\!(\gamma} \def\G{\Gamma (s))
\, k^{\mu}k^{\nu}\,ds \ge 0 $$
for any complete causal geodesic with affine parameter $s$ and tangent
$k^{\mu}$; $g_{\mu \nu}$ is the spacetime metric. This is referred to as
averaged strong energy condition. In \cite{Rom} it was shown that an
averaged null energy condition for certain half-complete geodesics,
i.e.\ essentially
\begin{equation}
\liminf_{r \to \infty}\, \int_0^{r}T_{\mu\nu}(\gamma} \def\G{\Gamma (s))\,k^{\mu}k^{\nu}\,ds \ge
0
\end{equation}
for all lightlike geodesics $\gamma} \def\G{\Gamma$ with affine parameter $s$ and tangent
$k^{\mu}$ emanating at $s =0$ from a closed trapped surface, implies
singularity theorems. Moreover, it is proved in \cite{Borde} that
singularity theorems are implied by ANEC, roughly,
\begin{equation}
\liminf_{r_{\pm} \to \infty}\,\int_{-r_-}^{r_+} T_{\mu\nu}(\gamma} \def\G{\Gamma
(s))\,k^{\mu}k^{\nu}\,ds \ge 0
\end{equation}
for all complete lightlike geodesics with affine parameter $s$ and
tangent $k^{\mu}$. (The precise formulations in \cite{Rom} and
\cite{Borde} are slightly different from ours in (1.3) and (1.4). The
reader is referred to these references for the technical details. The
significant point is that the averaged energy conditions don't assume that the
integrals converge, nor that they are bounded above.)
It was also shown in \cite{MTY} and \cite{FSW} that the averaged null
energy conditions (1.3) and (1.4), respectively, prevent the occurence
of traversable wormholes in solutions to Einstein's equations.
In the light of these findings, an interesting issue is whether such
averaged energy (positivity) conditions are fulfilled for the
expectation values of the energy-momentum tensor for (suitable) states
in quantum field theories. There have been several works dealing with
this question and we continue by summarizing, however briefly, the
results found so far.
To fix our terminology, we say that a state $\omega} \def\O{\Omega$ of a quantum field
theory on some background spacetime fulfills the ANEC (resp., AWEC =
averaged weak energy condition) if the expectation value $\langle
T_{\mu\nu}(x)\rangle_{\omega} \def\O{\Omega}$ of the energy-momentum tensor
exists in this state as a (smooth) function of
all $x$ in spacetime, and if
\begin{equation}
\liminf_{r_{\pm} \to \infty}\, \int^{r_+}_{-r_-}\langle T_{\mu\nu}(\gamma} \def\G{\Gamma (s))
\rangle_{\omega} \def\O{\Omega}\, k^{\mu}k^{\nu}\, ds \ge 0
\end{equation}
holds for all complete lightlike (resp., timelike) geodesics $\gamma} \def\G{\Gamma$
with affine parameter $s$ and tangent $k^{\mu}$. (However, it should
be noted that in some references slightly different formulations are
used.)
In \cite{Klin} it is shown that ANEC and AWEC are fulfilled for the
free scalar field in $n$-dimensional Minkowski spacetime for states
which are bounded in particle number and energy. It was also found in
this work that AWEC is violated in some states of the free scalar field
on a static, spatially closed two-dimensional spacetime.
The work \cite{Fol} establishes ANEC for states bounded in particle
number and energy of the free electromagnetic field in
four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.
In the article \cite{WalYu} it is shown that ANEC holds for all
Hadamard states of the massless free scalar field in any
two-dimensional globally hyperbolic spacetime, and for all Hadamard
states of the massive free scalar field on two-dimensional Minkowski
spacetime. Moreover it is proved that ANEC holds for the massive and
massless free scalar fields fulfilling some additional condition
(implying that the limit $r_{\pm} \to \infty$ in (1.5) exists)
in four-dimensional flat spacetime. In
that work there appears also an argument indicating that ANEC cannot
be expected to hold in general for the massless free scalar field on
all four-dimensional curved spacetimes. Conditions implying that ANEC
and AWEC will fail to hold generally for a large class of curved
spacetimes are given in \cite{Vis}. In \cite{Y1,Y2} it has therefore
been suggested that the original formulation of ANEC should be altered
via replacing the integrand of (1.5) by
$$ \langle T_{\mu\nu}(\gamma} \def\G{\Gamma (s))\rangle_{\omega} \def\O{\Omega} - D_{\mu \nu}(\gamma} \def\G{\Gamma (s)) $$
where $D_{\mu \nu}(x)$ is some state-independent tensor, e.g.\ the
expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor in some reference
state (like the vacuum in flat spacetime) or some quantity locally
constructed from curvature terms. Such formulation of ANEC has been
termed ``difference inequality''. Results in \cite{Y1,Y2} and
\cite{FR} (cf.\ also \cite{FlaWa}) indicate that such difference
inequalities may have a better
chance to hold generally in curved spacetime. We refer to the
references for further discussion.
At any rate, investigations about the validity of ANEC (or difference
inequalities) so far have been limited to the consideration of free
fields only. The proofs of ANEC presented up to now
strongly rely either on the fact that the quantum field obeys a linear
hyperbolic equation of motion, or on the explicit form of the Wick-ordered
energy-momentum tensor operator as bilinear expression in
annihilation and creation operators in Fockspace. This is clearly
unsatisfactory if one wishes to assess the general validity of ANEC in
quantum field theory (say, in flat spacetime). Moreover, one would
like to understand the connection of ANEC to the standard stability
requirement in general quantum field theory, i.e.\ the spectrum
condition and existence of a vacuum state.
In the present work, we make a first attempt towards clarifying the
status of ANEC in general quantum field theory. We shall consider a
general quantum field theory on two-dimensional Minkowski spacetime
obeying the usual assumptions like locality, translation covariance,
spectrum condition with mass gap and existence of a unique
vacuum. Furthermore we assume that such a theory possesses an
energy-momentum tensor, which is essentially supposed to be a Wightman
field (operator valued distribution) characterized by being local
relative to the observables, divergence-free, generating locally the
translations, and fulfilling an energy-bound. The precise assumptions
are given in Section 2.1. Comments on these assumptions and some
well-known consequences (needed later) appear in Section 2.2. In
Section 2.3 we prove that ANEC is fulfilled for a dense,
translationally invariant set of vector states of any quantum field
theory in two-dimensional Minkowski-spacetime fulfilling the general
assumptions of Section 2.1. In Section 3 we show that ANEC will in
general fail to hold if the integral averaging is carried out only
along a lightlike geodesic half-line as in (1.3). This is of course
expected in view of locality and the Reeh-Schlieder property. Some
concluding remarks appear in Section 4.
We have opted to stage our discussion in the framework of the
operator-algebraic approach to local quantum field theory (cf.\
\cite{Haag,BW}) since this makes the structures involved in the
argument particularly transparent. One could also obtain similar
results working entirely in the setting of Wightman fields \cite{SW}.
\section{ANEC in quantum field theory on two-dimensional Minkowski
spacetime}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{Assumptions}
Our discussion of the ANEC in general quantum field theory on
two-dimensional Minkowski spacetime begins by formulating the relevant
assumptions.
\\[6pt]
{\it Notation. } Two-dimensional Minkowski-spacetime will be
identified, as usual, with ${\mathbb R}^2$ with metric $(\eta_{\mu\nu}) = {\rm
diag}(1,-1)$. The open forward lightcone is the set $V_+ :=\{x \in
{\mathbb R}^2: (x^0)^2 - (x^1)^2 > 0,\ x^0 > 0\}$, the open backward lightcone
is $V_- := - V_+$. The causal complement, ${\cal O}^{\perp}$,
of a set ${\cal O} \subset {\mathbb R}^2$ is the largest open complement of the
union of all sets $(V_+ \cup V_- )
+ x$, $x \in {\cal O}$. A {\it double cone} is a set of the form
${\cal O}_{I} := (S\backslash I)^{\perp}$ where $S$ is any spacelike line
in ${\mathbb R}^2$ (a spacelike hypersurface) and $I$ any finite open
subinterval of $S$. Any double cone is of the form ${\cal O} = (V_+ + y)
\cap (V_- + x)$ for pairs of points $x,y \in {\mathbb R}^2$ with $x \in V_+
+y$. A {\it wedge region} is of the form $W = L(W_R)$ for any
Poincar\'e transformation $L$ where $W_R$ is the right wedge, $W_R
:=\{(x^0,x^2) \in {\mathbb R}^2 : 0<x^1,\ |x^0| < x^1 \}$.
There will often appear the following special elements in ${\mathbb R}^2$:
$$
e_0 := \left(^1_0\right)\,,\ \ e_1 := \left(^0_1\right)\,, \ \ e_+ :=
\mbox{$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$} (e_0 +
e_1)\,,\ \ e_- := \mbox{$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$}(e_0 - e_1)\,. $$
The summation convention is used throughout.
\\[6pt]
We shall now define what we mean by a quantum field theory with an
energy-momentum tensor on two-dimensional Minkowski-spacetime: This is
described in terms of a collection of objects $\{{\cal H},{\cal A},U,\O,T_{\mu\nu}\}$
whose properties are assumed to be as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] ${\cal H}$ is a Hilbertspace, and there is a map ${\cal O} \mapsto
{\cal A}({\cal O})$ assigning to each double cone ${\cal O}$ in ${\mathbb R}^2$ a von
Neumann algebra in ${\cal B}({\cal H})$, with the properties:
\\[2pt]
${}$ \quad $\tilde{{\cal O}} \subset {\cal O} \quad \ \Rightarrow \quad
{\cal A}(\tilde{{\cal O}}) \subset
{\cal A}({\cal O})$ \quad (isotony),
\\[2pt]
${}$ \quad $\tilde{{\cal O}} \subset {\cal O}^{\perp} \quad \Rightarrow \quad
{\cal A}(\tilde{{\cal O}}) \subset{\cal A}({\cal O})'$ \quad (locality).
\footnote{Recall that ${\cal A}({\cal O})'$ is
the commutant of ${\cal A}({\cal O})$, i.e.\ the algebra formed by all
operators in ${\cal B}({\cal H})$ that commute with every element in
${\cal A}({\cal O})$.}
\item[(ii)] There is a weakly continuous representation ${\mathbb R}^2 \owns a
\mapsto U(a)$ of the two-dimensional translation group by unitary
operators on ${\cal H}$, fulfilling for all double cones ${\cal O}$,
$$ U(a){\cal A}({\cal O})U(a)^* = {\cal A}({\cal O} + a)\,, \quad a \in {\mathbb R}^2
\quad {\rm (covariance)}.$$
\item[(iii)] There is an up to a phase unique unit vector $\O \in
{\cal H}$ which is left invariant by the unitary group $U(a)$, $a \in
{\mathbb R}^2$ \quad (existence of a unique vacuum).
\item[(iv)] Denote by $P = (P_0,P_1)$ the generator of $U(a)$, $a \in
{\mathbb R}^2$, i.e.\ $U(a) = {\rm e}^{iP_{\mu}a^{\mu}}$. Its spectrum
fulfills
\\[2pt]
$${\rm sp}(P) \subset \{0\} \cup \{(p_0,p_1) \in {\mathbb R}^2:
(p_0)^2 -(p_1)^2 \ge m > 0, \ p_0 > 0\} $$
for some fixed $m > 0$ \ \,(spectrum condition with mass gap).
\item[(v)] The vacuum vector $\O$ is cyclic for union of the local von Neumann
algebras $\bigcup_{{\cal O}} {\cal A}({\cal O})$,
i.e.\ the set $\bigcup_{{\cal O}}{\cal A}({\cal O})\O$ is
dense in ${\cal H}$ \quad (cyclicity of the vacuum).
\item[(vi)] We denote by ${\cal A}_{\infty}$ the $*$-subalgebra of ${\cal B}({\cal H})$
generated by all operators $A$ of the form
$$A = \int h(a)\,U(a)B U(a)^*\, d^2a$$
for $h \in C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb R}^2)$ and $B \in \bigcup_{{\cal O}} {\cal A}({\cal O})$, and
define:
$${\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O}) := {\cal A}_{\infty} \cap {\cal A}({\cal O})\,.$$
\par
The energy-momentum tensor, $T_{\mu\nu}$, $\nu , \mu = 1,2$, is a set of
operator valued distributions; more precisely, there is a dense domain
$D \subset {\cal H}$, with $U(a)D \subset D$, $a \in {\mathbb R}^2$, and ${\cal A}_{\infty}\O
\subset D$, so that for each $f \in C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb R}^2)$, $T_{\mu\nu}(f)$ is a
closable operator on $D$ with $T_{\mu\nu}(\overline{f}) \subset
T_{\mu\nu}(f)^*$. For each $\psi,\psi' \in D$, the map
$$C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb R}^2) \owns f \mapsto \langle \psi,T_{\mu\nu}(f) \psi'
\rangle$$
is a distribution in ${\cal D}'({\mathbb R}^2)$.
\item[(vii)] Translation-covariance holds:
$$U(a)T_{\mu\nu}(f)U(a)^* = T_{\mu\nu}(f_a)\,, \quad f \in
C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb R}^2),\ a \in {\mathbb R}^2\,,$$
with $f_a(x) := f(x -a)$. Moreover, $T_{\mu\nu}$ has vanishing
vacuum-expectation value:
$$\langle \O,T_{\mu\nu}(f)\O \rangle = 0\,, \quad f \in
C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb R}^2)\,. $$
\item[(viii)] $T_{\mu\nu}$ is local on the vacuum:
\quad $\langle A\O,\mbox{\boldmath $[$} T_{\mu\nu}(f),B \mbox{\boldmath $]$} \O \rangle = 0$ \\[2pt]
for all $A \in {\cal A}_{\infty}$, $B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O})$ and $f \in C^{\infty}_{0}({\cal O}^{\perp})$.
\item[(ix)] $T_{\mu\nu}$ is divergence-free on the vacuum:
$$ \langle A \O,\mbox{\boldmath $[$} T_{\mu\nu}(\partial^{\mu}f),B \mbox{\boldmath $]$} \O \rangle = 0\,, \quad
A,B \in {\cal A}_{\infty} \,.$$
\item[(x)] $T_{\mu\nu}$ generates (locally) the translations on the vacuum:
Let $S$ be the
$x^0 = 0$ hyperplane (= spacelike line) with unit normal vector
$e_0$.
Whenever $a,b \in C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb R})$ are any two non-negative functions with
the properties
\\[2pt]
${}$ \quad $a(x^0) =0$ outside of some $x^0$-interval
$(-\varepsilon_a,\varepsilon_a)$ and $\int a(x^0)\,dx^0 = 1$,
\\[2pt]
${}$ \quad $b(x^1) = 1$ on an open $x^1$-interval $(\xi_b
-\varepsilon_a -\delta} \def\D{\Delta_b,\xi_b + \varepsilon_a + \delta} \def\D{\Delta_b)$,
\\[2pt]
${}$ \quad where $\varepsilon_a,\delta} \def\D{\Delta_b > 0$, $\xi_b \in {\mathbb R}$,
\\[2pt]
we require that, upon setting $\chi(x^0,x^1) := a(x^0)b(x^1)$,
there holds
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle A \O,\mbox{\boldmath $[$} T_{\mu\nu}(\chi),B\mbox{\boldmath $]$} \O \rangle e_0^{\mu} & = & \langle A
\O,\mbox{\boldmath $[$} P_{\nu},B \mbox{\boldmath $]$} \O \rangle \\
& = & \langle A \O,P_{\nu}B \O \rangle
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $A \in {\cal A}_{\infty}$ and all $B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O}_I)$ with $I = (\xi_b
-\delta} \def\D{\Delta_b,\xi_b + \delta} \def\D{\Delta_b)$.
\item[(xi)] Energy bounds for $T_{\mu\nu}$: \quad There is a pair of numbers
$c,\ell >0$ such that $(1 + P_0)^{-\ell}T_{\mu\nu}(f)(1+P_0)^{-\ell}$ is for
each $f \in C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb R}^2)$ a bounded operator whose operator norm
satisfies the estimate
$$ ||\,(1 + P_0)^{-\ell}T_{\mu\nu}(f)(1+P_0)^{-\ell}\,|| \le
c\,||\,f\,||_{L^1}\,, \quad f \in C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb R}^2)\,.$$
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Comments and some implications}
The conditions (i)--(v) imply that we are considering a
translation-covariant quantum field theory in a vacuum representation
with mass gap, in operator algebraic formulation. These conditions are
quite standard; the selfadjoint elements in ${\cal A}({\cal O})$ are viewed as
observables of the theory localized in the spacetime region ${\cal O}$,
cf.\ \cite{Haag} for further discussion.
Note that (v) and uniqueness of the vacuum vector
imply irreducibility of the observable algebra, i.e.\
$(\bigcup_{{\cal O}}{\cal A}({\cal O}))' = {\mathbb C}\,1$. Note also that locality, spectrum
conditon and (v) imply the Reeh-Schlieder property of the algebras
associated with wedge-regions $W$, defined as ${\cal A}(W) := (\bigcup_{{\cal O}
\subset W}{\cal A}({\cal O}) )''$, i.e.\ the sets ${\cal A}(W)\O$ are dense in
${\cal H}$ for
any wedge-region. It follows easily that then also the sets
${\cal A}_{\infty}(W)\O$ are dense in ${\cal H}$ for all wedge regions $W$.
A slightly stronger assumption would be the Reeh-Schlieder property
for the local algebras, i.e.\ that ${\cal A}({\cal O})\O$ is dense in ${\cal H}$ for
each double cone ${\cal O}$;
this is the case when the local von Neumann algebras are weakly
additive, as e.g.\ when there is a Wightman field
generating the local algebras \cite{ReS,SW}. Then it follows that
${\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O})\O$ is dense in ${\cal H}$. We will make such an assumption in Section
3.
The conditions (vi)--(xi) serve to characterize an energy-momentum
tensor in the present abstract setting. Conditions (vi)--(viii)
basically say that the energy-momentum tensor is a Wightman field
which is local relative to the observables. Particularly important for
the interpretation of $T_{\mu\nu}$ as an energy-momentum tensor are clearly
(ix) and (x) expressing that, in a weak sense, $T_{\mu\nu}$ is
divergence-free and generates locally the translations. Notice that on
account of the assumed translation-covariance the condition formulated
in (x) implies its validity for any translated copy $S +a$, $a \in
{\mathbb R}^2$, of $S$ in place of $S$. It is worth pointing out that we could
have also taken for $S$ any other spacelike hyperplane (= spacelike
line) instead of the $x^0 = 0$ hyperplane, the proof of
Theorem 2.5 below would then only involve changes in notation. Specializing
to the $x^0 = 0$ hyperplane is thus just a matter of notational
convenience.
Notice
that for each $A \in {\cal A}_{\infty}$ one has $A\O \in \bigcap_{j \in {\mathbb N}}{\rm
dom}\,(1+ P_0)^j$.
In view of the assumed energy bound, it actually follows that ${\cal A}_{\infty}\O$
is contained in the domain of $T_{\mu\nu}(f)$. (An assumption of this kind
is clearly needed, otherwise it would be difficult to formulate that
$T_{\mu\nu}(f)$ is local relative to the observables.) The energy bound (xi)
has the simple interpretation that the local energy-momentum density
integrated over a finite spacetime volume should be dominated by the
total energy (or at least a sufficiently high moment of it). We
mention as an aside that, if one assumes the domain $D$ of $T_{\mu\nu}$ to
coincide with the set $\bigcap_{j \in {\mathbb N}}{\rm dom}\,(1+P_0)^j$ and
takes as testfunction-space the Schwartz-functions ${\cal S}({\mathbb R}^2)$
instead of $C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb R}^2)$, then this implies already an energy bound
of the form as in (xi) \cite[Prop. 12.4.10]{BW}.
Finally, there arises the question if our assumptions regarding $T_{\mu\nu}$
are realistic. For free fields, the canonically constructed
energy-momentum tensor fulfills the assumptions. (It fulfills, in
particular, a linear energy bound, i.e.\ (xi) holds with $\ell = 1$.)
While we have made no attempt to check this,
it is to be expected that the quantum field models which have been
constructed in two dimensions, like $P(\phi)_2$ or Yukawa$_2$, also
comply with all of our assumptions.
\\[6pt]
The assumptions (i)--(xi) for a theory with energy-momentum tensor,
$\{{\cal H},{\cal A},U,\O,T_{\mu\nu}\}$, are known to imply certain properties which
will be used in deriving ANEC in the next section. Hence we
subsequently collect these properties, mainly referring to the
literature for proofs.
\begin{Prop} {\rm \cite{Bor,Dri}} One has weak asymptotic lightlike
clustering: For any lightlike $k \in {\mathbb R}^2\backslash\{0\}$ and any
pair of vectors $\psi,\psi' \in {\cal H}$, it holds that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{s \to \infty}\, \langle \psi,U(s\cdot k)\psi'\rangle = \langle
\psi,\O\rangle\langle \O,\psi'\rangle\,.
\end{equation}
\end{Prop}
\noindent
{\it Sketch of Proof: } Let $W_R$ be the right wedge region and
${\cal A}(W_R)$
the associated von Neumann algebra. Let $\D^{it}$,
$t \in {\mathbb R}$, be the modular group corresponding to ${\cal A}(W_R),\O$. Then
a theorem by Borchers \cite[Thm. II.9]{Bor} establishes the relation
$$ \D^{it}U(s\cdot e_+)\D^{-it} = U({\rm e}^{-2\pi t}s \cdot e_+) $$
for all $t,s \in {\mathbb R}$. Consequently, one can apply the argument of
Prop.\ I.1.3 in \cite{Dri} to gain relation (2.1). We point out that
the mass gap assumption enters in that argument.
\begin{Lemma}
Let $E := 1 - |\O \rangle \langle \O |$ be the projection orthogonal
to the vacuum vector, and let $P_{\pm} := P_0 \pm P_1$. Let $\psi,\psi'
\in {\rm dom}\,(P_0)$. Then there exist vectors $\psi_{\pm} \in {\cal H}$
such that
$$ \langle \psi, E \psi' \rangle = \langle \psi_{\pm}, E P_{\pm} \psi'
\rangle\,. $$
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} From the mass-gap assumption we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{|p_{\pm}|^2} \le \frac{|p_0|^2}{m^2}
\end{equation}
for all $p = (p_0,p_1) \in {\rm sp}(P) \backslash \{0\}$, where
$p_{\pm} := p_0 \pm p_1$. We claim that the vectors $\psi_{\pm} :=
(P_{\pm})^{-1}E\psi$ exist (in the sense of the functional
calculus). Indeed, denoting the spectral measure of $P$ by $F$, eqn.\
(2.2) implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{||\,(P_{\pm})^{-1}E\psi\,||^2 = \int_{{\rm sp}(P)
\backslash \{0\}}\frac{1}{|p_{\pm}|^2}
\langle \psi,dF(p)\psi\rangle} \\
& \le & \int_{{\rm sp}(P) \backslash \{0\}}\frac{|p_0|^2}{m^2}\langle
\psi,dF(p)\psi \rangle \
\le \ \frac{1}{m^2} ||\,P_0\psi\,||^2\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, by the functional calculus,
$$ \langle\psi,E\psi'\rangle = \langle E\psi,E\psi'\rangle = \langle
P_{\pm} (P_{\pm})^{-1} E\psi,E\psi'\rangle = \langle \psi_{\pm},E
P_{\pm}\psi' \rangle\,, $$
where we used that $E$ commutes with $P_{\pm}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Prop}
Let $f \in C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb R}^2)$ with $f \ge 0$, $\int
f(x)\,d^2x = 1$, and define $f_{x,\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}(y):= \lambda} \def\L{\Lambda^{-2}f(\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda^{-1}(y-x))$ so
that $f_{x,\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}$ approaches for $\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda \to 0$ the delta-distribution
concentrated at $x$. Then for each pair $A,B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}$, the limit
$$ \langle A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[x]B\O\rangle := \lim_{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda \to 0}\, \langle
A\O,T_{\mu\nu}(f_{x,\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}) B\O \rangle $$
exists and defines a quadratic form on ${\cal A}_{\infty}\O \times
{\cal A}_{\infty}\O$. Moreover,
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm (a)}] \quad ${\mathbb R}^2 \owns x \mapsto \langle A\O,
T_{\mu\nu}[x] B\O\rangle$ is
$C^{\infty}$,
\item[{\rm (b)}] \quad $\langle U(a)A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[x]U(a)B\O\rangle = \langle
A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[x - a]\,B\O \rangle$\,, \quad
$x,a \in {\mathbb R}^2$,
\item[{\rm (c)}] \quad $(1 + P_0)^{-\ell}T_{\mu\nu}[x](1 + P_0)^{-\ell} :=
\lim_{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda \to 0}\, (1 + P_0)^{-\ell}T_{\mu\nu}(f_{x,\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda})(1+P_0)^{-\ell}$
\\[2pt]
is a bounded operator on ${\cal H}$,
\item[{\rm (d)}] \quad $\langle A\O,\mbox{\boldmath $[$} T_{\mu\nu}[x],B\mbox{\boldmath $]$}\O\rangle = 0$ \quad
for all $A \in {\cal A}_{\infty}$, $B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O})$ and $x \in {\cal O}^{\perp}$,
\item[{\rm (e)}] \quad $\partial^{\mu}\langle A\O,\mbox{\boldmath $[$} T_{\mu\nu}[x],B\mbox{\boldmath $]$} \O \rangle
= 0$, \quad $A,B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}$,
\item[{\rm (f)}] \quad $\int \langle A\O,\mbox{\boldmath $[$}
T_{\mu\nu}[x^1e_1],B\mbox{\boldmath $]$}\O\rangle e_0^{\mu}\,dx^1 = \langle A\O,P_{\nu}B\O
\rangle$, \quad $A,B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Prop}
This proposition is a fairly direct consequence of assumption (xi),
see \cite[Thm.\ 12.4.8]{BW} (cf.\ also references cited there).
The commutator is defined as difference of
quadratic forms:
$$ \langle A\O,\mbox{\boldmath $[$} T_{\mu\nu}[x],B\mbox{\boldmath $]$} \O \rangle := \langle
A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[x]B\O\rangle - \langle B^*A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[x]\O \rangle\,. $$
Observe that the integrand in (f) is supported on a finite interval
because of (d). It should also be noted that $T_{\mu\nu}[x]$ will in
general not exist as an operator.
\begin{Lemma}
Let $W$ be a wedge region, $B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}$, and $j \in
{\mathbb N}$. Then for each $\varepsilon > 0$ there is some $B_{\varepsilon}
\in {\cal A}_{\infty}(W)$ such that
$$ ||\,(1 + P_0)^j(B - B_{\varepsilon})\O\,|| < \varepsilon\,. $$
\end{Lemma}
The proof can be given along similar lines as the proof of
\cite[Prop.\ 14.3.2]{BW}; we may therefore skip the details.
The cyclicity of $\O$ for the algebras ${\cal A}_{\infty}(W)$ enters here.
In combination with (b)
and (c) of Prop.\ 2.3 one obtains as a simple corollary:
For each wedge region $W$, any $A,B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}$ and given $\varepsilon
> 0$ there is some $B_{\varepsilon} \in {\cal A}_{\infty}(W)$ so that
\begin{equation}
|\langle A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[x](B-B_{\varepsilon})\O\rangle | < \varepsilon
\end{equation}
holds uniformly in $x \in {\mathbb R}^2$.
\subsection{Main result}
In the present section we state and prove our main result about ANEC
in quantum field theory on two-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.
\begin{Thm} Let $\{{\cal H},{\cal A},U,\O,T_{\mu\nu}\}$ be a quantum field theory with
energy-momentum tensor on two-dimensional Minkowski spacetime
fulfilling the assumptions (i)--(xi) of Section 2.1.
Let $k$ be any non-zero lightlike vector in ${\mathbb R}^2$ and let $A,B \in
{\cal A}_{\infty}$, $a \in {\mathbb R}^2$. Then it holds that
$$ \lim_{r_{\pm} \to \infty} \, \int_{-r_-}^{r_+} \langle
A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[s\cdot k + a]\,B\O \rangle k^{\mu}\, ds = \langle A\O,P_{\nu}
B\O \rangle\,. $$
\end{Thm}
\begin{Cor} This implies the ANEC for all vector states induced
by the dense, translation-invariant
set of vectors $\{\psi = A\O$: $A \in {\cal A}_{\infty}\}$, corresponding
to energetically strongly damped,
local excitations of the vacuum:
$$ \lim_{r_{\pm}\to \infty} \, \int_{-r_-}^{r_+} \langle \psi,T_{\mu\nu}[s \cdot k +
a]\,\psi\rangle k^{\mu}k^{\nu}\, ds = \langle \psi,k^{\nu}P_{\nu}\psi
\rangle \ge 0 $$
since $k$ is lightlike and since the relativistic spectrum condition
holds.
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof}
The proof proceeds in three simple steps. For simplicity of notation, we
will give the proof only for the case $k = e_+$, the proof for $k =
e_-$ is obtained by analogous arguments. In view of translation
covariance, it suffices also to consider only the case $a=0$.
\\[6pt]
{\it 1) } We will first show that for all $C \in {\cal A}_{\infty}$
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{s \to \pm\infty}\,\langle C\O,T_{\mu\nu}[s\cdot e_+]\O \rangle& =&
0\,, \\
\lim_{r_{\pm}\to\infty}\, \int_{-r_-}^{r_+} \langle C\O,T_{\mu\nu}[s \cdot e_+]\O
\rangle \,ds &=& 0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
To this end, let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi &:= & (1+P_0)^{\ell + 1}C\O\,,\\
\psi_{\mu \nu}' & : = & (1+ P_0)^{-(\ell + 1)}T_{\mu\nu}[0](1 + P_0)^{-\ell}\O\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
One can see from Prop.\ 2.3(c) that $\psi,\psi_{\mu\nu}' \in {\rm
dom}\,(1 + P_0)$. Moreover, denoting by $E := 1 -|\O\rangle \langle
\O |$ the projection orthogonal to the vacuum, we deduce, upon using
assumption (vii) (implying $\langle \O,T_{\mu\nu}[x]\O\rangle = 0$) and
Prop.\ 2.3(b) together with the fact that $E$ commutes with $U(a)$, $a
\in {\mathbb R}^2$, that
$$ \langle C\O,T_{\mu\nu}[s\cdot e_+]\O \rangle = \langle \psi,E\,U(s\cdot
e_+)\psi_{\mu\nu}'\rangle \,, \quad s \in {\mathbb R}\,.$$
Then relation (2.4) follows from weak asymptotic lightlike clustering,
Prop.\ 2.1. Furthermore,
by Lemma 2.2 it follows that there is a vector $\psi_+ \in {\cal H}$ so
that
$$ \langle \psi,E\,U(s\cdot e_+)\psi_{\mu\nu}'\rangle = \langle \psi_+,E
P_+U(s\cdot e_+)\psi_{\mu\nu}' \rangle = \frac{1}{i}\frac{d}{ds}\langle
\psi_+,E\,U(s\cdot e_+)\psi_{\mu\nu}'\rangle \,.$$
\newpage\noindent
${}$ \par \vspace*{-1.5cm} \noindent
Thus one obtains
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\int_{-r_-}^{r_+}\langle C\O,T_{\mu\nu}[s\cdot e_+]\O\rangle\,ds
= \int_{-r_-}^{r_+}
\frac{1}{i}\frac{d}{ds}\langle\psi_+,E\,
U(s\cdot e_+)\psi_{\mu\nu}'\rangle\,ds}\\
& = &
\frac{1}{i}\left(\langle\psi_+,E\,U(r_+\cdot e_+)\psi_{\mu\nu}'\rangle -
\langle\psi_+,E\,U(r_-\cdot e_+)\psi_{\mu\nu}'\rangle
\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
and the last expression tends to 0 in the limit $r_{\pm} \to \infty$
in view of weak asymptotic lightlike clustering, Prop.\ 2.1. This
establishes relation (2.5).
\\[6pt]
{\it 2) } Relation (2.5) shows, for any $A,B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}$,
$$ \lim_{r_{\pm} \to \infty}\, \left(
\int_{-r_-}^{r_+}\langle A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[s\cdot e_+]B\O\rangle\,ds\ -
\int_{-r_-}^{r_+} \langle A\O,\lbT_{\mu\nu}[s\cdot e_+],B\mbox{\boldmath $]$}\O\rangle\,ds
\right) = 0 $$
and hence, to prove the theorem, it suffices to demonstrate
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r_{\pm} \to \infty}\,\int_{-r_-}^{r_+}
\langle A \O,\mbox{\boldmath $[$} T_{\mu\nu}[s\cdot e_+],B \mbox{\boldmath $]$} \O
\rangle e_+^{\mu}\,ds = \langle A\O,P_{\nu} B\O \rangle\,.
\end{equation}
To show this, we fix any $A,B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}$ and use the abbreviation
$$ \tau_{\mu\nu}(x) := \langle A\O,\mbox{\boldmath $[$} T_{\mu\nu}[x],B \mbox{\boldmath $]$} \O \rangle\,. $$
Now we define two maps with values in ${\mathbb R}^2$,
$$ h_+(s,\rho) := s\cdot e_+ - \rho\cdot e_-\,, \quad \ h_-(s,\rho) := -s\cdot
e_+ + \rho \cdot e_-\,, \quad s,\rho \ge 0\,,$$
and the two triangle-shaped regions
\begin{eqnarray*}
R_{+,r_+} &:=& \{h_+(s,\rho): 0 \le s \le r_+,\ 0 \le \rho \le s\}\,,\\
R_{-,r_-} &:= &\{h_-(s,\rho): 0 \le s \le r_-,\ 0 \le \rho \le
s\}\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
The region $R_{+,r_+}$ is bounded by the two lightlike line segments
$L_+(r_+) :=\{s\cdot e_+ : 0 \le s \le r_+\}$ and $H_+(r_+):=
\{h_+(r_+,\rho): 0 \le \rho \le r_+\}$, and by the spacelike line segment
$S_+(r_+) := \{x^1e_1 : 0 \le x^1 \le \sqrt{2}\,r_+\}$. Similarly,
$R_{-,r_-}$ is bounded by the line segments $L_-(r_-) := \{- s \cdot
e_+: 0 \le s \le r_-\}$, $H_-(r_-):= \{h_-(r_-,\rho): 0 \le \rho \le r_-\}$,
and
$S_-(r_-):= \{-x^1e_1 : 0 \le x^1 \le \sqrt{2}\,r_-\}$. (Cf.\ Figure
1.)
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=fig1.eps, width=11.0cm}\\
{\small {\bf Figure 1. } \quad Sketch of the regions and bounding
line segments described in the text.}
\end{center}
Now we use $\partial^{\mu}\tau_{\mu\nu}(x) = 0$ and thus, applying Gau{\ss}' law
to the region $R_{+,r_+}$, we convert the integral of
$ v^{\mu}=\tau^{\mu}{}_{\nu}$ paired with the outer normal along
$L_+(r_+)$ into a sum of two integrals of $v^{\mu}$ paired with
the inner normals along $H_+(r_+)$ and $S_+(r_+)$. Doing the same with
respect to the region $R_{-,r_-}$ (with the roles of inner and outer
normals interchanged) yields, with the above parametrizations of the
various line segments inserted,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{ \int_{-r_-}^{r_+} \tau_{\mu\nu}(s\cdot e_+)e^{\mu}_+\,ds =
\int_{-\sqrt{2}\,r_-}^{\sqrt{2}\,r_+}\tau_{\mu\nu}(x^1e_1)e^{\mu}_0\,dx^1} \\
& & - \int_0^{r_+}\tau_{\mu\nu}(h_+(r_+,\rho))e_-^{\mu}\,d\rho\
-\int_{0}^{r_-}\tau_{\mu\nu}(h_-(r_-,\rho))e^{\mu}_+ \,d\rho \,. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In view of Prop.\ 2.3(d,f), we deduce that the first integral on the
right hand side of (2.7) equals $\langle A\O,P_{\nu}B\O\rangle$ as soon
as $r_+$ and $r_-$ are large enough. This implies that (2.6), and
hence the statement of the theorem, is proved once it is shown that
the two remaining integrals on the right hand side of (2.7) vanish in
the limit $r_{\pm} \to \infty$.
\\[6pt]
{\it 3) } The remaining step in the proof is therefore to show
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r_{\pm} \to \infty}\, \int_0^{r_{\pm}}\tau_{\mu\nu}(h_{\pm}(r_{\pm},\rho))
\,d\rho = 0\,.
\end{equation}
We will demonstrate this only for the ``$+$'' case, the reasoning for
the ``$-$'' case is similar.
It holds that $B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O}_I)$ for $I =\{x^1e_1: |x^1| <
\sqrt{2}\,\xi\}$ with some sufficiently large $\xi > 0$. By Prop.\
2.3(d), $\tau_{\mu\nu}(x) = 0$ for $x \in ({\cal O}_I)^{\perp}$, implying that
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{r_+}\tau_{\mu\nu}(h_+(r_+,\rho))\,d\rho = \int_0^{\xi}\tau_{\mu\nu}(h_+(r_+,\rho))\,d\rho
\,,
\end{equation}
i.e.\ the integral extends for all $r_+ > 0$ only over a fixed
interval of finite length.
Now choose some wedge region $W$ in the causal complement of $\bigcup_{r_+
\ge 0}H_+(r_+) \subset W_R$, and let $\delta} \def\D{\Delta > 0$ be arbitrary. According to
(2.3), one can find some $B_{\delta} \def\D{\Delta} \in {\cal A}_{\infty}(W)$ so that
$$ |\langle A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[x](B - B_{\delta} \def\D{\Delta})\O \rangle
| < \frac{\delta} \def\D{\Delta}{2\xi} $$
uniformly in $x \in {\mathbb R}^2$. Then
$\langle A\O,\lbT_{\mu\nu}[x],B_{\delta} \def\D{\Delta}\mbox{\boldmath $]$}\O\rangle = 0$ for all
$x \in H_+(r_+)$, and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\int_0^{\xi}\tau_{\mu\nu}(h_+(r_+,\rho))\,d\rho = \int_0^{\xi} \langle
A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[h_+(r_+,\rho)](B - B_{\delta} \def\D{\Delta})\O\rangle\,d\rho}\\
&+ & \int_0^{\xi}\langle(B^*_{\delta} \def\D{\Delta} -
B^*)A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[h_+(r_+,\rho)]\O\rangle\,d\rho\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
The absolute value of the first integral on the right
hand side of the last equation can be estimated by $\xi\cdot\delta} \def\D{\Delta/2\xi =
\delta} \def\D{\Delta /2$. Owing to (2.4), the other integral on the right hand side of
the last equation converges to 0 for $r_+ \to \infty$ (note that the
integrands are bounded uniformly in $r_+$). Therefore we can find for
the given $\delta} \def\D{\Delta > 0$ some $r > 0$ so that
$|\int_0^{\xi}\tau_{\mu\nu}(h_+(r_+,\rho))\,d\rho| < \delta} \def\D{\Delta$ for all $r_+ > r$. By
(2.9), this establishes the required relation (2.8), and thus the
proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\section{A result for lightlike half-lines}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we present a result indicating that ANEC fails to hold
in general for dense subsets of the vectors considered in Theorem 2.5
when the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor is integrated
only over a lightlike half-line. This is of course no surprise in view
of the fact that a lightlike half-line has a large causal complement
together with the assumed properties of the energy-momentum
tensor. The precise formulation of the result is as follows.
\begin{Prop}
Let $\{{\cal H},{\cal A},U,\O,T_{\mu\nu}\}$ be a quantum field theory with
energy-momen\-tum tensor on two-dimensional Minkowski-spacetime with the
properties assumed in Section 2.1. Let $k$ be a non-zero lightlike
vector in ${\mathbb R}^2$, $a \in {\mathbb R}^2$, and let ${\cal O}$
be a double cone lying in the causal complement of the lightlike
half-line $L := \{s\cdot k + a : s \ge 0\}$.
Suppose that ${\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O})\O$ is dense in ${\cal H}$ (Reeh-Schlieder property)
and that for all $A \in {\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O})$ there holds
$$ \liminf_{r \to \infty}\,\int_0^r \langle A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[s\cdot k +
a]A\O\rangle k^{\mu}k^{\nu}\, ds \ge 0\,.$$
Then the Hilbertspace ${\cal H}$ is one-dimensional and spanned by the
vacuum vector $\O$, and $T_{\mu\nu}(f) = 0$ for all $f \in C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb R}^2)$.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
We consider only the case $k = e_+$ and $a = 0$, the general case is
proved analogously.
Then we observe that
\begin{equation}
\langle A\O,T[L]B\O \rangle := \lim_{r \to
\infty}\,\int_0^r\langle A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[s\cdot e_+]A\O\rangle
e_+^{\mu}e_+^{\nu}\,ds = i\langle A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[0]B\O\rangle
e_+^{\mu}e_+^{\nu}
\end{equation}
holds for all $A,B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O})$ as can be seen from (2.5) together
with the fact that $\langle A\O,\lbT_{\mu\nu}[s\cdot e_+],B\mbox{\boldmath $]$}\O\rangle = 0$, $s
\ge 0$. Equation (3.1) defines a quadratic form $\langle
\,.\,,T[L]\,.\,\rangle$ on ${\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O})\O \times {\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O})\O$ which is by
assumption positive, i.e.\ $\langle A\O,T[L]A\O\rangle \ge 0$, $A \in
{\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O})$. It follows that there is an essentially selfadjoint,
positive operator $T_L^{1/2}$ with domain ${\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O})\O$ so that
$$ \langle T_L^{1/2}A\O,T^{1/2}_L B\O\rangle = \langle
A\O,T[L]B\O\rangle = \langle B^*A\O,T[L]\O\rangle\,, \quad A,B \in
{\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O})\,.$$
Using $\langle \O,T[L]\O\rangle = 0$ this implies $\langle
A\O,T[L]B\O\rangle = 0$ and hence, by (3.1),
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\langle(1+P_0)^{\ell}A\O,(1+P_0)^{-\ell}T_{\mu\nu}[0]
(1+P_0)^{-\ell}(1+P_0)^{\ell}B\O\rangle e_+^{\mu}e_+^{\nu} }\\
&=& \langle A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[0]B\O\rangle e_+^{\mu}e_+^{\nu} \ = \ -i\langle
A\O,T[L]B\O\rangle \ = \ 0
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $A,B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O})$. The set of vectors $(1+P_0)^{\ell}A\O$, $A \in
{\cal A}_{\infty}({\cal O})$ is dense in ${\cal H}$, therefore, using also covariance
(Prop. 2.3(b)), one arrives at
$$ (1+P_0)^{-\ell}T_{\mu\nu}[x](1 + P_0)^{-\ell}e_+^{\mu}e_+^{\nu} = 0\,,
\quad x \in {\mathbb R}^2\,.$$
Thus $\langle A\O,T_{\mu\nu}[x]B\O\rangle e_+^{\mu}e_+^{\nu} = 0$ for all $A,B
\in {\cal A}_{\infty}$ and $x \in {\mathbb R}^2$, and in view of Theorem 2.5, this entails
$$ (P_0 + P_1)B\O = 0\,, \quad B \in {\cal A}_{\infty}\,.$$
Since we have imposed the mass gap assumption (iv), we may apply
Proposition I.1.2 of \cite{Dri} to conclude that this is only possible
if $B\O$ is parallel to the vacuum vector $\O$. As the set of vectors
${\cal A}_{\infty}\O$ is dense in ${\cal H}$, this implies ${\cal H} = {\mathbb C}\cdot \O$, and by
the vanishing of the vacuum-expectation value of $T_{\mu\nu}$, finally
$T_{\mu\nu}(f) = 0$ for all $f \in C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb R}^2)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Concluding remarks}
It has been shown that in two-dimensional Minkowski spacetime the ANEC
can be derived under very general hypotheses for quantum field
theories endowed with an energy-momentum tensor. The
two-dimensionality was quite essential in exploiting the vanishing of
the divergence of $T_{\mu\nu}$ in the proof of Thm.\ 2.5 and it is not at
all clear if our simple argument can be generalized to higher
dimensions. So the general validity of ANEC in higher dimensions
remains unsettled.
Concerning quantum field theory in curved spacetime, a familiar
problem is that there are no candidates for a vacuum state of a
quantum field theory owing to the circumstance that in general there
are no spacetime symmetries. Then already the characterization of
physical states and the definition of expectation values of an
energy-momentum tensor poses considerable problems (see \cite{WaldII}
for discussion how this problem is treated in the case of free
fields). Clearly the the question if, and in which sense, ANEC may
hold in quantum field theory in curved spacetime is connected to this
circle of problems, particularly to the issue of how to characterize
states which may be viewed as playing the role of preferred,
vacuum-like states. Here ANEC is in some ways attractive as imposing
a global constraint on candidates for such states, complementary
to other prominent conditions, like the Hadamard condition
(cf.\ \cite{WaldII}) or the microlocal spectrum condition (see
\cite{BFK}) which constrain the short-distance properties of physical
states. A drawback is that ANEC is a condition which cannot be tested
locally. It is to be hoped that more progress in understanding the
relation between the said local conditions and ANEC will be made in
the future.
\\[18pt]
{\bf Acknowledgement.} It would like to thank D.\ Buchholz for useful
comments on the topic.
|
\section*{Introduction}
If one places a semiconducting heterostructure over a piezoelectric which
SAW is being propagated, the SAW undergoes attenuation associated with the
interaction of the electrons of heterostructure with the electric field of
SAW. This is the basis of the
acoustic method pioneered by Wixforth \cite{Wix1} for the investigation of
GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures. In the paper \cite{ild971}
it has been found that
in a GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure in the IQHE regime the acoustically
measured conductivity $\sigma^{hf}$
does not coincide with the $\sigma^{dc}$ obtained from the direct-current
measurements: $\sigma^{dc}$=0, whereas $\sigma^{hf}$ has a finite value.
This difference was explained by means of a conventional model of electrons
being localized in the IQHE
regime,
therefore the conductivity mechanism for a direct current differs from that
for an alternative current. For the localized electrons in the hopping
conduction regime hf-conductivity can be expressed as a complex value:
$\sigma^{hf}=\sigma_1^{hf}-i\sigma_2^{hf}$ \cite{aleiner}.
Absorption coefficient
of SAW, $\Gamma$, and the change of SAW
velocity- $\Delta V/V$-can be presented in the way:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma=8.68 \frac{K^2}{2}
kA\frac{(\frac{4\pi \sigma_{1}}{\varepsilon_s V})t(k)}
{[1+(\frac{4\pi \sigma_{2}}{\varepsilon_s V})t(k)]^2+
[(\frac{4\pi \sigma_{1}}{\varepsilon_s V})t(k)]^2},
\label{gam&vel}
\end{eqnarray}
$$
A=8b(k)(\varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_0)\varepsilon_0^2\varepsilon_sexp(-2k(a+d)),
$$
$$
\frac{\Delta V}{V}= \frac{K^2}{2}
A\frac{(\frac{4\pi \sigma_{2}}{\varepsilon_s V})t(k)+1}
{[1+(\frac{4\pi \sigma_{2}}{\varepsilon_s V})t(k)]^2+
[(\frac{4\pi \sigma_{1}}{\varepsilon_s
V})t(k)]^2},
$$
where $K^2$ is the electromechanical coupling coefficient of piezoelectric
substrate, $k$ and $V$ are the SAW wavevector and the velocity
respectively, $a$ is the vacuum gap width of 2DEG, $d$ is the depth of
the 2D-layer, $\varepsilon_1$, $\varepsilon_0$ and $\varepsilon_s$ are the
dielectric constants of lithium niobate, vacuum and semiconductor
respectively, $b$ and $t$ are complex function of $a$, $d$,
$\varepsilon_1$, $\varepsilon_0$ and $\varepsilon_s$.
The aim of the work is to determine Re$\sigma^{hf}$(H,T) and
Im$\sigma^{hf}$(H,T) in IQHE regime from the $\Gamma$ and $\Delta V/V$ of
SAW measurements ($f$=30MHz, T=1.5-4.2K, H up to 7T) and to analyze
the 2D-electrons localization mechanism.
\section*{The Experimental results and discussion}
Fig.1 illustrates the experimental dependencies of $\Gamma$ and $\Delta V/V$
on H at T=1.5K for the sample 1 ($n=2.7 \cdot 10^{11} cm^{-2}$). As long as
$\Gamma$ and $\Delta V/V$ are determined by the 2DEG conductivity (Eq.(1)),
quantizing of the electro
nspectrum in the magnetic field, leading to the SdH oscillations,
results in similar peculiarities in $\Gamma$ and $\Delta V/V$ of fig.1.
Fig.2a presents the $\sigma_1(T)$ dependencies determined from $\Gamma$ and
$\Delta V/V$ (Fig.1) using Eq.(1)
for H=5.5; 2.7 and 1.8T
($\nu$=2, 4, 6 respectively),
$\nu$=nch/eH is the filling factor. Fig.2b shows the $\sigma_2(T)$
dependencies derived from $\Gamma$ and $\Delta V/V$
for H=5.5, 2.7 and 1.8 T. Fig.3 illustrates the dependencies $\sigma_1$ and
$\sigma_2$ on magnetic field near
H=5.5T ($\nu$=2) at different temperatures. In a number of papers
(see f.e.\cite{furlan}) devoted to the study of magnetoresistance
in IQHE regime
it was established that in IQHE plateau regions at low T the dominant
conductivity mechanism is
variable range hopping.
HF-conductivity in this case is determined by the two-site model and is
associated with the electronic transition between localized states of
"tight" pairs of impurities $\sigma_1$. In this case the relation is valid:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{Re\sigma}{Im\sigma}=\frac{\sigma_1}{\sigma_2}=
\frac{\pi}{2}
ln\frac{\omega}{\omega_{ph}},
\label{reim}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\omega=2\pi f$ is the frequency of SAW, $\omega_{ph}$ is the
characteristic phonon frequency of the order of $10^{12}-10^{13} sec^{-1}$.
The calculation using Eq.(\ref{reim}) gives $\sigma_1/\sigma_2=0.15$ (f=30 MHz).
For all samples it was experimentally found $\sigma_1/\sigma_2=0.14 \pm 0.03$
at T=1.5K and H in the Hall plateaux middle. This fact allows one to suppose
that the mechanism that
determines the $\Gamma$ and $\Delta V/V$ of SAW interacting with localized
electrons is that of the hf hopping conductivity \cite{efros85}.
For the analysis of the dependencies $\sigma_1(H,T)$ and $\sigma_2(H,T) $
we supposed it to be determined by two mechanisms: hf-hopping on the
localized states of impurities and thermal activation to the upper Landau
band. The value of $\sigma_2 $
is proportional to the number of "tight" pairs, which is changed with a
thermal activation processes ($\sigma_2=0$ for delocalized electrons
\cite{ild971}).
So the dependence $ \sigma_2 (H, T)$ reflects a change of number
of these pairs.
The dependence
$\sigma_1(H)$ is similar to behaviour of $\sigma^{dc}$ when it makes
SdH-oscillations, but $\sigma_1 > \sigma^{dc}=0$. $\sigma_1(T)$ can be
presented as a sum of two terms: $\sigma_1=\sigma_1^h+\sigma_1^a$, where
$\sigma_1^h=0.11 \cdot \sigma_2^h$ is
hf-conductivity,
$ \sigma_1^a=\sigma_0 \cdot exp(-\Delta E/kT)$
is the conductivity on upper Landau band due to the electrons activated from
the states on Fermi level where the activation energy
$\Delta E=\hbar \omega_c/2-C/2$, ($\hbar \omega_c$ is the cyclotron
frequency, $C$
is the Landau band width).
From the plotted dependence $ln(\sigma_1-\sigma_1^h)$ on 1/T
the $\Delta E$ was found for H=5.5, 2.7, 1.8T. One can see (inset of Fig.2a)
that $\Delta E$ is linear function of H with the slope $0.5\hbar \omega_c$
what allow to derive the width of Landau band, broadened,
probably, by
the impurity random potential; the width is appeared to be $C$=2meV.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The work was supported by RFFI (N 98-02-18280) and Minnauki (N 97-1043).
|
\section{Preliminaries and notation}
In this section we introduce the notation and recall some well-known
facts on Prym varieties. Throughout the paper we will suppose the
genus of $C$ to be at least $5$. Let $\omega$ be the dualizing sheaf of $C$
and consider the two additional Prym varieties
$$ Nm^{-1}(\omega) = P_{even} \cup P_{odd}
$$
which are characterized by the fact that
$\mathrm{dim} \: H^0(\tilde{C},\lambda)$ is even (resp. odd) for $\lambda \in
P_{even}$ (resp. $P_{odd}$). The variety $P_{even}$
carries the naturally defined reduced
Riemann theta divisor
\[
\Xi :=\{\lambda\in P_{even} \ | \ h^0 (\lambda ) > 0\}\;
\]
a translate of which is $\Xi_0$. Let ${\mathcal SU}_C(2,\alpha)$ and ${\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$ be
the moduli spaces of semi-stable vector bundles of rank $2$ with
determinant $\alpha$ and $\omega\alpha$ respectively. Taking direct
image gives morphisms
$$ \varphi: P \cup P' \longrightarrow {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\alpha) \qquad \varphi: P_{even} \cup P_{odd}
\longrightarrow {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha). $$
Let
$\mathcal{L}_\alpha$ (resp. $\mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha}$) be the generator
of the Picard group of ${\mathcal SU}_C(2,\alpha)$ (resp. ${\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$). It is known that
$$
(\varphi_{|P})^* \mathcal{L}_\alpha = {\mathcal O}(2\Xi_0) \qquad
(\varphi_{|P_{even}})^* \mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha} = {\mathcal O}(2\Xi).
$$
We denote by ${\mathcal O}(2\Xi'_0)$ (resp. ${\mathcal O}(2\Xi')$) the pull-back of
the line bundle $\mathcal{L}_\alpha$ (resp. $\mathcal{L}_{\omega
\alpha}$) to the Prym $P'$ (resp. $P_{odd}$), i.e.,
$(\varphi_{|P'})^* \mathcal{L}_\alpha = {\mathcal O}(2\Xi'_0)$ and
$(\varphi_{|P_{odd}})^* \mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha} = {\mathcal O}(2\Xi')$. We
consider the following morphisms
$$ \psi : JC \longrightarrow {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\alpha) \qquad \xi \longmapsto \xi \oplus \alpha \xi^{-1} $$
$$ \psi : \mathrm{Pic}^{g-1}(C) \longrightarrow {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha) \qquad \xi \longmapsto \xi \oplus \omega
\alpha \xi^{-1}. $$
One computes the pull-backs
$$ \psi^* \mathcal{L}_\alpha = \Theta_0 + T^*_\alpha \Theta_0 \qquad
\psi^* \mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha} = \Theta + T^*_\alpha \Theta $$
where
\[
\Theta :=\{ L\in Pic^{ g-1} (C) \ | \ h^0 (L )> 0\}\;
\]
and $\Theta_0$ is a symmetric theta divisor in the Jacobian $JC$,
i.e., a translate of $\Theta$ by a theta-characteristic. By abuse of
notation, we will also write $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha}$ and
$\mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha}$ for $\psi^*\mathcal{L}_{\alpha}$ and
$\psi^*\mathcal{L}_{\omega\alpha}$ respectively. Note that $\psi$
induces linear isomorphisms at the level of global sections:
\begin{equation} \label{iso1}
\psi^* : H^0({\mathcal SU}_C(2,\alpha),\mathcal{L}_\alpha) \cong H^0(JC,\mathcal{L}_\alpha), \ \
\psi^* : H^0({\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha),\mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha}) \cong H^0(\mathrm{Pic}^{g-1}(C),\mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha}).
\end{equation}
There is a well-defined morphism
$$ D : {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\alpha) \longrightarrow |\mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha}| \qquad (\text{resp.} \
D : {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha) \longrightarrow |\mathcal{L}_\alpha|) $$
where the support of $D(E)$ (reduced for $E$ general) is
$$ D(E) = \{ \xi \in JC \ (\text{resp.} \ \ \mathrm{Pic}^{g-1}(C)) \: | \:
h^0(C, E\otimes \xi) >0 \}. $$
\noindent
The two involutions of the Jacobian $JC$ given by
$$ T_{\alpha}: \xi \longmapsto \xi \otimes \alpha \qquad (-1): \xi \longmapsto \xi^{-1} $$
induce (up to $\pm 1$) linear involutions $T_{\alpha}^*$ and $(-1)^*$ on the
spaces of global sections
$H^0(JC,\mathcal{L}_\alpha)$ and $H^0(\mathrm{Pic}^{g-1}(C),\mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha})$.
\begin{lem}
The projective linear involutions $T_{\alpha}^*$ and $(-1)^*$ acting on
$\mathbb{P} H^0(JC,\mathcal{L}_\alpha)$ are equal.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We observe that the composite map $T_{\alpha} \circ (-1) : \xi
\mapsto \alpha \xi^{-1}$ verifies $\psi \circ (T_{\alpha} \circ
(-1)) = \psi$. Since $\psi^*$ is a linear isomorphism \eqref{iso1},
we have $(T_{\alpha} \circ (-1))^* = \pm id_{H^0}$. Therefore
$T_{\alpha}^* = \pm (-1)^*$.
\end{proof}
\noindent
Thus the two spaces decompose into $\pm$eigenspaces. Note that in
order to distinguish the two eigenspaces, we need a lift of the
$2$-torsion point $\alpha$ into the Mumford group. We will take the
following convention: the $+$eigenspace (resp. $-$eigenspace)
contains the Prym varieties $P$ and $P_{even}$ (resp. $P'$ and
$P_{odd}$), i.e., we have canonical (up to multiplication by a nonzero
scalar) isomorphisms.
\begin{equation} \label{iso2}
H^0(JC,\mathcal{L}_\alpha)_+ = H^0(P, 2\Xi_0), \qquad H^0(JC,\mathcal{L}_\alpha)_- =
H^0(P',2\Xi'_0),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{iso3}
H^0(\mathrm{Pic}^{g-1}(C),\mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha})_+ = H^0(P_{even}, 2\Xi), \qquad
H^0(\mathrm{Pic}^{g-1}(C), \mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha})_- = H^0(P_{odd},2\Xi').
\end{equation}
\noindent
Since the surface $C-C$ is invariant under the involution $(-1) : \xi \mapsto
\xi^{-1}$, the subspace $\Gamma^{\alpha}_{C-C}$ is invariant under
$(-1)^*$ and decomposes into a direct sum
of $\pm$eigenspaces for $(-1)^* = T_{\alpha}^*$:
$$
\Gamma^{\alpha}_{C-C} = \Gamma^{\alpha +}_{C-C} \oplus
\Gamma^{\alpha -}_{C-C}. $$
\bigskip
\noindent
{\em Prym-Wirtinger duality}
\bigskip
For the details see \cite{beau2} lemma 2.3. There exists an integral
Cartier divisor on the product ${\mathcal SU}_C(2,\alpha) \times {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$ whose
support is given by $$ \{ (E,F) \in {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\alpha) \times {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha) \: |
\: h^0(C, E \otimes F) >0
\}. $$
Its associated section can be viewed as an element of the tensor product
$$ H^0({\mathcal SU}_C(2,\alpha), \mathcal{L}_\alpha) \otimes H^0({\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha), \mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha}) $$
and it can be shown that the corresponding linear map
\begin{equation} \label{wirtdual}
H^0({\mathcal SU}_C(2,\alpha), \mathcal{L}_\alpha)^* \longrightarrow H^0({\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha), \mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha})
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism and is equivariant for the linear involutions induced by the
map $E \mapsto E \otimes \alpha$. Hence
using the identifications \eqref{iso2} and \eqref{iso3}
we obtain canonical isomorphisms,
\begin{equation} \label{wd1}
H^0(P, 2\Xi_0)^* \map{\sim} H^0(P_{even}, 2\Xi) \qquad
H^0(P', 2\Xi'_0)^* \map{\sim} H^0(P_{odd}, 2\Xi').
\end{equation}
\section{The base locus of $\mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}$}
In this section we compute the set-theoretical base locus of the
subseries $\mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}$ on the Prym variety $P'$. Suppose $C$
non-hyperelliptic. We need some additional notation:
denote by $\tilde{C}_m$ the $m$-th symmetric power of $\tilde{C}$ and let $S$ be
the subvariety of $\tilde{C}_{2g-2}$ defined as
$$ S = \{ D \in \tilde{C}_{2g-2} \ | \ Nm(D) \in |\omega| \ \text{and} \
h^0(D) \equiv 1 \ \text{mod} \ 2 \}. $$
Then, by \cite{beau} Corollaire page 365, the variety $S$ is normal and
irreducible of dimension $g-1$. The variety $S$ comes equipped with
two natural surjective morphisms
$$ Nm : S \longrightarrow |\omega| \qquad u : S \longrightarrow P_{odd} $$
where $u$ associates to an effective divisor $D$ its line
bundle ${\mathcal O}_{\tilde{C}}(D)$. Note that $u$ is
birational and $Nm$ is finite of degree $2^{2g-3}$.
Also denote by $u$ the extended morphism $u : \tilde{C}_{2g-2} \rightarrow
\mathrm{Pic}^{2g-2}(\tilde{C})$ and consider the commutative diagram
\begin{equation} \label{comdiags}
\begin{array}{ccc}
S & \hookrightarrow & \tilde{C}_{2g-2} \\
& & \\
\downarrow^u & & \downarrow^u \\
& & \\
P_{odd} & \hookrightarrow & \mathrm{Pic}^{2g-2}(\tilde{C}).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Consider the Brill-Noether locus in $P_{odd}$ which is
defined set-theoretically by
$$ \Xi_3 := \{ \lambda \in P_{odd} \ | \ h^0(\lambda) \geq 3 \}. $$
The scheme structure on $\Xi_3$ is defined by taking the
scheme-theoretical intersection \cite{welt2}
$$
\Xi_3 := W^2_{2g-2}(\tilde{C}) \cap P_{odd} $$
where $W^2_{2g-2}(\tilde{C})
\subset Pic^{2g-2}\tilde{C}$ is the Brill-Noether locus of line bundles
having at least $3$ sections (see \cite{acgh}).
\begin{lem}
The subscheme $\Xi_3 \subset P_{odd}$ is not empty and is
of pure codimension $3$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Theorem 9 \cite{dcp} asserts that $\Xi_3$ is not empty and every
irreducible component has dimension at least $g-4$. Suppose that
there is an irreducible component $I$ of dimension $\geq g-3$. Then
its inverse image $u^{-1}(I)$ has dimension $\geq g-1$, hence, since
$S$ is irreducible, $u^{-1}(I) = S$ and $\Xi_3 = P_{odd}$. The
last equality can not happen, since otherwise, using translation by an
element of the form ${\mathcal O}_{\tilde{C}}(\tilde{p} - \sigma \tilde{p})$, we would have
$\Xi = P_{even}$.
\end{proof}
Observe that $u$ is equivariant for the action of $\sigma$ on $S$ and
$P_{odd}$. Denote by $Z = u^{-1}(\Xi_3)$ the inverse image of the
subscheme $\Xi_3$. By the previous lemma $Z$ is of pure codimension
$1$ in $S$. We will see in a moment that there is a Cartier divisor
$\mathcal{D}$ on $S$ whose support is the support of $Z$. Let $\omega_{\tilde{C}}$
be the dualizing sheaf of $\tilde{C}$. Consider the following divisors in
$\tilde{C}_{2g-2}$
\[
U_{\tilde{p}} := \{ D \in \tilde{C}_{2g-2} \ | \ \exists D'\in \tilde{C}_{ 2g-3 } \text{
with } D = D'+\tilde{p}\}
= \tilde{p} + \tilde{C}_{2g-3}
\]
\[
V_{\tilde{p}} := \{ D \in \tilde{C}_{2g-2} \ | \ h^0(\omega_{\tilde{C}}(-D-\tilde{p})) \geq 1
\}
\]
and let $\bar{U}_{\tilde{p}}$ and $\bar{V}_{\tilde{p}}$ be their intersections
with $S$. A straightforward calculation involving Zariski
tangent spaces then shows that $\bar{U}_{\tilde{p}}$ is a reduced
divisor.
We denote by ${\mathcal O}_S(1)$ the pull-back by the norm map of the hyperplane
line bundle on $|\omega|$. Then it is easily seen that, for any
$\tilde{p} \in \tilde{C}$,
\begin{equation} \label{pbnm}
Nm^*(|\omega(-p)|) = \bar{U}_{\tilde{p}} + \bar{U}_{\sigma \tilde{p}} \in
|{\mathcal O}_S(1)|.
\end{equation}
Let $\tilde{\Theta}_{\lambda}$ denote the translate of
$\tilde{\Theta}$ by $\lambda$. Then, for any points $\tilde{p}, \tilde{q} \in \tilde{C}$, we
have an equality among divisors on $\tilde{C}_{2g-2}$ (see \cite{welt1} page 6)
\begin{equation} \label{pbthetapq}
u^*(\tilde{\Theta}_{\tilde{p} - \tilde{q}}) = U_{\tilde{p}} + V_{\tilde{q}}.
\end{equation}
The analogue on the even Prym variety of the following lemma was
previously proved by R. Smith and R. Varley. In the case of genus $3$
it is in their paper \cite{smithvarley99} (Prop. 1 page 358) and for
higher genus it will be published in their upcoming paper
\cite{smithvarley00}.
\begin{lem}
There exists an effective Cartier divisor $\mathcal{D}$ on $S$ whose
support is equal to
$$ \text{supp} \ Z = \{ D \in S \ | \ h^0({\mathcal O}_{\tilde{C}}(D)) \geq 3 \}. $$
Moreover, we have the following equality among effective
Cartier divisors
\begin{equation} \label{eqxiD}
u^* (\Xi_{\tilde{p} -\sigma\tilde{p}} + \Xi_{\sigma\tilde{p} -\tilde{p}} ) =
\bar{U}_{\tilde{p}} + \bar{U}_{\sigma \tilde{p}} + \mathcal{D} \ \ \ \forall \tilde{p} \in \tilde{C}.
\end{equation}
In particular, $u^* {\mathcal O}_{P_{odd}}(2\Xi') = {\mathcal O}_S(1) \otimes
{\mathcal O}_S(\mathcal{D})$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We are going to define $\mathcal{D}$ as the residual divisor of the
restricted divisor $\bar{V}_{\tilde{q}}$, for a given point $\tilde{q} \in \tilde{C}$
and then show that it does not depend on the choice of $\tilde{q}$. We
first observe that we have an equality of sets
$$\bar{V}_{\tilde{q}} = \bar{U}_{\sigma \tilde{q}} \cup Z $$
which can be seen as follows: for $D\in\tilde{C}_{ 2g-2 }$
such that $h^0 (D) = h^0(\omega_{\tilde{C}}(-D)) = 1$
the
assumption $D \in \bar{V}_{\tilde{q}}$ and the formula $D + \sigma D
= \pi^* (Nm (D))$ imply that
$ \tilde{q} \in \text{supp} \ \sigma D \ \iff \
D \in \bar{U}_{\sigma\tilde{q}}$ .
If $h^0(D) = h^0(\omega_{\tilde{C}}(-D)) \geq 2$, then $D \in \text{supp}\ Z$.
Again a calculation involving Zariski tangent spaces shows that
$\bar{V}_{\tilde{q}}$ is reduced generically on $\bar{U}_{\sigma \tilde{p}}$.
Hence we can define
$\mathcal{D}$ by $\bar{V}_{\tilde{q}} = \bar{U}_{\sigma \tilde{q}} + \mathcal{D}$. Now
we substitute this expression into \eqref{pbthetapq}, which we
restrict to $S$
$$
u^*(\tilde{\Theta}_{\tilde{p} - \tilde{q}})_{|S} = \bar{U}_{\tilde{p}} + \bar{U}_{\sigma
\tilde{q}} + \mathcal{D}.$$
Now we fix $\tilde{q}$ and we take the limit when $\tilde{p} \rightarrow
\tilde{q}$. Since ${\mathcal O}_{P_{odd}}(\tilde{\Theta}) = {\mathcal O}_{P_{odd}}(2\Xi')$, we see
that $\bar{U}_{\tilde{p}} + \bar{U}_{\sigma \tilde{p}} + \mathcal{D} \in |u^*{\mathcal O}_{P_{odd}}
(2\Xi')|$. So by \eqref{pbnm} we get the line bundle equality claimed
in the lemma and we see that the scheme-structure on $\mathcal{D}$ does not
depend on the point $\tilde{q}$. To prove \eqref{eqxiD}, we compute using
\eqref{pbthetapq}
$$u^* (\tilde{\Theta}_{\tilde{p} -\sigma\tilde{p}} + \tilde{\Theta}_{\sigma\tilde{p} -\tilde{p}}) =
\bar{U}_{\tilde{p}} + \bar{V}_{\sigma \tilde{p}} + \bar{U}_{\sigma \tilde{p}} +
\bar{V}_{\tilde{p}}.$$
Now we restrict to $S$ and use the commutativity of
diagram \eqref{comdiags} and the divisorial equality $\tilde{\Theta}_{\tilde{p} -
\sigma \tilde{p}} \cap P_{odd} = 2 \Xi_{\tilde{p} - \sigma \tilde{p}}$ to obtain
$$u^* (2\Xi_{\tilde{p} -\sigma\tilde{p}} + 2\Xi_{\sigma\tilde{p} -\tilde{p}}) =
2\bar{U}_{\tilde{p}} + 2\bar{U}_{\sigma \tilde{p}} + 2\mathcal{D}.$$
Since $\bar{U}_{\tilde{p}} + \bar{U}_{\sigma \tilde{p}} + \mathcal{D} \in |u^*{\mathcal O}_{P_{odd}}
(2\Xi')|$ we can divide this equality by $2$ and we are done.
\end{proof}
Let $\mu$ be a point of $Bs(\mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}})$. By lemma \ref{lemtaui}
the linear map $i^* : |\omega|^* \longrightarrow |2 \Xi'_0|^*$ is injective and,
since $|\omega|^*$ is the span of the image of $\tilde{C}$ in $|2\Xi'_0|^*$,
the space $\mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}$ is the annihilator of $|\omega|^* \subset
|2\Xi'_0|^*$. So $Bs(\mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}) = |\omega |^*\cap Kum(P')$ and
$\mu$ corresponds to a hyperplane $H_\mu \in |\omega|^*$. Since
$\mu\in Kum(P')$, the image of $\mu$ by Wirtinger duality is the
divisor $\Xi_{\mu} +\Xi_{\mu^{ -1}}\in |2\Xi' |$.
\begin{lem}
With the previous notation, we have an equality
\begin{equation} \label{pbhmu}
\forall \mu \in Bs(\mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}) \qquad
Nm^*(H_\mu) + \mathcal{D} = u^*(\Xi_\mu + \Xi_{\mu^{-1}}).
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The equality follows from the commutativity of the right-hand square
of the diagram
$$
\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
\tilde{C} & \map{\pi} & C & \map{\varphi_{can}} & |\omega|^* &
\map{Nm^*} & |{\mathcal O}_S(1)| & \map{+\mathcal{D}} & |{\mathcal O}_S(1) \otimes
{\mathcal O}_S(\mathcal{D})| \\
& & & & & & & & \\
\downarrow^i & & & & \downarrow^{i^*} & & & \nearrow^{u^*} & \\
& & & & & & & & \\
P' & & \longrightarrow & & |2\Xi'_0|^* & \cong & |2\Xi'|. & &
\end{array}
$$
The commutativity of the right-hand square follows from that of the
outside square because $\varphi_{can}(C)$ generates $|\omega|^*$. In
other words we need to check the assertion of the lemma only for
hyperplanes of the form $|\omega(-p)|$ for $p \in C$. This follows
immediately from \eqref{pbnm} and \eqref{eqxiD}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
For every $\mu\in Bs(\mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}})$, the hyperplane $Nm^* (H_{\mu
})$ is reducible.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} By the above Lemma we have
\[
u^*(\Xi_\mu + \Xi_{\mu^{-1}}) -\mathcal{D} = Nm^*(H_\mu).
\]
If $Nm^*(H_\mu)$ is irreducible, then the support of one of the
divisors $u^*(\Xi_\mu )$ or $u^*(\Xi_{\mu^{-1}})$, say $u^*(\Xi_\mu
)$, is contained in the support of $\mathcal{D}$. This is impossible because
$u^*(\Xi_\mu )$ is the inverse image of a divisor in $P_{ odd}$ and
$supp \mathcal{D}$ is the inverse image of the codimension $3$ support of
$\Xi_3$.
\end{proof}
The set-theoretical assertion of
theorem \ref{mainthm1} now follows from the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lemHred}
If $C$ is not bi-elliptic, we have a set-theoretical equality
$$
\{ H \in |\omega|^* \ : \ Nm^*(H) \ \text{is reducible} \} =
\varphi_{can}(C). $$
If $C$ is bi-elliptic, the LHS is contained in the
union of $\varphi_{can}(C)$ and the finite set of points $t\in |\omega|^*$
such that the projection from $t$ induces a morphism of degree $2$
from $C$ onto an elliptic curve.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $Nm^*(H)$ is reducible. Then a local computation shows
that the hyperplane $H$ is everywhere tangent to the branch locus of
$Nm$. It is immediately seen that the branch locus $B$ of $Nm$ is
the dual hypersurface of the canonical curve. The components of the
singular locus $Sing(B)$ of $B$ are of two different types which can be
described as follows
\begin{description}
\item[type 1] whose points are hyperplanes tangent to
$\varphi_{can}(C)$ in more than one point.
\item[type 2] whose points are hyperplanes osculating to
$\varphi_{can}(C)$.
\end{description}
To prove that $\mu\in\varphi_{can}(C)$, we need to prove that there is
a point on $H \cap B$ which is smooth on $B$ because the dual
variety of $B$ is the closure of the set of hyperplanes tangent to $B$
at a smooth point and this is equal to $\varphi_{can}(C)$. In other
words we need to show that $H \cap B$ is not contained in
$Sing (B)$. Since $H\cap B$ has pure codimension $2$, it suffices to show
that no codimension $2$ component of $Sing (B)$ is contained in a hyperplane.
Suppose a codimension $2$ component $B_i$ of type $i$ ($i=1$ or $2$)
is contained in a hyperplane $H$ in $|\omega |$ and let $t\in |\omega
|^*$ be the corresponding point. Then the set of hyperplanes in
$|\omega |^*$ through $t$ and doubly tangent (resp. osculating) to
$\varphi_{ can }(C)$ has dimension $g-3$. We have
\begin{lem}
For any $t\in\varphi_{ can }(C)$ the restriction $\rho$ of the
projection from $t$ to $\varphi_{ can }(C)$ is birational onto its
image. If $t\in |\omega |^*\setminus\varphi_{ can }(C)$, then $\rho$
is either birational onto its image or of degree two onto an
elliptic curve.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First note that the degree of the image $C_t$ of $C$ by the
projection is at least $g-2$ because $C_t$ is a non-degenerate curve
in a projective space of dimension $g-2$. If $t\in\varphi_{ can
}(C)$, then the degree of $\rho$ is equal to $2g-3$. The degree
$r$ of the restriction of $\rho$ to $C_t$ verifies
$r\cdot\hbox{deg}(C_t) = 2g-3$. Therefore $\frac{2g-3 }{r}\geq g-2$.
Or $r\leq 2 +\frac{1 }{g-2 }$ which implies $r\leq 2$. However, $r$
cannot be equal to $2$ because $2g-3$ is odd. If
$t\not\in\varphi_{ can }(C)$, then the same argument gives again
$r\leq 2$ because $g\geq 5$. Hence, if $\rho$ is not generically injective,
then $r =2$ and $\hbox{deg} (C_t ) = g-1$. Therefore $C_t$ is either
smooth rational or an elliptic curve. Since $C$ is not hyperelliptic,
we have that $C_t$ is an elliptic curve.
\end{proof}
First suppose that $C\rightarrow C_t$ is birational. If $i=1$, projecting from
$t$, we see that the set of hyperplanes in $|\omega |^*/t$ doubly
tangent to $C_t$ has dimension $(g-3)$=dimension of the dual variety of
$C_t$ which is impossible. If $i=2$, then the set of hyperplanes in
$|\omega |^*/t$ osculating to $C_t$ has dimension $g-3$ which is also
impossible.
If $C\rightarrow C_t$ is of degree $2$, then indeed every hyperplane tangent
to $C_t$ pulls back to a hyperplane twice tangent (or osculating if
the point of tangency is a branch point of $C\rightarrow C_t$) to $\varphi_{
can } (C)$ and we have a codimension $2$ family of type $B_1$
contained in the hyperplane corresponding $H$ to $t$. Then $Nm^* (H)$
could be reducible.
\end{proof}
The previous lemma proves theorem 1 set-theoretically
for a non bi-elliptic curve. In
the bi-elliptic case, we have to work a little more. By Lemma
\ref{lemHred} a hyperplane $H \not\in \varphi_{can}(C)$, such that
$Nm^*(H)$ might be reducible, corresponds to a point $e \in
|\omega|^*$ such that the projection from $e$ induces a morphism
$\gamma$ of degree $2$ from $C$ to an elliptic curve $E$. In other
words, $e$ is the common point of all chords $\langle \gamma^* q
\rangle ; \ (q \in
E)$. In that case there exists a
1-dimensional family (parametrized by $E$) of trisecants,
namely the chords $\langle \gamma^*q \rangle$, to the Kummer variety
$Kum(P')$. By \cite{debarre} the Prym variety is a Jacobian and by
\cite{sho} (see also \cite{beau3} page 610) the double cover
$\pi : \tilde{C} \rightarrow C$ is of the following two types
\begin{enumerate}
\item $C$ is trigonal
\item $C$ is a smooth plane quintic and $h^0({\mathcal O}_C(1)\otimes \alpha) = 0$
\end{enumerate}
\begin{lem}
No double cover of a bi-elliptic curve $C$ of genus $g \geq 6$
is of the above two types.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For a bi-elliptic curve $C$, the Brill-Noether locus $W^1_{g-1}(C)$
has two irreducible components, which are fixed by the reflection in
$\omega$ (\cite{welt1} Corollary 3.10). For a smooth plane quintic
this Brill-Noether locus is irreducible, ruling out 1. For a
trigonal curve this Brill-Noether locus has two irreducible
components, which are interchanged by reflection in $\omega$, ruling
out 2.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
If $g = 5$ and $C$ is bi-elliptic, we do not know whether the common
point of all the chords for a given bi-elliptic structure lies on
$Kum(P')$ (see also \cite{beau3} Remark (1) page 611). We expect it
not to be on $Kum(P')$.
\end{rem}
\section{Rank $2$ bundles and $2\Xi$-divisors}
Consider the induced action of the involution $\sigma$ on the
moduli space
$\mathcal{SU}_{\tilde{C}}(2,{\mathcal O})$ given by $\tilde{E}\mapsto \sigma^* \tilde{E}$.
Since the covering $\pi$ is unramified, the fixed point set for
the $\sigma$-action
$$Fix_{\sigma} \mathcal{SU}_{\tilde{C}}(2,{\mathcal O}) = \{ [\tilde{E}] \in
\mathcal{SU}_{\tilde{C}}(2,{\mathcal O}) \ | \ \exists \theta : \ \sigma^* \tilde{E} \map{\sim}
\tilde{E} \} $$
has two connected components which are the isomorphic images of
${\mathcal SU}_C(2,{\mathcal O})$ and ${\mathcal SU}_C(2,\alpha)$ by $\pi^*$. Similarly, since
$\sigma^* \omega_{\tilde{C}} \map{\sim} \omega_{\tilde{C}}$, the
involution $\sigma$ acts on
$\mathcal{SU}_{\tilde{C}}(2,\omega_{\tilde{C}})$ and
$$Fix_{\sigma} \mathcal{SU}_{\tilde{C}}(2,\omega_{\tilde{C}}) = \pi^*{\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega) \cup
\pi^*{\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha) $$
\begin{prop}\label{propDelta}
Consider a bundle $E \in {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$ such that $E \not\in \varphi(P_{odd})$
and put $\tilde{E} = \pi^* E$. Then there is a divisor $\Delta(E) \in
|2\Xi_0|$ with the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $D(\tilde{E})$ does not contain $P$, then
\[
D(\tilde{E}) = 2\Delta(E).
\]
For $E$ general, $P$ is not
contained in $D(\tilde{E})$ and $\Delta(E)$ is reduced.
\item Let $pr_+$ be the projection $|\mathcal{L}_\alpha|\rightarrow |2\Xi_0|$ with center
$| 2\Xi_0 '|$ (see (\ref{iso2})). Then we
have a commutative diagram
$$
\begin{array}{ccc}
{\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha) & \map{D} & |\mathcal{L}_\alpha| \\
& & \\
& \searrow^{\Delta} & \downarrow^{pr_+} \\
& & \\
& & |2\Xi_0| = |\mathcal{L}_\alpha|_+
\end{array}
$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{rem}
Similarly, when $E\in{\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$ such that $E\not\in\varphi(P_{even})$,
we get divisors $\Delta(E) \in |2\Xi'_0|$ as described in
prop. 3.2 by
projecting on the $-$eigenspace $pr_- : |\mathcal{L}_\alpha| \longrightarrow
|\mathcal{L}_\alpha|_- = |2\Xi'_0|$.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
1. Given a bundle $F \in Fix_\sigma
\mathcal{SU}_{\tilde{C}}(2,\omega_{\tilde{C}})$ and a line bundle
$\xi \in J\tilde{C}$ which is anti-invariant under $\sigma$, i.e.,
$\sigma^* \xi \map{\sim} \xi^{-1}$, we have a natural non-degenerate
quadratic form with values in the canonical bundle
$\omega_{\tilde{C}}$
\begin{eqnarray*}
q: F \otimes \xi & \longrightarrow & \omega_{\tilde{C}} \\
s & \longmapsto & s \wedge \sigma^* s
\end{eqnarray*}
where $s$ is a local section of $F \otimes \xi$. Note that we have
canonical isomorphisms
$$ \sigma^* (F\otimes \xi) = F \otimes \xi^{-1} =
\mathrm{Hom}(F\otimes \xi,\omega_{\tilde{C}}) $$
Therefore we are in a position to apply the Atiyah-Mumford lemma
\cite{mum} to
the family of bundles (here $F$ is fixed, with $\sigma^* F \map{\sim} F$)
$$ \{F \otimes \xi \}_{\xi \in P }$$
which states that the parity of $h^0(\tilde{C}, F\otimes \xi)$ is
constant when $\xi$ varies in $P$.
\bigskip
\noindent
>From now on, we suppose $F=\tilde{E} = \pi^*E$, with $E \in {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$, then
$$
h^0(\tilde{C}, \tilde{E}) = 2h^0(C,E) \equiv 0 \ \ \text{mod} \ \ 2. $$
For the first equality we use the fact that $H^0(\tilde{C},\tilde{E}) =
H^0(C,E) \oplus H^0(C, E\alpha)$ and, by Riemann-Roch and Serre duality,
$h^0(C,E) = h^1 (C, E) = h^0 (C ,\omega\otimes E^* ) = h^0 (C, E\alpha
)$.
First suppose that $E\in{\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$ is general. Then the divisor
$D(\tilde{E})$ does not contain the Prym variety $P$ (e.g. because, for
general $E$, $h^0(E)=0 \ \iff \ h^0 (\tilde{E} )=0 \ \iff \ {\mathcal O} \not\in
D(\tilde{E})$), so the restriction of the divisor $D(\tilde{E}) \in |2
\Theta_{\tilde{C}}|$ to $P$ is a divisor in the linear system $|4\Xi_0|$.
Moreover, for $\xi \in D(\tilde{E})\cap P$
$$\mathrm{mult}_\xi D(\tilde{E}) \geq h^0(\tilde{C}, \tilde{E} \otimes \xi) \geq 2 $$
because $h^0(\tilde{C}, \tilde{E} \otimes \xi) \equiv h^0(\tilde{C}, \tilde{E} )
\equiv 0 \ \ \text{mod} \ \ 2$. Hence any point $\xi \in D(\tilde{E})\cap
P$ is a singular point of $D(\tilde{E})$, which implies that $D(\tilde{E}) \cap P$
is an everywhere non-reduced divisor. We have
\begin{lem}
Suppose that $D(\tilde{E}) \cap P$ is a divisor in $P$. Then there is a
divisor $\Delta(E) \in |2\Xi_0|$ such that $D(\tilde{E}) \cap P = 2
\Delta(E)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
A local equation of $\Delta(E)$ is given by the pfaffian of a
skew-symmetric perfect complex of length one $L \longrightarrow L^*$
representing the perfect complex $Rpr_{1*}(\mathcal{P} \otimes
pr^*_2 \tilde{E})$ where $\mathcal{P}$ is the Poincar\'e line bundle over
the product $P \times \tilde{C}$ and $pr_1, pr_2$ are the projections on
the two factors. The construction of the complex $L \longrightarrow L^*$ is
given in the proof of Proposition 7.9 \cite{ls}.
\end{proof}
If $E$ is of the form $E = \pi_* L$ for some $L \in P_{even}$,
we have $\Delta(E) = T^*_L \Xi + T^*_{\omega L^{-1}} \Xi$. It
follows from this equality that $\Delta(E)$ is reduced for
general $E$.
So far we have defined a rational map $\Delta: {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha) \longrightarrow
|2\Xi_0|$. It will follow from part 2 of the proposition that $\Delta$
can be defined away form $\varphi(P_{odd})$.
\bigskip
\noindent
2. First we consider the composite (rational) map
$$
\mathrm{Pic}^{g-1}(C) \map{\psi} {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha) \map{\Delta} |2\Xi_0|. $$
A
straight-forward computation shows that for all $\xi \in
\mathrm{Pic}^{g-1}(C)$ such that $\pi^*\xi\not\in P_{odd}$ the divisor
$\Delta(\psi(\xi)) = \Delta(\xi \oplus \omega \alpha \xi^{-1})$ equals
the translated divisor $T_{\pi^* \xi} \tilde{\Theta}$ restricted to
$P$. Hence, by \cite{mum2}, the map $\Delta \circ
\psi$ is given by the full linear system $|\mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha}|_+$ of
invariant elements of $|\mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha}|$. By Prym-Wirtinger duality
\eqref{wirtdual} and \eqref{wd1} $|\mathcal{L}_{\omega \alpha}|^*_+ \cong |\mathcal{L}_\alpha|_+
\cong |2\Xi_0|$ and we obtain the commutative diagram in the proposition.
Geometrically, $\Delta$ is obtained by restricting the projection with
center the $-$eigenspace $|\mathcal{L}_\alpha|_-$ to the embedded moduli space
${\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha) \subset |\mathcal{L}_\alpha|$. Since by \cite{nr} $|\mathcal{L}_\alpha|_- \cap
{\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha) = \varphi(P_{odd})$ we see that $\Delta$ is well-defined
for $E\not\in\varphi(P_{odd})$ even if $D(\tilde{E})\supset P$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
We observe that we obtain by the same construction a rational map
$$ \Delta : {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega) \longrightarrow |2 \Xi_0|\; . $$
The images under $\Delta$ of the two moduli spaces ${\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega)$ and ${\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$
coincide, which is easily deduced from the following formula. Let
$\beta$ be a $4$-torsion point such that $\beta^{\otimes 2} = \alpha$
and $\pi^* \beta
\in P[2]$. Then, for any $E \in {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega)$, we have $E \otimes \beta \in
{\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$ and
$$ T_{\pi^* \beta}^* \Delta(E) = \Delta(E\otimes \beta)\; . $$
\end{rem}
\noindent
Similar statements hold for ${\mathcal SU}_C(2,\alpha)$.
\section{Proof of theorem 2}
\subsection{Proof of $\Gamma^{\alpha +}_{C-C} = \Gamma_{00}$}
The strategy is to show that the two linear maps
$$\phi_1 : H^0(P,2\Xi_0)_0 \longrightarrow \mathrm{Sym}^2 T_0^*P = \mathrm{Sym}^2 H^0(\omega \alpha)$$
and
$$\phi_2 : H^0(JC,\mathcal{L}_\alpha)_{+0} \longrightarrow H^0(C\times C, \delta^* \mathcal{L}_\alpha -
2\Delta)_+ = \mathrm{Sym}^2 H^0(\omega \alpha)$$
differ by multiplication by a scalar under the
isomorphism \eqref{iso2} $H^0(JC,\mathcal{L}_\alpha)_{+0 }\cong H^0(P,2\Xi_0)_0$.
Here the subscript $0$ denotes the subspace (on $P$ or $JC$)
consisting of global sections vanishing at the origin. The map
$\phi_1$ sends $s\in H^0(P,2\Xi_0)_0$ to the quadratic term of its
Taylor expansion at the origin ${\mathcal O} \in P$ and $\phi_2$ is the
pull-back of invariant sections of $\mathcal{L}_\alpha$ under the difference map
\begin{eqnarray*}
\delta : C \times C & \longrightarrow & JC \\
(p,q) & \longmapsto & {\mathcal O}_{C}(p-q).
\end{eqnarray*}
By restricting to the fibers of the two projections $p_i :C\times C\rightarrow
C$ and using the See-saw Theorem, we compute that $\delta^* \mathcal{L}_\alpha =
p_1^* (\omega \alpha) \otimes p_2^* (\omega \alpha )(2 \Delta_C)$
where $\Delta_C\subset C\times C$ is the diagonal. Since $\phi_2^{ -1} (0)
=\Delta_C$ and the sections of ${\mathcal L}_{\alpha }$ are symmetric, we see that
$\mathrm{im} \: \phi_2 \subset \mathrm{Sym}^2 H^0(\omega \alpha )\subset H^0
(\omega\alpha )^{\otimes 2} = H^0 (p_1^* (\omega \alpha) \otimes p_2^*
(\omega \alpha ))\subset H^0 (p_1^* (\omega \alpha) \otimes p_2^*
(\omega \alpha ) (2\Delta_C ))$. So if $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are
proportional, we will have
$$ \Gamma_{00} = \mathrm{ker} \: \phi_1 = \mathrm{ker} \: \phi_2 = \Gamma^{\alpha +}_{C-C}. $$
\noindent
To show that $\phi_1 = \lambda\phi_2$ for some $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}^*$, we
compute $\phi_1(s_E)$ and $\phi_2(s_E)$ for special sections, namely those
with divisor of zeros $Z(s_E) = \Delta(E)$ for some
vector bundle $E \in {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$ with $h^0(E) = h^0(E
\otimes \alpha) = 2$. Recall that by Riemann-Roch and Serre
duality we have for $h^0(E) = h^0(E \otimes
\alpha)$ for $E \in {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$. Now to compute $\phi_1(s_E)$,
we need to determine the
tangent cone to $\Delta(E)$ at ${\mathcal O} \in P$. As before we put
$\tilde{E} = \pi^*E$. By \cite{laszlo} prop. V.2, this tangent cone is the
intersection of the anti-invariant part $H^0(\omega \alpha) =
H^0(\omega_{\tilde{C}})_-$ of $H^0(\omega_{\tilde{C}}) = T^*_0 J\tilde{C}$
with the affine cone over the projective cone over
the Grassmannian $Gr(2, H^0(\tilde{E})^*) \subset \mathbb{P} \Lambda^2
H^0(\tilde{E})^*$ under the linear map
\begin{equation} \label{mapmu}
\mu^* : H^0(\omega_{\tilde{C}})^* \longrightarrow \Lambda^2 H^0(\tilde{E})^*
\end{equation}
which is the dual of the map $\mu :\Lambda^2 H^0(\tilde{E})\rightarrow
H^0(\omega_{\tilde{C}})$ obtained from exterior product by the
isomorphism $\wedge^2\tilde{E}\cong\omega_{\tilde{C} }$. Note that the
$\sigma$-invariant part $[\Lambda^2 H^0(\tilde{E})^*]_+$ is
canonically isomorphic to the $2$-dimensional subspace
$\Lambda^2 H^0(E)^* \oplus \Lambda^2 H^0(E\alpha)^* \subset
\Lambda^2 H^0(\tilde{E})^*$ because $H^0(\tilde{E})_+ = H^0(E)$ and $H^0(\tilde{E})_- =
H^0(E \alpha)$. Since $\wedge^2 E\cong\wedge^2 (E\otimes\alpha
)\cong\omega\alpha$, the restriction of $\mu$ to $\wedge^2 H^0 (E)$
(resp. $\wedge^2 H^0 (E\otimes\alpha )$) which is obtained from
exterior product by the isomorphism $\wedge^2 E\cong\omega\alpha$
(resp. $\wedge^2 (E\otimes\alpha )\cong\omega\alpha$) maps into $H^0
(\omega\alpha )$. Therefore
the linear map $\mu^*$ \eqref{mapmu} maps $\sigma$-anti-invariant
sections into $\sigma$-invariant sections, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{mapmuplus}
\mu^*_+ : H^0(\omega \alpha)^* \longrightarrow \Lambda^2 H^0(E)^* \oplus \Lambda^2
H^0(E\alpha)^*.
\end{equation}
Since the intersection $\mathbb{P} (\Lambda^2 H^0(E)^* \oplus \Lambda^2
H^0(E\alpha)^*) \cap Gr(2,H^0(\tilde{E})^*)$ consists of the two points $\mathbb{P}
\Lambda^2 H^0(E)^*$ and $\mathbb{P} \Lambda^2 H^0(E\alpha)^*$, it follows
that the intersection of $H^0 (\omega\alpha )\subset H^0 (\omega_{\tilde{C}
})$ with the cone over $Gr(2, H^0(\tilde{E})^*)$ is the union of the two
lines $\wedge^2 H^0 (E)$ and $\wedge^2 H^0 (E\otimes\alpha )$.
Therefore the tangent cone of $\Delta(E)$ at the origin is the union
of the two hyperplanes in $|\omega \alpha|^*$ which are the zeros of
$a,b \in H^0(\omega \alpha)$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{defab}
a \mathbb{C} = \mathrm{im} \: (\Lambda^2 H^0(E) \longrightarrow H^0(\omega \alpha)) \qquad
b \mathbb{C} = \mathrm{im} \: (\Lambda^2 H^0(E\alpha) \longrightarrow H^0(\omega \alpha)).
\end{equation}
In other words, up to multiplication by a nonzero scalar,
$$ \phi_1(s_E) = a \otimes b + b \otimes a \in \mathrm{Sym}^2 H^0(\omega
\alpha). $$
\noindent
We now compute $\phi_2(s_E)$. First we note that the pull-back map
induced by $\delta$ is equivariant for the involution $(-1) : \xi
\mapsto \xi^{-1}$ acting on $JC$ and the involution $(p,q) \mapsto
(q,p)$ acting on $C \times C$. Since $\Delta(E) = pr_+ (D(E))$ by
Proposition \ref{propDelta}, this implies that
\begin{equation} \label{comprdelta}
\phi_2 (s_E) =\phi_2(pr_+(s_E)) = pr_+ (\delta^* (s_E))
\end{equation}
On the RHS $pr_+$ denotes the projection $H^0(\omega \alpha) \otimes
H^0(\omega \alpha) \longrightarrow \mathrm{Sym}^2 H^0(\omega \alpha)$. Therefore we
compute
$$\delta^* (D(E)) = \{ (p,q) \in C \times C \: | \: h^0(E(p-q))>0 \} $$
and take its symmetric part. It follows from \cite{geem-iz} lemma 3.2
that
\begin{equation} \label{pbdelta}
\delta^* (D(E)) = C \times Z_a + Z_b \times C + 2 \Delta_C
\end{equation}
where $Z_a$ (resp. $Z_b$) is the divisor of zeros of $a$ (resp. $b$).
Hence it follows from \eqref{comprdelta} and \eqref{pbdelta} that
$\phi_2(pr_+(s_E)) = a \otimes b + b \otimes a$ up to multiplication
by a nonzero scalar. We can now conclude that $\phi_1 = \lambda\phi_2$
for some
$\lambda\in\mathbb{C}^*$ because, by the following lemma (prop. 3.7
\cite{geem-iz}), we have enough bundles $E \in {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$ with
$h^0(E) = 2$ to generate linearly the image $\mathrm{Sym}^2 H^0(\omega
\alpha)$ of $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$.
\begin{lem}(prop. 3.7 \cite{geem-iz})
For general sections $a,b \in H^0(\omega \alpha)$, we can find a
semi-stable bundle $E \in {\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$ with $h^0(E)=2$ such that
\eqref{pbdelta} holds.
\end{lem}
\subsection{Proof of $\Gamma^{\alpha -}_{C-C} = \Gamma^{(2)}_{\tilde{C}}$}
First note that any anti-invariant section of
$\mathcal{L}_\alpha$ vanishes at ${\mathcal O} \in JC$. Denote by
$$
\tau : H^0(JC,\mathcal{L}_\alpha)_- \longrightarrow T_0^*JC = H^0(\omega) $$
the map
which sends an element $s$ of $H^0(JC,\mathcal{L}_\alpha)_-$ to the linear term
of its Taylor expansion at the origin (Gauss map). Recall the
natural embedding of the curve $\tilde{C}$ into the Prym variety $P'$
\begin{equation} \label{embtc}
i: \tilde{C} \longrightarrow P' \qquad
\tilde{p} \longmapsto {\mathcal O}_{\tilde{C}}(\tilde{p} - \sigma \tilde{p}).
\end{equation}
Then $i^* {\mathcal O}(2\Xi'_0)\cong \omega_{\tilde{C}}$ and since all
$2\Xi'_0$-divisors are symmetric and $i$ is equivariant for
the involution, $i$ induces a
linear map
\begin{equation} \label{pbi}
i^* : H^0(P',2 \Xi'_0) \longrightarrow H^0(C, \omega) = H^0(\tilde{C}, \omega_{\tilde{C}})_+
\end{equation}
\begin{lem}\label{lemtaui}
The linear maps $\tau$ and $i^*$ are proportional via the isomorphism
\eqref{iso2} and are surjective.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It will be enough to show that the canonical divisors
$i^*(\Delta(\pi_* \lambda))$ and $\tau(D(\pi_* \lambda))$ are equal for a
general element $\lambda \in P_{odd}$. In
both cases the divisor coincide with the divisor $Nm(\delta)$,
where $\delta$ is the unique effective divisor in the linear system
$|\lambda|$. The computations are straight-forward and left to
the reader.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\noindent
Therefore we can conclude that
$$H^0(JC, \mathcal{L}_\alpha)_{0-}^{(3)} = \mathrm{ker} \: \tau = \mathrm{ker} \: i^* =
\Gamma_{\tilde{C}}.$$
where $H^0(JC, \mathcal{L}_\alpha)_{0-}^{(3)}$ denotes the
subspace of $H^0 ( JC,\mathcal{L}_\alpha )_-$ of elements with multiplicity $\geq
2$ (hence $\geq 3$ by anti-symmetry) at the origin. We now proceed as
in the proof of part 1 of Theorem 2. We consider the two linear maps
$$\phi_1 : \Gamma_{\tilde{C}} \longrightarrow \Lambda^2 H^0(\omega \alpha)$$
$$\phi_2 : H^0(JC, \mathcal{L}_\alpha)_{0-}^{(2)} \longrightarrow H^0(C \times C, \delta^*
\mathcal{L}_\alpha (-2\Delta))_- = \Lambda^2 H^0(\omega \alpha)$$
which are defined as follows. As in part 1, $\phi_2$ is the map given by
pull-back under the difference map $\delta$. To define $\phi_1$, let
$N_{\tilde{C}/P'}$ denote the normal bundle of $i (\tilde{C})$ in
$P'$. Then $\phi_1$ is obtained by restricting a section $s \in
\Gamma_{\tilde{C}}$ to the first infinitesimal neighborhood of
$\tilde{C}$. In other words
$$\Gamma_{\tilde{C}}^{(2)} = \mathrm{ker} \: \{ \phi_1 : \Gamma_{\tilde{C}} \longrightarrow
H^0(\tilde{C}, N_{\tilde{C}/P'}^* \otimes i^* {\mathcal O}(2\Xi'_0))_- =
H^0(\tilde{C}, N_{\tilde{C}/P'}^* \otimes \omega_{\tilde{C}})_- \} $$
The vector bundle $N_{\tilde{C}/P'}^*$ fits into the exact sequence
\begin{equation}\label{exseqN}
0\longrightarrow N_{\tilde{C}/P'}^*\longrightarrow H^0 (\omega\alpha )\otimes{\mathcal O}_{\tilde{C}
}\longrightarrow\omega_{\tilde{C} }\longrightarrow 0
\end{equation}
where the right-hand map is the embedding $H^0 (\omega\alpha )\otimes{\mathcal O}_{\tilde{C}
}\hookrightarrow H^0 (\omega_{\tilde{C} } )\otimes{\mathcal O}_{\tilde{C}
}$ followed by evaluation $H^0 (\omega_{\tilde{C} } )\otimes{\mathcal O}_{\tilde{C}
}\rightarrow\omega_{\tilde{C} }$. Therefore this map is the pull-back of
evaluation $H^0(\omega \alpha) \otimes {\mathcal O} \stackrel{ev}{\rightarrow} \omega
\alpha$. Let $M$ be the kernel of the latter, i.e., we have
the exact sequence
\begin{equation}\label{exseqM}
0 \longrightarrow M \longrightarrow H^0(\omega \alpha) \otimes {\mathcal O} \map{ev} \omega \alpha
\longrightarrow 0,
\end{equation}
whose pull-back by $\pi$ is \eqref{exseqN}.
We twist \eqref{exseqM} by $\omega \alpha$ and take cohomology
$$ 0 \longrightarrow H^0(C, M \otimes \omega \alpha) \longrightarrow H^0(\omega \alpha) \otimes
H^0(\omega \alpha) \map{m} H^0(\omega^2) \longrightarrow \ldots $$
where $m$ is the multiplication map.
We deduce that
$$H^0(\tilde{C}, N_{\tilde{C}/P'}^* \otimes \omega_{\tilde{C}})_- =
H^0(C,M \otimes \omega \alpha) = \mathrm{ker} \: m = \Lambda^2 H^0(\omega \alpha)
\oplus I_C^{Pr}(2)$$
where $I_C^{Pr}(2)$ is the space of quadrics through the Prym-canonical
curve. It remains to show that $\mathrm{im} \: \phi_1 = \Lambda^2 H^0(\omega
\alpha)$. This will follow from the next two lemmas. First we will
compute, as in part 1, the image under $\phi_1$ of some special
sections $s_E \in \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}$, namely $s_E$ such that
$Z(s_E) = \Delta(E)$ with
$E$ a general bundle in ${\mathcal SU}_C(2,\omega \alpha)$ with $h^0(E) = 2$, i.e.,
we determine the tangent spaces to $\Delta(E)$ along the
curve $i(\tilde{C})$. This is done in the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lemab}
Let $a,b$ be the sections defined by \eqref{defab}. Then we have
$$\phi_1(s_E) = a \wedge b \in \Lambda^2 H^0(\omega \alpha)$$
up to multiplication by a nonzero scalar.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First we need to show that for a general semi-stable
bundle $E$ with $h^0(E) =2$ the divisor $\Delta(E)$ is smooth
at a general point $i(\tilde{p}) \in \Delta(E)$. For this
decompose a general Prym-canonical divisor into two
effective divisors of degree $g-1$, i.e., $D + D' \in
|\omega \alpha|$. Put $L = {\mathcal O}(D)$. Then $h^0(D) = 1 =
h^0(\omega(-D)) = h^0(\omega \alpha(-D)) = h^0(\alpha(D))$.
If $E = L \oplus \omega \alpha L^{-1}$, then $\tilde{E} = \pi^*E =
\pi^*L \oplus \omega_{\tilde{C}} \pi^*L^{-1}$, $D(\tilde{E}) =
\tilde{\Theta}_{\pi^*L} + \tilde{\Theta}_{\omega_{\tilde{C}}\pi^*L^{-1}}$ and
$\Delta(E) =
\tilde{\Theta}_{\pi^*L|P'} + \tilde{\Theta}_{\omega_{\tilde{C}}\pi^*L^{-1}|P'}$.
At a general point $i(\tilde{p}) \in \tilde{\Theta}_{\pi^*L}$, we
see immediately that the tangent space to $\tilde{\Theta}_{\pi^*L}$ does
not contain the tangent space to $P'$, i.e., $\Delta(E)$ is
smooth at $i(\tilde{p})$.
Next we compute the tangent space to the divisor $\Delta(E)$ at a
smooth point $i(\tilde{p}) \in \Delta(E)$.
The smoothness of $\Delta(E)$ at $i(\tilde{p})$ implies that
$h^0(\tilde{C}, \tilde{E}(\tilde{p} - \sigma \tilde{p})) = 2$. We choose a basis $\{
u,v \}$ of the $2$-dimensional vector space $H^0(\tilde{C},\tilde{E}(\tilde{p} -
\sigma \tilde{p}))$. Then by \cite{laszlo} prop. V.2 and the same
reasoning as in the proof of part 1 of Theorem 2, we see that the
projectivized
tangent space $\mathbb{T}_{i(\tilde{p})}\Delta(E)$ to $\Delta(E)$ at $i(\tilde{p})$,
which is a hyperplane in $\mathbb{P} T_{i(\tilde{p})}P' \cong |\omega \alpha|^*$
is the zero locus of the section in $\gamma(\tilde{p}) \in H^0(\omega \alpha)$,
which is the image of
$u \wedge \sigma^* v := u \otimes \sigma^*v - v \otimes \sigma^*u$
under the exterior product map
$$ H^0(\tilde{E}(\tilde{p} - \sigma \tilde{p})) \otimes \sigma^*
H^0(\tilde{E}(\tilde{p} - \sigma \tilde{p})) = H^0(\tilde{E}(\tilde{p} - \sigma \tilde{p}))
\otimes H^0(\tilde{E}(\sigma \tilde{p} - \tilde{p})) \map{\mu} H^0(\omega_{\tilde{C}}) $$
Since $\mathrm{det} \: E = \omega \alpha$, we see that $\gamma(\tilde{p}) =
\mu(u \wedge \sigma^* v) \in H^0(\omega \alpha) \subset
H^0(\omega_{\tilde{C}})$. We will now describe the map
$\gamma: \tilde{C} \rightarrow |\omega \alpha| \ : \ \tilde{p} \mapsto \gamma(\tilde{p})$.
Note that, since $h^0
(\tilde{E}) =4$, we have $h^0 (\tilde{E} ( -\sigma\tilde{p} )) = 2$ for $\tilde{p}$ general.
Hence $\{ u,v\}$ is also a basis for $H^0 (\tilde{E} (- \sigma\tilde{p} ))$.
Consider the inclusion
$$H^0 (\tilde{E} (- \sigma\tilde{p} )) \subset H^0(\tilde{E}) = H^0(E) \oplus
H^0(E\alpha)$$
and decompose $u = u_+ + u_-$, $v = v_+ + v_-$ with
$u_+,v_+ \in H^0(E) = H^0(\tilde{E})_+$ and
$u_-,v_- \in H^0(E\alpha) = H^0(\tilde{E})_-$. Then the element
$\gamma(\tilde{p})$ is the image of
$(u_+ \wedge v_+, -u_- \wedge v_-) \in \Lambda^2 H^0(E) \oplus
\Lambda^2 H^0(E\alpha)$ under the exterior product map
$\Lambda^2 H^0(E) \oplus \Lambda^2 H^0(E\alpha) \rightarrow H^0(\omega
\alpha)$, i.e., $\gamma(\tilde{p}) \in \mathbb{P}(\mathbb{C} a \oplus \mathbb{C} b) \subset
|\omega \alpha|$. Since $\tilde{C} \subset \Delta(E)$, we have
$\varphi_{\alpha can}(p) \in \mathbb{T}_{i(\tilde{p})}(\Delta(E))$. So
for general $\tilde{p}$, $\gamma(\tilde{p})$ is the unique
divisor of the pencil $\mathbb{P}(\mathbb{C} a \oplus \mathbb{C} b)$ containing
$\tilde{p}$. Hence we can conclude
that the section $\phi_1(s_E) \in H^0(M \otimes \omega \alpha)$
considered as a tensor in $H^0(\omega \alpha) \otimes H^0(\omega
\alpha)$ is $a \wedge b$.
\end{proof}
Since, a priori, we do not know that $\mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}$ is spanned
by divisors of the form $\Delta(E)$, we need to establish
a symmetry property for any divisor $D \in \mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}$. This
is done as follows.
Let $\tilde{s},\tilde{t} \in \tilde{C}$ be two points of $\tilde{C}$ with respective images
$s,t \in C$ and let $D$ be an element of $\mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}$. Assume
that $i(\tilde{s}),i(\tilde{t}) \in D$ are smooth points of $D$ and let $\mathbb{T}_s D$
and $\mathbb{T}_t D$ denote the projectivized tangent spaces to the divisor $D$
at the points $i(\tilde{s})$ and $i(\tilde{t})$. Since we can identify the
projectivized tangent space to the Prym variety $P'$ at any point with
the Prym-canonical space $|\omega \alpha|^*$, we may view $\mathbb{T}_s D$
and $\mathbb{T}_t D$ as hyperplanes in $|\omega \alpha|^*$. Note that $\mathbb{T}_s
D$ only depends on $s \in C$ and not on the lift $\tilde{s} \in \tilde{C}$. Then
we have
\begin{lem}\label{lemst}
With the preceding notation, we have an equivalence
$$ \varphi_{\alpha can}(s) \in \mathbb{T}_t D \ \iff \
\varphi_{\alpha can}(t) \in \mathbb{T}_s D $$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the invertible sheaf $x = {\mathcal O}_{\tilde{C}}(\tilde{s} - \sigma \tilde{s} + \tilde{t}
- \sigma \tilde{t}) \in P$ and the corresponding embedding
$$
i_x : \tilde{C} \longrightarrow P' \qquad \tilde{p} \longmapsto {\mathcal O}_{\tilde{C}}(\tilde{p} - \sigma \tilde{p})
\otimes x. $$
The curve $i_x(\tilde{C})$ is the curve $i(\tilde{C})$ translated by
$x$. A straight-forward computation shows that $i_x^{ -1 }({\mathcal O}_{P'}
(2\Xi'_0)) = \omega_{\tilde{C}}x^{-2}$ and by a result of Beauville (see
\cite{izadivanstraten} page 569) the induced linear map on global
sections $H^0(P',2\Xi'_0) \rightarrow H^0(\omega_{\tilde{C}}x^{-2})$ is surjective.
We observe that
\[
i_x(\sigma \tilde{t}) = i(\tilde{s}), \qquad i_x(\sigma \tilde{s}) = i(\tilde{t}),
\]
and that the projectivized tangent line to the curve $i_x(\tilde{C})$ at the
point $i_x(\sigma \tilde{t})$ (resp. $i_x(\sigma \tilde{s})$) is the point
$\varphi_{\alpha can}(t)$ (resp. $\varphi_{\alpha can}(s)$) in
$|\omega \alpha|^* \cong \mathbb{P} T_{i(\tilde{s})}P'$ (resp. $\cong \mathbb{P}
T_{i(\tilde{t})}P'$). Let $\mathbb{T}_{\tilde{s}}$ (resp. $\mathbb{T}_{\tilde{t}}$) denote the
embedded tangent line in $| 2\Xi_0'|^*$ to the curve $i_x(\tilde{C})$ at the
point $i_x(\sigma \tilde{t})$ (resp. $i_x(\sigma \tilde{s})$), so that $\mathbb{T}_{\tilde{s}}$
(resp. $\mathbb{T}_{\tilde{t}}$) passes through the point $i(\tilde{s})$ (resp.
$i(\tilde{t})$) with tangent direction $\varphi_{\alpha can}(t)$ (resp.
$\varphi_{\alpha can}(s)$). Then the lemma will follow if we show that
these two tangent lines intersect in a point $I(\tilde{s},\tilde{t})$, i.e.
\begin{equation} \label{intpoint}
\mathbb{T}_{\tilde{s}} \cap \mathbb{T}_{\tilde{t}} = I(\tilde{s},\tilde{t}) \in |2\Xi'_0|^*.
\end{equation}
This property follows from a dimension count: since $C$ is
non-hyperelliptic, we have $x^{-2} \not= {\mathcal O}_{\tilde{C}}$, so
$h^0(\omega_{\tilde{C}}x^{-2}) = 2g-2$. Since $h^0(\omega_{\tilde{C}}x^{-2}
(-2\sigma \tilde{s} - 2\sigma \tilde{t})) = h^0(\omega_{\tilde{C}}(-2\tilde{s} - 2\tilde{t}))
\geq 2g-5$, the tangent lines $\mathbb{T}_{\tilde{t}}$ and
$\mathbb{T}_{\tilde{s}}$ are contained in a projective $2$-plane,
hence intersect. To get the equivalence stated in the lemma, let $H_D$
denote the hyperplane in $|2\Xi'_0|^*$ corresponding to the
divisor $D \in \mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}$. Assume e.g. that
$\varphi_{\alpha can}(s) \in \mathbb{T}_t D$. This means that $H_D$ contains
$\mathbb{T}_{\tilde{t}}$. Since $i(\tilde{s}) \in H_D$, it follows from
\eqref{intpoint} that $H_D$ also contains
$\mathbb{T}_{\tilde{s}}$, so $\varphi_{\alpha can}(t) \in \mathbb{T}_s D$.
\end{proof}
At this stage we can conclude: by lemma \ref{lemst} we know that for
all $s \in \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}$, $\phi_1(s) \in H^0(\omega \alpha)
\otimes H^0(\omega \alpha)$ lies either in the symmetric or
skew-symmetric eigenspace, i.e. $\mathrm{im} \: \phi_1 \subset I_C^{Pr}(2)
\subset \mathrm{Sym}^2 H^0(\omega \alpha)$ or $\mathrm{im} \: \phi_1 \subset \Lambda^2
H^0(\omega \alpha)$. Lemma \ref{lemab} asserts that $\mathrm{im} \: \phi_1
\subset \Lambda^2 H^0(\omega \alpha)$.
As in \eqref{comprdelta}, we have that $\phi_2(pr_-(s_E)) =
pr_-(\delta^*(s_E))$, where $pr_-$ denotes the projection $ H^0(\omega
\alpha) \otimes H^0(\omega \alpha) \longrightarrow \Lambda^2 H^0(\omega \alpha)$
and $s_E$ is as above. Hence we see that $\phi_2(pr_-(s_E)) = a \wedge
b$. By lemma \ref{lemab} the projectivizations of $\phi_1$ and
$\phi_2$ coincide on all divisors of the form $\Delta(E)$ whose images
generate $\mathbb{P} \wedge^2 H^0 (\omega\alpha)$. Hence $\phi_1 = \phi_2$ up to
a nonzero scalar and $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are surjective.
\begin{rem}
An alternative way of proving that $\mathrm{im} \: \phi_1 \subset \Lambda ^2
H^0(\omega \alpha)$ would be to twice take the derivative of the
quadrisecant identity for Prym varieties \cite{fay} prop. 6 (fix two
points and consider the other two as canonical coordinates on the
universal cover of $\tilde{C}$.)
\end{rem}
\section{The scheme-theoretical base locus of $\mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}$}
>From section 2 we know that the sets $Bs(\mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}})$ and $i(\tilde{C})$
are equal. To prove the scheme-theoretical equality, it will be
enough to show that, $\forall \tilde{p} \in \tilde{C}$, the projectivized
tangent spaces at $i(\tilde{p})$ to divisors $D \in \mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}$ cut
out the projectivized tangent space at $i(\tilde{p})$ to $i(\tilde{C})$,
which is $\varphi_{\alpha can}(p) \in |\omega \alpha|^* = \mathbb{P}
T_{i(\tilde{p})}P'$, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{inttan}
\bigcap_{D \in \mathbb{P} \Gamma_{\tilde{C}}} \mathbb{T}_{i(\tilde{p})} D = \varphi_{\alpha can}(p).
\end{equation}
If we take $D = \Delta(E)$ for some semi-stable vector bundle
$E$ with $h^0(E) = 2$ (see section 4.2) then the hyperplane
$\mathbb{T}_{i(\tilde{p})}(\Delta(E)) \subset |\omega \alpha|^*$
corresponds to the unique section of the pencil $\mathbb{P}(\mathbb{C} a \oplus
\mathbb{C} b)$ vainshing at $p$ (proof of lemma 4.3). Since for general
$a,b \in |\omega \alpha|$ we can find a vector bundle $E$ (lemma 4.1)
such that equality in lemma 4.3 holds, we can conclude \eqref{inttan}.
|
\section{A Radio Perspective of Galaxies}
Determining how galaxies form and
subsequently evolve remains a subject of intense
study despite decades of research.
Traditionally, astronomers primarily have used
optical methods to study the characteristics
of local and distant galaxies.
With the discovery of
the infra-red ultraluminous galaxies in the
early 1980s (e.g., Soifer et al. 1984), it was soon recognized
that optical studies can severely bias the
understanding of galaxy properties due to
dust obscuration, especially in
those systems undergoing enhanced episodes
of star-formation activity (i.e., a starburst galaxy).
The far infrared (FIR) radiation
(30 $\mu$m $< \lambda <$ 300 $\mu$m) of
a starburst is composed of reprocessed
ultraviolet(UV) and optical light
from young, recently formed stellar
populations. This radiation is absorbed
by dust in the interstellar medium
and thermally reradiated at FIR
wavelengths.
Closely related to the FIR emission
in starburst galaxies is the radio continuum.
Although the radio emission
is linked to active star-formation by
different physical mechanisms than that
of the FIR, there is a tight correlation
between the FIR and radio luminosity of
a starburst (Helou et al. 1985).
In normal galaxies (i.e., without a powerful AGN),
the centimeter radio luminosity is dominated
by diffuse synchrotron emission believed to be
produced by relativistic electrons accelerated
in supernovae remnants.
Detailed radio studies
of nearby starburst galaxies such as M82 (Kronberg et al. 1985,
Muxlow et al. 1994) and
Arp 220 (Smith et al. 1998)
have revealed large numbers of young radio supernovae, embedded in
extended synchrotron haloes formed by a combination of old, coalesced
SNRs and cosmic ray injection into the surrounding disks of these
galaxies.
As the synchrotron radiation of a
starburst dissipates on a
physical time scale of $10^7-10^8$ years, the
radio luminosity is a true measure of the
{\em instantaneous} SFR in a galaxy, uncontaminated by
older stellar populations. Furthermore, since supernovae
progenitors are dominated by $\sim$8 {\ $M_{\odot}$} stars,
synchrotron radiation has the additional advantage of being
less sensitive to uncertainties in the initial
mass function as opposed to UV and optical
recombination line studies.
Because galaxies and the inter-galactic
medium are transparent at centimeter wavelengths,
radio emission is a sensitive measure of
star-formation in distant galaxies.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=local_sfr.ps,width=25pc}}
\caption{Shown is the contribution to the local
star-formation luminosity density (u) per luminosity interval of
star-forming galaxy. The radio, IRAS, H$\alpha$, and
far-ultraviolet (FUV) luminosity functions
have been converted to SFRs
assuming a Salpeter IMF over 0.1-100 {\ $M_{\odot}$} .
The shaded region represents
what may be a dust curtain beyond which optical
surveys are blind to star formation.
If the SFR luminosity function
evolves as L $\propto (1+z)^{3.5}$, then by $z$ = 1,
it will appear as the
solid line. This analysis suggests that the
bulk of global star-formation at high$-z$ is hidden from optical
surveys.}
\end{figure}
Comparison of the local radio
luminosity function (LF) of star-forming galaxies
(Condon 1989)
with those derived independently at
FIR (Soifer et al. 1987), H$\alpha$ (Gallego
et al. 1995), and UV wavelengths (Treyer et al. 1998)
shows good agreement (Cram 1998).
Figure 1 shows the four
LFs in units of SFRs. This analysis
suggests the bulk
of local star formation is occurring in
modest starbursts with SFR $\sim$ 10 {\ $M_{\odot}$} yr$^{-1}$.
However, past the peak in the
LF, the H$\alpha$ and UV estimates
begin to fall below the radio/FIR rates,
and at about 50{\ $M_{\odot}$} yr$^{-1}$ has
entirely vanished.
The radio source counts and redshift statistics
are both consistent
with pure luminosity evolution of the local
population to $z \sim$ 1 with L $\propto (1+z)^{3.5}$
(e.g., Rowan-Robinson et al. 1993).
Thus the peak
in the star-forming
RLF at $z \sim$ 1 likely moves past a few hundred
{\ $M_{\odot}$} yr$^{-1}$ where optically selected surveys
become severely biased. Deep radio surveys, sensitive
to star-forming galaxies to $z \sim$2, provide unique
information on distant, rapidly evolving galaxy populations.
\section{Radio Observations of the Hubble Deep Field}
The HDF has been observed previously
with the VLA at 8.5 GHz to a one sigma sensitivity
of 1.8 $\mu$Jy (Richards et al. 1998).
In June 1997 we observed the HDF region for
an additional 40 hours at 8.5 GHz.
We mosaiced an area defined by four separate pointings
offset from the center of the HDF by the half-power
point of the primary beam response (2.7\arcm
)
in the cardinal directions for about 10 hours
duration each.
The final combined 8.5 GHz images have
an effective resolution of 3.5\arcs ~and
a completeness limit of 8 $\mu$Jy which
rises to 40 $\mu$Jy at 6.6\arcm from the
HDF center. Within this area we detected
40 sources in a complete (5 $\sigma$)
with an additional 19 sources in a supplementary
sample (3.5-5 $\sigma$).
In November 1996, we observed the HDF
at 1.4 GHz with the VLA. The observational
details and data processing are discussed
by Richards (1999). The 1.4 GHz VLA image
covers 40\arcm ~diameter with
an effective resolution of 1.8\arcs ~
and an rms noise of 7.5$\mu$Jy. We defined
a completeness limit of 40$\mu$Jy to
compose a catalog of 371 radio sources of
which 30 were detected at 8.5 GHz. In total
16 radio sources lie in the HDF.
In February 1996 and April 1997, we
observed the HDF with the MERLIN interferometer
at 1.4 GHz for a total of 17 $\times$ 24 hours. These
data were combined with the VLA data to
produce sky images around all 89 previously
known radio
sources in the inner 10\arcm $\times$ 10\arcm
of the field. These high resolution 1.4 GHz
images have a rms noise of 3.3 $\mu$Jy at
0.2\arcs ~resolution (Muxlow et al. 1999).
\section{Radio Angular Sizes and Spectra}
All previous high resolution studies
of submillijanksy radio sources have been
limited to approximately 2\arcs resolution.
Because the median angular size is known to
change rather sharply below a few millijansky
at 1.4 GHz (presumably due to the emergence of
a new population) from $\sim$10\arcs ~to
a few arcsec, our present observations are
uniquely suited to study the radio morphologies
of the faintest radio sources for the first time.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=ang_sizes_new.ps,width=25pc}}
\caption{Angular sizes of sources detected
in the VLA+MERLIN images.}
\end{figure}
Figure 2 shows the angular sizes of
the 89 sources detected by both MERLIN and
the VLA. Virtually all radio sources are
resolved at 0.2\arcs resolution.
There are very few radio sources with
sizes greater than a few arcsec which
are generally associated with classical
FR I and II radio galaxies. Rather,
the median angular size for our sample
is between 1-2\arcs , indicative of
radio emission on galactic or sub-galactic
scales.
The spectral index (S $\propto$ $\nu ^{-\alpha}$)
of a source can be used to diagnose the origin
of the radio emission. Inverted spectrum sources
are invariably associated with self-absorbed synchrotron
emission associated with an AGN.
Flat spectrum sources (0 $< \alpha$ 0.5) can be
produced by AGN or optically thin Bremsstrahlung
radiation from star-formation at higher ($\nu >$ 5 GHz)
radio frequencies. Steep spectrum sources ($ \alpha >$ 0.5)
consist of diffuse synchrotron emission, often associated
either with radio jets or star-formation in galaxies.
For the 8.5 GHz selected sample in the
HDF, the median spectral index is ${\alpha } _{8.5}$ =
0.35 . Less than 15\% of these sources are
inverted. Although several of these
radio sources are dominated by an AGN, many
show diffuse radio emission which is likely
a combination of diffuse synchrotron and
free-free radiation associated with wide-scale
star formation. The 1.4 GHz selected sample
has a median spectral index ${\alpha } _{1.4}$ =
0.85 . Thus the microjanksy radio population
at 1.4 GHz is dominated by sources with
diffuse synchrotron emission.
\section{Optical Identifications}
The absolute astrometric accuracy
of our interferometric images is set by
our phase calibrator which has a position
error of 0.02\arcs . The independent VLA and MERLIN
radio positions for sources detected in the
HDF agree to 0.04\arcs . The HDF WFPC2
images were previously aligned to the radio
reference frame to about 0.1\arcs ~accuracy
(Williams et al. 1996). We bootstrapped
each of the eight individual WFPC2
flanking field images to the radio grid
by first aligning a widefield I-band image
provided to us by Barger et al. (1999)
with our radio sources.
Optically bright galaxies detected in
both the HST and the ground-based images
were used to register the individual
WFPC2 frames to an accuracy of 0.1-0.2\arcs .
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfig{file=mag_hist_new.ps,width=26pc}}
\caption{I magnitude histogram of radio sources in
the HDF region.}
\end{figure}
Of the 91 radio sources contained in
published optical images (Barger et al. 1999),
72 have clear identifications with reliabilities
ranging from 95-99\% (Richards et al. 1998). Figure
3 presents the magnitude histogram of these
galaxies. The mean of the identifications is
I = 22 mag, with a clear decline in the
distribution past I = 23 mag. Sixteen radio
sources cannot be identified in the HFFs or
ground-based images, and three fields are blank
in the HDF itself.
Of the radio sources identified, the majority
reside in disk systems composed of mergers, irregulars,
and/or isolated spiral galaxies (Richards et al. 1998).
A few red ellipticals
are apparent which are almost certainly
AGN. Of the radio sources with redshifts, most are
at $z$ = 0.4-1 but we caution that there still exists
70\% incompleteness in the sample. Many of the
disk systems identified as radio sources have clear
indications of active star-formation, including
prominent but narrow emission lines ([OII] and H$\alpha$),
mid-infrared excesses (Aussel et al. 1999) or
peculiar optical morphology. These clues coupled
with the diffuse, steep spectrum radio emission
give strong evidence that the {\em majority of
radio sources in the HDF region are starburst
galaxies.} The implied starformation rates for
those galaxies with redshifts range from
10{\ $M_{\odot}$} /yr to 1000s {\ $M_{\odot}$} /yr. Two of the radio
starbursts we typically detct are shown in Figure 4.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\epsfig{file=HFF36341212.ps,width=20pc}\qquad
\epsfig{file=HFF36341240.ps,width=20pc}}
\caption{Left) Radio contours for VLA J123634+621212 are
overlaid on the WFPC2 image of this I = 19 mag.
merging system at $z $ = 0.46 (Cohen et al. 1996). This radio source
also has a firm ISO detection (Aussel et al. 1999). The radio SFR
= 140 {\ $M_{\odot}$} /yr. The radio emission peak is coincident
with a prominent dust lane. Right) VLA J123634+621240 is
another candidate merger at $z $ = 1.22 (Cohen 96)
and with a bright ISO detection (Aussel et al. 1999).
The steep spectrum radio emission implies a SFR = 2100 {\ $M_{\odot}$} /yr .
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Candidate High-$z$ Radio Sources}
Although the majority of radio sources in the
HDF region can be identified with rather bright
optical galaxies (I $\sim$ 22 mag.), 20\% of
the sources remain in blank fields. These sources range
in significance from 6 - 100 $\sigma$. Deep infrared imaging
exists for several of these radio sources
(Barger et al. 1999, Waddington et al. 1999) which shows some
fraction to have very red colors consistent with them
being high redshift galaxies ($z >$ 2). Figure 5 shows
two such optically unidentified radio objects.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\epsfig{file=HDF36511221.ps,width=20pc}\qquad
\epsfig{file=hdf36571207.ps,width=15pc}}
\caption{Left) Radio contours for VLA J123651+621221 are
overlaid on the HDF-I image. The sub-mm source
HDF850.1 lies 6\arcs to the northeast.
Right) VLA J123657+621206 is located at the very edge
of the HDF but remains unidentified to I =28.
The source is heavily resolved by the MERLIN
beam, but is firmly detected in the low resolution
VLA data alone (Richards 1999b). SCUBA source
HDF850.1 is located only 3\arcs away, suggesting
the two are the same object. }
\end{figure}
Recently, the HDF has been imaged to the confusion
limit by the JCMT/SCUBA at 850 $\mu$m (Hughes et al. 1998).
Intriguingly,
two of the radio sources unidentified in the HDF
lie within a few arcsec of the brightest two
sub-mm sources. This
is especially significant given that the SCUBA
beam is 15\arcs in diameter.
VLA J123651+621221 is
a steep spectrum radio source contained in both
the complete 1.4 and 8.5 GHz samples and is partially
resolved by the 0.2\arcs MERLIN beam. Dickinson
(private communication)
reports a very red object at the position of the
radio source giving further evidence to its
unusual nature.
In Cycle 7, we obtained NICMOS imaging of
our brightest unidentified radio object (VLA J123642+621331)
in J and H filters (Waddington et al. 1999).
We obtained a firm detection in H, yielding a color
of I - H $>$ 3.3. Surprisingly, the light profile of
the underlying galaxy is exponential with a half-light
radius of 0.13\arcs . This is strongly suggestive of a
nuclear starburst galaxy at substantial redshift.
What are these unidentified radio objects?
We consider four possibilities:
1. moderate {\em z} ellipticals - Red ellipticals
(I - K $>$ 4) at redshifts 1-2 are not
uncommon. However, the radio
sources under discussion would have to
be associated with particularly
underluminous or dusty parent ellipticals.
VLA J123642+621331 clearly does not fall
into this category.
2. one sided radio jets: We cannot discount the
possibility that some of our radio sources
are the brightest jet of a nearby but
displaced optical galaxy. In this case
we would expect the parent galaxy to be
a luminous elliptical with an AGN.
We find no obvious candidates
for this scenario.
3. very high-$z$ AGN ($z >6$) - Another possibility, is
that some of the radio sources with very faint
optical fluxes are at extreme
redshifts, where the Lyman break blanks
out the I continuum, placing
them at $z >$ 6. With
our present radio sensitivity, we could
have detected a nominal FR I galaxy
to approximately $z$ = 10. However,
in several cases the radio emission is
so resolved, it is unlikey to emanate
from a compact AGN. On the other hand,
at least two radio objects in the
HDF remain unidentified to H = 26
(Dickinson, private communication)
and H = 28 (Thompson et al. 1999).
4. high $z$-starbursts (1 $< z <$ 3): Given
that the majority of submillijansky radio
sources are associated with star-forming
galaxies, it is plausible that
a tail of the parent galaxy population
is so obscured by dust that only
the radio emission is visible. In
this case we would expect the radio
emission to be steep spectrum (which
it is in 18/19 of our objects) and
the underlying galaxy to be a very red
disk galaxy. Sevral of our objects
best fit this description and we consider
it the most plausible physical explanation.
We note that the surface density of these
objects is about 0.1 square arcmin. There is
likely some overlap with the faint sub-millimeter
population, although at this point the numbers
are too sparse to make any definitive statements.
Further observations at near infrared and sub-millimeter
wavelengths are necessary to discern the nature
of the optically unidentified radio population.
\section{Conclusions and Future Directions}
We have shown that the microjansky radio
population is associated primarily with
star-forming galaxies. The clues that
point to the radio emission being
related to star-formation are 1) the
steep radio spectra, 2) the small, but
extended angular sizes of the sources, and
3) the identification with luminous disk
galaxies. We have also
isolated a population
of optically faint radio sources (I $>26 - 28$)
which are possibly distant protogalaxies.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\epsfig{file=DEEP.PS,width=25pc}
\caption{Shown is a simulation of a
confusion limited HDF sized region at 1.4 GHz
as seen by the proposed expanded VLA.
The true field of view is 200 times larger,
with a total of 40,000 detections above
0.5 $\mu$Jy (a factor of 80 deeper than the
current VLA/HDF survey). Such observations
could detect the Milky Way at $z = 1$ and
Arp 220 up to $z = 10$ free from dust
obscuration.}}
\end{figure}
Radio observations provide a powerful
tool in the study of star-formation to the
earliest epochs.
Together with deep near infrared
and sub-mm observations, they have
the potential to uncover all star-forming galaxies
out to $z \sim$ 2, free from dust extinction.
The radio luminosity function of star-forming
galaxies at moderate to high$-z$ may ultimately
reveal the global star-formation history,
free from optical selection biases.
The next generation of centimeter
wavelength telescopes (the expanded VLA, Square Kilometer
Array) will extend our knowledge of the radio properties
of distant galaxies to redshifts of
about 10. Figure 7 shows what the radio sky may
look like at the nanojansky level.
I wish to thank the LOC for their generous
financial support during the meeting.
I thank my collaborators T. Muxlow, K. Kellermann,
E. Fomalont, B. Partridge, R. Windhorst and I.
Waddington.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is known since long that thermally pulsing Asymptotic Giant Branch
(TP-AGB) stars provide a site for the so called s-process, i.e., the slow
neutron capture process which forms neutron-rich isotopes heavier than
iron (Clayton 1968). Heavy elements primarily produced by the s-process
are overabundant at the surface of AGB stars (Smith \& Lambert 1990),
including technetium (Little et al. 1987) which has no stable isotope
and which is produced as $^{99}$Tc ($\tau_{\rm 1/2} = 2.1\times 10^5\,$yr)
in the s-process. In particular the roughly solar magnesium isotopic
pattern found in s-process enriched AGB stars has demonstrated
that the $^{13}$C($\alpha$,n)$\,$ rather than the $^{22}$Ne($\alpha$,n)$\,$ neutron source is likely to
operate the s-process in AGB stars (Gu\'elin et al. 1995, Lambert et al.
1995).
Evidence for {\it in situ} s-processing is found exclusively in carbon stars
(Smith \& Lambert 1990), which correspond to a late evolutionary stage on the
TP-AGB where the stars
have large $^{12}$C enrichments in their envelopes (Iben \& Renzini 1983,
Wallerstein \& Knapp 1998). The $^{12}$C enrichment implies
that these stars contain,
at certain times, a region at the bottom of their hydrogen-rich envelope
where $^{12}$C is abundant. This region where protons and $^{12}$C
coexist may then perhaps form $^{13}$C through
$^{12}$C(p,$\gamma$)$^{13}$N($\beta^+ \nu$)$^{13}$C.
Although this scenario is unrivaled, the formation of a layer
which is rich in protons {\em and} $^{12}$C in TP-AGB models has
proven to be difficult, and its existence had hitherto to be assumed
{\it ad hoc} in all s-process calculations (Gallino et al. 1998).
Iben \& Renzini (1982) found a $^{13}$C layer in low metalicity ABG models.
Recently, Herwig et al. (1997) have obtained a $^{13}$C-rich
layer in TP-AGB models of solar metallicity,
by invoking a diffusive overshoot layer at convective boundaries.
Here, we investigate for the first time effects of rotationally induced
mixing processes on the TP-AGB.
\section{Numerical method and physical assumptions}
Our calculations have been performed with a hydrodynamic stellar evolution
code (cf., Langer 1998, and references therein), which has been
upgraded to include angular momentum,
the effect of the centrifugal force on the stellar
structure, and rotationally induced
transport of angular momentum and chemical species due to Eddington-Sweet
circulations, the Solberg-H{\o}iland and Goldreich-Schubert-Fricke instability,
and the dynamical and secular shear instability. We apply the rotational
physics exactly as in Heger et al. (1999). In particular, the effects of
gradients of the mean molecular weight~$\mu$, which pose barriers to any
mixing process, have been included as in Heger et al. (i.e., $f_{\mu}=0.05$).
As in Heger et al., we have also included the effects of $\mu$-barriers
on convection by using the Ledoux-criterion for convection and semiconvection
according to Langer et al. (1983), which is consistent with our treatment
of the rotational mixing (Maeder 1997).
Changes of the chemical composition and the nuclear energy generation rate
are computed using nuclear networks for the three pp-chains, the four
CNO-cycles, and the NeNa- and the MgAl-cycle. Further, the 3$\alpha$-reaction
is included, and ($\alpha$,$\gamma$)-reactions on
$^{12}$C, $^{14,15}$N, $^{16,18}$O, $^{19}$F, $^{20,21,22}$Ne,
$^{24,25,26}$Mg, and ($\alpha$,n)-reactions on
$^{13}$C, $^{17}$O, $^{21,22}$Ne, $^{25,26}$Mg.
The inclusion of (n,$\gamma$)-reactions on $^{12}$C, $^{20,21}$Ne,
$^{24,25}$Mg, $^{28,29}$Si allows an order of magnitude estimate
of the neutron concentration. For more details see Heger et al. (1999)
and Heger (1998).
\section{Results}
\subsection{Evolution towards the TP-AGB}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize
\epsffile{hrd.ps}
\caption{Evolutionary track of our rotating 3$\mso$ model (solid line)
and of a non-rotating reference model (dotted line) in the HR diagram.
The tracks start at the zero age main sequence and end on the TP-AGB.
The beginning of the thermal pulses is marked.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{centering}
\epsfxsize=0.7\hsize
\epsffile{jm1u4u56.ps}
\epsfxsize=0.7\hsize
\epsffile{wm1u4u56.ps}
\caption{{\bf Upper panel:} logarithm of the local specific angular
momentum (in cm$^2\,$s$^{-1}$) as function of the mass coordinate for
three models of our rotating 3$\mso$ sequence; at core hydrogen
exhaustion ($t\simeq 3.3\times 10^8\,$yr, solid line),
during core helium burning ($t\simeq 3.8\times 10^8\,$yr, dotted line),
and between the 14th and the 15th thermal pulse
($t\simeq 4.4\times 10^8\,$yr, dashed line).
{\bf Lower panel:} logarithm of the local angular velocity (in rad/s)
as function of the mass coordinate for the same models which are displayed
in the upper panel.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
For our pilot study, we chose to compute the evolution of a 3$\mso$
star of roughly solar composition with an initial equatorial rotation
velocity of 250$\kms$, which is typical for late~B main sequence stars
(Fukuda 1982). This choice renders effects of magnetic braking and
the core helium flash unimportant.
The evolution of our model in the HR diagram, together with that of
a non-rotating reference model, is shown in Fig.~1.
As in massive stars (Heger et al. 1999), the dominant rotational mixing
process on the main sequence is the Eddington-Sweet circulation.
It leads to a $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C-ratio after the first
dredge-up of~9.4, compared to a value of 19.4 in our non-rotating
model (cf., Boothroyd \& Sackmann 1999).
Figure~2 sketches the evolution of the angular momentum distribution
in the innermost 0.8$\mso$ of our rotating 3$\mso$ model. It shows that
the core specific angular momentum decreases continuously during the
evolution. We can give a first quantitative prediction of a white
dwarf rotation rate: $\log (j / {\rm cm}^2 {\rm s}^{-1} ) =15.3$ and
$R_{\rm WD}=0.01\rso$ yields $v_{\rm rot} = 28\kms$.
This is of the same order as current observational upper limits
(Heber et al. 1997, Koester et al. 1998).
\subsection{Mixing and nucleosynthesis on the TP-AGB}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{centering}
\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize
\epsffile{mix1.ps}
\caption{Section of the internal structure during and after the 25th
thermal pulse of our rotating 3$\mso$ sequence. Diagonal hatching denotes
convection. The convective envelope extends down to
$M_{\rm r}\simeq 0.746\mso$. The pulse driven convective
shell is located at $0.737\mso \lesssim M_{\rm r}\lesssim 0.746\mso$ and
$30\,{\rm yr}\lesssim t \lesssim 120\,$yr.
Vertical hatching denotes regions of significant nuclear
energy generation, i.e., the hydrogen burning shell (at
$M_{\rm r}\simeq 0.746$ and $t\lesssim 100\,$yr) and the helium burning
shell ($0.734\mso \lesssim M_{\rm r}\lesssim 0.739\mso$ and $t\gtrsim 40\,$yr).
Gray shading marks regions of significant rotationally induced
mixing (see scale on the right side of the figure). Vertical marks at the
bottom of the figure denote the time resolution of the calculation,
where every fifth time step is indicated. Cf. also Fig.~4.
During this thermal pulse, the maximum energy generation rate of the
helium burning shell was $4\times 10^7\lso$.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{centering}
\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize
\epsffile{mix2.ps}
\caption{Same as Figure~3, for the same time interval, but magnifying
the dredge-up of the convective envelope. Note the hydrogen burning
shell source at $M_{\rm r}\simeq 0.7461$ and $t\lesssim 100\,$yr, and
the extension of the pulse driven convection zone up to
$M_{\rm r}\simeq 0.74602\mso$ at $t\simeq 100\,$yr.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
Figure~3 shows the evolution of the internal structure during and after
the 25th thermal pulse of our rotating model. It shows that the tip
of the pulse-driven convection zone leaves after its decay a region of
strong rotational mixing. This mixing becomes even stronger when the
convective envelope extends downward during the third dredge-up event
(cf. also Figure~4). The reason is that convection enforces close-to-rigid
rotation (cf. Heger et al. 1999), with an envelope rotation rate which is
many orders of magnitude smaller than that of the core. The resulting
strongly differential rotation (cf. also Figure~2) allows the
Goldreich-Schubert-Fricke instability, and to a lesser extent the
shear instability and Eddington-Sweet circulations, to produce a
considerable amount of mixing between the carbon-rich layer and
the hydrogen envelope.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{centering}
\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize
\epsffile{c13.ps}
\caption{Chemical profiles at the location of the maximum depth
of the convective envelope during the 25th thermal pulse
(cf. Figure~4) of our rotating 3$\mso$ sequence. The dotted and
dashed lines mark the hydrogen and the $^{12}$C mass fractions
at $t=1704\,$yr, with $t=0$ defined as in Figures~3 and~4.
The fat solid line denotes the $^{13}$C mass fraction at the same time.
The three thin solid lines represent the $^{13}$C mass fractions
at $t=2016\,$yr, $t=4155\,$yr, and $t=5139\,$yr, with a later time
corresponding to a smaller peak abundance. The maximum $^{13}$C mass fractions
of 3.6\% occurs at $t=2016\,$yr. The $^{13}$C peak moved inwards
in the time interval from $t=1704\,$yr to $t=2016\,$yr
due to continued proton captures on both, $^{12}$C and $^{13}$C.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{centering}
\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize
\epsffile{ndens.ps}
\caption{Neutron density as function of the mass coordinate for three
models of our rotating $3\mso$ sequence after the 25th pulse. The fat solid
line corresponds to $t=14\, 150\,$yr, the other two (thin solid lines) to
$t=11\, 457\,$yr (peak at largest mass coordinate) and $t=16\, 727\,$yr,
with $t=0$ defined as in Figures~3,~4 and~5. The time span between the
25th and the 26th thermal pulse is $\sim 30\, 000\,$yr.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
Figure~5 depicts the resulting hydrogen and $^{12}$C abundance profiles
after the convective envelope has receded. It shows a layer of
several $10^{-5}\mso$ containing a large mass fraction of protons
and $^{12}$C at the same time. Several 1000$\,$yr after the pulse,
this layer heats up and $^{13}$C is formed through proton capture
on $^{12}$C. Figure~5 shows the resulting $^{13}$C profiles for
four different times. A maximum $^{13}$C mass fraction of almost~4\%
is achieved.
Starting some $10^4\,$yr after the pulse, the $^{13}$C-rich layer
becomes hot enough for $\alpha$-captures on $^{13}$C to occur
(Straniero et al. 1995). Figure~6 shows the resulting neutron
densities $n_{\rm n}$ for three different times.
Note that we did not include the
reaction $^{14}$N(n,p)$^{14}$C in our network. Although most of the
resulting protons may form new $^{13}$C, it may be an effective
neutron sink (Jorissen \& Arnould 1989), in particular as also a large
abundance of (primary) $^{14}$N is produced in the $^{13}$C-rich layer.
Thus, our neutron densities can only be considered as an order of
magnitude estimate. With $n_{\rm n}\simeq 10^7\,$cm$^{-3}$ for
$\sim 10^4\,$yr, we obtain a neutron irradiation of
$\tau\simeq 10^{27}\,$neutrons/cm$^2$
which results roughly in a number of neutron
captures per iron seed of $n_{\rm c}\simeq 75$, i.e. a main component
s-process (cf. Figures~7.22 and 7.23 of Clayton, 1968).
\section{Discussion}
By applying the concept of rotationally induced mixing as it has
been developed for massive stars in our group during the last years
without alteration to a $3\mso$ TP-AGB model sequence, we obtain conditions
which appear favorable for the development of the s-process,
i.e. a $^{13}$C-rich layer which produces a considerable neutron flux
later-on. Although our model develops only a very late and weak third
dredge-up we believe that the mechanism which diffuses the protons
into the carbon layer and $^{12}$C into the envelope must occur
with a similar magnitude in all
TP-AGB stars which develop a third dredge-up. The reason is that the huge
specific angular momentum jump at the hydrogen/carbon interface
--- five orders of magnitude in our case --- is independent of the
depth of the third dredge-up.
The maximum $^{13}$C
abundance and its distribution in our model is, at first,
similar to that found due to diffusive convective overshooting
by Herwig et al. (1997). However, in our case
the rotational mixing spreads the $^{13}$C peak out before the neutrons
are produced (cf. Figures~5 and~6), which is not the case
in the models of Herwig et al. (1997). At the present time we can not
discriminate which of these scenarios would agree better with
empirical constraints. However, we want to stress that both
mechanisms of $^{13}$C production, rotation and overshooting,
do not exclude each other, and that it is possible that they
act simultaneously in AGB stars.
Finally, we want to emphasize that,
although stars of less than $\sim 1.3\mso$
lose 99\% of their angular momentum due to a magnetic wind during
their main sequence evolution,
it can not be excluded that the proposed mechanism of $^{13}$C-production
due to differential rotation also works for them.
Certainly, the sun's core will spin-up and the envelope will further spin down
during its post-main sequence evolution, which may result in
a specific angular momentum jump of similar magnitude.
The investigation of the mass and metallicity dependence of the
production of $^{13}$C due to rotation is an exciting task for the near future.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We are grateful to Thomas Bl\"ocker for many fruitful discussions.
This work has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
through grants La~587/15-1 and 16-1.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
\def\nu_\alpha{\nu_\alpha}
\def\nu_\beta{\nu_\beta}
\def\nu_ \alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta{\nu_ \alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta}
\def{\bf p}{{\bf p}}
\def{\bf l}{{\bf l}}
\def{\bf k}{{\bf k}}
\def{\bf q}{{\bf q}}
\def{\bf x}{{\bf x}}
\def{\bf y}{{\bf y}}
\def{\bf z}{{\bf z}}
\def{\bf s}{{\bf s}}
\def{\bf r}{{\bf r}}
\def{\bf u}{{\bf u}}
\def\bp#1{{\underline p_{#1} }}
\def\bk#1{{\underline k_{#1} }}
\defE_{\vq}{E_{{\bf q}}}
\def\gamma^\mu{\gamma^\mu}
\def\partial_\mu{\partial_\mu}
\def\hat{\bf L}{\hat{\bf L}}
Recent results from the Super-Kamiokande experiment
\cite{sk} have confirmed,
with high statistics, the reality of the solar
\cite{solrev} and atmospheric \cite{atmrev}
neutrino anomalies. In the case of the atmospheric neutrino anomaly,
the Super-Kamiokande data can be interpreted as providing evidence
that the anomaly is due to neutrino flavor mixing \cite{skatmint}, and
``long baseline'' accelerator and reactor neutrino experiments
may be able to
confirm this conclusion \cite{longbl}. Data from
Super-Kamiokande and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO)
eventually should allow tests
to determine if the solar neutrino anomaly is also due to neutrino
oscillations \cite{solsig}. These developments are bringing
to a critical test the possibility suggested by earlier
observations of solar and atmospheric neutrinos---and by a
persistent signal in an accelerator neutrino experiment,
LSND \cite{lsnd}---that neutrino flavor mixing may provide one of the
first experimental windows on physics beyond the Standard Model.
In a generic neutrino oscillation experiment
the event rate for the detection of $\nu_\beta$
from a flux of $\nu_\alpha$ from a point source at distance $L$
takes a form like the following:
\begin{equation}
d\Gamma_{\alpha\beta} = \int dE_{{\bf q}} \left(d\Gamma_{\alpha,\nu_\alpha} \over
L^2\, d\Omega_{{\bf q}} \, dE_{{\bf q}} \right) \left(P_{\nu_ \alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta}\right)
\left(d\sigma_{\nu_\beta,\beta}\right), \label{rate}
\end{equation}
where the direction of the neutrino momentum ${\bf q}$ points
from the source to the detector.
The first factor in the integrand represents the
flux of neutrinos of energy $E_{{\bf q}}$ from a process involving a charged lepton
of flavor $\alpha$, and the third factor is the cross section
for neutrino detection via a process involving a charged lepton
of flavor $\beta$. These factors are computed by the standard techniques
of quantum field theory (QFT),
with the approximation of massless neutrinos.
The middle factor---the
so called ``oscillation probability''---is typically computed
with a quantum mechanical model of the oscillation process. In this
model the neutrino state inhabits a Hilbert space whose dimension
is equal to the number of neutrino flavors.
The Hilbert space is spanned by a mass basis and a flavor basis.
These bases are connected
by a mixing matrix, taken to be the same as that which connects
neutrino ``flavor fields'' to neutrino ``mass eigenstate fields'' in
a field theory Lagrangian. The Hamiltonian is simply the particle energy,
and the phenomenon of neutrino flavor oscillations arises because the
Hamiltonian is not diagonal in the flavor basis. It was pointed out
by Wolfenstein \cite{wolf} that the parameters of flavor oscillations
are altered in the presence of matter because of the effective mass induced by
neutrino forward scattering off the background. The effective mass,
which contributes to the Hamiltonian in this quantum mechanical model,
can be computed by employing the famous formula relating the
index of refraction to the forward scattering amplitude, where this amplitude
is computed from QFT using standard interactions.
Since the effective mass due to the background is
diagonal in the flavor basis, in the limit of slowly varying background
density the total Hamiltonian is diagonal in a new basis, the
``instantaneous mass'' basis.
Mikheyev and Smirnov \cite{ms} subsequently noted that a level crossing
of the ``instantaneous neutrino mass eigenstates in matter'' occurs
in a background of monotonically varying density. The resulting
``MSW effect'' constitutes a new mechanism of flavor transformation
that allows a parameter space of solution to, for example, the solar
neutrino problem, that is very different from that provided
by vacuum neutrino oscillations.
The means just described of computing an experimental event rate for
neutrino flavor transformations has the virtue of simplicity. However,
being somewhat schizophrenic in its amalgamation of quantum field
theoretical and quantum mechanical methods, it is not surprising that
studies have appeared in which the neutrino
production/oscillation/detection is examined as a single process in
the context of QFT, with the neutrinos being virtual
particles \cite{rich,grimusstock,camp,kier,cohere,ioapilaf}.
These studies identify the conditions for which the
amplitude for this overall process factorizes.
However,
by not showing the complete relationship between
this amplitude and the neutrino production flux and
detection cross section, these studies lack a firm
justification (other than recognition from the usual quantum
mechanical picture) for calling a particular factor
an ``oscillation amplitude.''\footnote{A partial connection
is made in Ref. \cite{grimusstock}, where it is shown,
for example, how the
$1/L^2$ flux factor and on shell momentum space neutrino
spinors arise from the vacuum propagator. However,
the overall event rate they arrive at by ``heuristic consideration,''
to use their words, contains a normalization constant. The
relationship of this normalization constant to the coordinate space
external particle spinors they employ is left unspecified.}
In addition, previous works
employing this ``scattering approach'' to flavor mixing
have
only
considered vacuum flavor oscillations; it is our purpose here to
consider the MSW effect in the context of QFT.
Our approach
is complementary to the work of Ref.\ \cite{sireraperez} where this is
derived from QFT within the context of relativistic Wigner functions.
In
this scattering approach to neutrino
oscillations, the derivation of the usual Schr\"{o}dinger equations for
the MSW effect in the presence of a spatially varying background is a
rather trivial consequence of the virtual neutrinos going on shell,
since in that case the multiparticle nature of QFT becomes irrelevant.
This property was noted in Ref.\ \cite{grimusstock} in the context of
vacuum oscillations. If this property is invalid, then the usual
quantum mechanical treatment must be modified and the quantum field
theoretical treatment becomes useful. Hence, perhaps the most
important point of this paper is that the usual quantum mechanical
treatment should be modified suitably if one of the following
conditions holds: the on-shell neutrino momentum is nonrelativistic,
the neutrino production or detection vertices are non-chiral, the wave
packets of the
external production/detection particles
are sensitive to momentum variations of the order of inverse
source-detector distance, or the neutrino
effective mass splittings (determined
by the effective potential including the background matter
contributions) are large compared to the spread in the momenta of the
external particles.
We begin in Sec. II with a discussion of general neutrino
oscillations. While this ground has been
partially explored previously,
the
discussion will serve to clarify some of the physics of the
oscillation process and identify the extent to which the neutrino
propagator determines the probability of neutrino oscillations.
In particular, we do not assume the vacuum propagator at the
outset; we find the
precise form a generic propagator must take
to allow a physically meaningful
``oscillation probability'' to be decoupled from neutrino production
fluxes and detection cross-sections, and
pinpoint the component that gives rise to the oscillation
amplitude.
In Sec. III, we discuss the effective Lagrangian
approximation assumed in our framework;
as specific examples we discuss $e^\pm$ and neutrino backgrounds,
including an outline of how to obtain a self-consistent neutrino
background in, for example, the supernova environment.
Having identified the Green's
function (or propagator) as that which determines the portion of the
neutrino oscillation probability that is independent of the
production/detection mechanisms, in Sec. IV we study the Green's
function of an effective theory of neutrinos in a static, uniform
background,
finding a rich pole structure.
Great simplification occurs in the relativistic limit,
and we recover the same oscillation
amplitude obtained with the usual quantum mechanical model.
In
Sec. V, we study the Green's function in a nonuniform background
potential. Under appropriate conditions we recover the usual
Schr\"{o}dinger-type equation for the oscillation amplitude.
Sec. VI contains concluding remarks. An
Appendix contains a quick and easy derivation in QFT
of fully normalized neutrino oscillation event rates in the form of
Eq. (\ref{rate}), which is justified by the more complete treatment in
Sec. II.
\section{GENERAL $\nu$ OSCILLATIONS}
\label{sec:general}
For the sake of completeness and to establish the setting of our
calculation, we give a
general overview
of the neutrino oscillation
calculation in field theory,
going beyond previous works
\cite{rich,grimusstock,camp,kier,cohere,ioapilaf} in a couple of ways.
While earlier studies demonstrated the factorization
of the amplitude under suitable conditions---enabling identification of
the factor called the ``oscillation amplitude'' in the standard
picture---they do not go all the way to a fully normalized expression like
that of Eq. (\ref{rate}),
leaving one without an unambiguous, physically meaningful reason to
name this factor an ``oscillation amplitude.''
In addition, previous works exploring the conditions under which the
neutrino propagator determines the oscillation probability,
independent of the details of
neutrino production and detection, have only considered the vacuum
propagator. As a prelude to studying the MSW effect,
we seek to elucidate the form a generic neutrino propagator
must
have
to make it possible to disentangle the
neutrino oscillation probability from the production/detection
mechanisms.
In this section
we
consider generalities without committing to
a particular model (Lagrangian), establishing the connection between
a physically clear definition
of oscillation probability [given by
\eqr{rate}] and the neutrino propagator.
For a simple choice of external particle wave packets,
we will give a fairly general expression
for the neutrino oscillation event rate including a ``calculated''
normalization.
For illustration, in the Appendix
we give an explicit calculation leading to a fully
normalized event rate like Eq. (\ref{rate}) in the context of a
semirealistic model Lagrangian.
In field theory and in physical situations, we distinguish a given
flavor of neutrinos by their interactions
with charged leptons.
If we calculate the
probability amplitude for the process involving
flavor $\alpha$ at the source of the neutrinos and
flavor $\beta$ at the detector of the neutrinos, we can calculate the
probability of neutrino oscillations of $\alpha \rightarrow \beta$.
The flavor of each interaction can be distinguished by measurable, on
shell, external particles
(i.e., the charged leptons).
Hence, calculating neutrino oscillations
is equivalent to calculating a scattering event where a neutrino
propagator connects two flavor distinguishing vertices with external
particles coming from them.
In calculating scattering quantities such as cross sections, we
usually calculate the plane wave scattering $S$-matrix
\begin{equation}
S(\{ k_i \},\{ p_j \} )-1 \equiv (2 \pi)^4 \delta^{4}
\left(\sum_l (-1)^{d_l} p_l+\sum_l (-1)^{s_l} k_l\right) i {\cal M},
\label{eq:smatrix}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal M}$ is the usual invariant amplitude calculated with Feynman
diagrams in momentum space and $s_l=d_l=1$ for incoming particles and
$0$ for outgoing particles (the grouping of the momenta will be
explained shortly). This is considered to be a good approximation in
the case of calculating usual collider event rates since there the
events of interest occur within a single volume element before the
final state particles are detected, and the corrections arising from
localization of the interactions usually are not important to the
detection rate. However, because neutrino oscillations involve
quantum interference effects over macroscopic distances which separate
the production point and the detection point of the neutrinos, we must
take more care to account for the localization of the interaction
points to calculate the leading order observable quantity.
This localization of the vertices necessarily requires
that the incident and final states be spatially localized
wave packets instead of plane wave states.
(As we shall see, analyses which appear to use only plane wave
external states while restricting spatial integrations in an
ad hoc manner \cite{camp,ioapilaf}
actually have complicated wave packets buried
beneath the surface.)
Hence, the probability
amplitude\footnote{Our conventions for the metric, gamma matrices,
and normalizations are the same as
Ref. \cite{peskin}. The wave packet normalization is $\int d^3{{\bf p}}\;
(2\pi)^{-3} \left|\psi({\bf p})\right|^2~=~1$.
A plane wave packet $\psi({\bf p},{\bf p}')=
{(2\pi)^3\over\sqrt{V}}\delta^3({\bf p}-{\bf p}')$, where
$V$ is a volume factor, follows this normalization
convention provided $\left[\delta^3({\bf p}-{\bf p}')\right]^2$
is interpreted as ${V\over(2\pi)^3}\delta^3({\bf p}-{\bf p}')$.}
is a superposition of~\eqr{eq:smatrix},
\begin{equation}
{\cal A} = \int \prod_j^{1 + F_D} [dp_j]\
\psi_{D j}(p_j, \bp{j})
\prod_i^{I_S+F_S} [dk_i]\
\psi_{S i}(k_i, \bk{i})\
\left[S(\{ k_m \}, \{ p_m \} )-1\right],
\label{eq:amplitude}
\end{equation}
where $[dp_j]=d^3 {{\bf p}}_j/\left[ (2 \pi)^3 \sqrt{2 E_{{{\bf p}}_j}}\right]$,
$\{ k_m \}$
are
the external momenta of the vertex at the production region centered
about ${\bf x}_S$, and
$\{ p_m \}$
are the external momenta of the detection
region centered about ${\bf y}_D$. Here the set of parameters
$\bp{m}$
and
$\bk{m}$
characterize the peak of the wave packets' distribution of
momenta.\footnote{The 0th component of these ``parameters'' is taken
to be on mass shell since we will choose the wave packets such that
they behave like plane waves for large values of the spatial
components of these ``parameters.''} We have also fixed the number of
external particles to be $I_S$ incoming and $F_S$ outgoing particles
at the source vertex, and 1 incoming and $F_D$ outgoing external
particles at the
detector vertex.
Now, let us see how this is related to the usual quantum mechanical
treatment.
The procedure for calculating $P_{\nu_ \alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta}$ in \eqr{rate} in
a quantum mechanical model was described in Sec. I.
In field theory, $P_{\nu_ \alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta}$ defined by
\eqr{rate} can be calculated by comparing \eqr{rate} with the event
rate derived from \eqr{eq:amplitude}.
We associate ${\cal A}_S$ with
the amplitude for
$\{I_S\} \rightarrow \{F_S\} + \stackrel{(-)}{\nu_\alpha}$
at the source
and ${\cal A}_D$ with the amplitude for
$D + \stackrel{(-)}{\nu_\beta} \rightarrow \{F_D\}$
at
the detector (we specialize to one detector particle $D$),
and choose plane wave packets for the source's final state
(anti)neutrinos
and the detector's initial state
(anti)neutrinos:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_S & =& {1\over\sqrt{2E_{\vq}}\sqrt{V}}\int
\prod_i^{I_S+F_S} [dk_i]\
\psi_{S i}(k_i, \bk{i})\
\left[S_S(\{ k_m \}, q )-1\right], \nonumber\\
{\cal A}_D &=& {1\over\sqrt{2E_{\vq}}\sqrt{V}}
\int \prod_j^{1 + F_D} [dp_j]\
\psi_{D j}(p_j, \bp{j})
\left[S_D(\{ p_m \},q )-1\right],
\label{detamp}
\end{eqnarray}
where $q=(E_{\vq},\hat{\bf L}E_{\vq})$ is the neutrino
momentum, and $\hat{\bf L}=({\bf y}_D - {\bf x}_S)/|{\bf y}_D -{\bf x}_S|$
points from the source to the detector.
In ${\cal A}_S$ and ${\cal A}_D$ we have implicitly assumed
that the neutrinos are massless, because massive flavor eigenstates
cannot be asymptotic states.
Standard
kinematics then yields the relationship
\begin{equation}
\frac{\left| \cal A \right|^2}{T}=\int \frac{dE_{\vq}\, E_{\vq}^2}{(2 \pi)^3
L^2 v_{\nu D}} \frac{|{\cal A}_S|^2 V}{T_S} P_{
\stackrel{(-)}{\nu_\alpha}\rightarrow\stackrel{(-)}{\nu_\beta}}
\frac{|{\cal A}_D|^2 V}{T_D},
\label{eq:relationship}
\end{equation}
where $V$ is the usual total volume factor associated with
the phase space and normalization of plane wave packets; $T$, $T_S$,
and $T_D$ are the usual time factors associated with stationary
wave packets;
$v_{\nu D}$ is the M$\o$ller speed (associated with the flux) between the
detector particle and the neutrinos;
and $L \equiv |{\bf y}_D -{\bf x}_S|$.
As just indicated, we make the simplifying assumption of stationary
wave packets. The main simplifying utility of this energy
conservation approximation is to get rid of the neutrino momentum
integral.\footnote{We refer the reader to Ref.\ \cite{cohere} and
references therein for related discussions regarding coherence.}
We encode our assumption of stationarity by defining spatially smeared
functions
\begin{eqnarray}
g_S({\bf x},\{\bk{i}\},q)\; e^{i \sum_l (-1)^{s_l} {\underline k_l}\cdot x} & = & \int
\prod_j^{I_S+F_S} [ dk_j]\; \psi_{S j}(k_j, \bk{j})\; e^{i \sum_l (-1)^{s_l} k_l \cdot x}\;
i {\cal M}_S\left(\{k_i \}, q \right), \nonumber \\
g_D({\bf y},\{\bp{i}\},q)\; e^{i \sum_l (-1)^{d_l} {\underline p_l}\cdot y} & = & \int
\prod_j^{1+F_D} [ dp_j]\; \psi_{D j}(p_j, \bp{j})\; e^{i \sum_l (-1)^{d_l} p_l \cdot y}\;
i {\cal M}_D(\{p_i \}, q).
\label{eq:stationary}
\end{eqnarray}
We note that ${\cal M}_S$ and ${\cal M}_D$ have the form
(assuming V-A lepton currents)
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M}_S\left(\{k_i \}, q \right)&=& \bar u^-(q)P_R M_1(\{k_i\}),
\ \ \ {\cal M}_D(\{p_i \}, q)= M_2(\{p_i\})P_L u^-(q)\ \ \
(\nu\ \rm{osc.}), \nonumber\\
{\cal M}_S\left(\{k_i \}, q \right)&=& M_2(\{k_i\})P_L v^+(q),
\ \ \ {\cal M}_D(\{p_i \}, q)= \bar v^+(q)P_R M_1(\{p_i\}) \ \ \
(\bar\nu\ \rm{osc.}), \label{msmd}
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_1$ and $M_2$ are respectively column and row vectors
in spinor space, and $P_L$ and $P_R$ are the left- and right-handed
chiral projection operators.
Following the conventions of \cite{peskin}, we represent
the spinors $u$ and $v$ as
\begin{equation}
u^s(q) =\pmatrix{\sqrt{q\cdot\sigma}\;\xi^s \cr
\sqrt{q\cdot\bar\sigma}\;\xi^s},
\ \ \ \ v^s(q)=\pmatrix{\sqrt{q\cdot\sigma}\;\eta^s \cr
-\sqrt{q\cdot\bar\sigma}\;\eta^s},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma^\mu=(1, \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} )$,
$\bar\sigma^\mu=(1,-\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$})$, and
$\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}$ is the three-vector of Pauli matrices.
Since these are spinors for massless particles, the spin
index $s$ is associated with the spin component along the
momentum axis; specifically, we have $\xi^- = \eta^+$,
$\xi^+ = -\eta^-$, with $\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\cdot\hat{\bf q}\;
\xi^\pm(\hat{\bf q}) =\pm \xi^\pm(\hat{\bf q})$.
Putting Eqs. (\ref{detamp},\ref{eq:stationary})
into \eqr{eq:relationship} yields
\begin{equation}
(2 \pi)\, \delta\left(\sum_l (-1)^{s_l} E_{\underline {{\bf k}}_l}+\sum_l (-1)^{d_l} E_{\underline {{\bf p}}_l}\right)\,
P_{\stackrel{(-)}{\nu_\alpha}\rightarrow\stackrel{(-)}{\nu_\beta}}
= 16 \pi^2 L^2 v_{\nu D}\,
\frac{\left| \cal{A}
\right|^2}{T}\, \left| \tilde{g}_S(-{\bf q}, \{ \bk{i} \}) \right|^{-2}
\left| \tilde{g}_D({\bf q}, \{ \bp{i} \}) \right|^{-2},
\label{eq:almost}
\end{equation}
where we have defined
\begin{equation}
\tilde{g}_D({\bf q}, \{\bp{i}\})\equiv \int d^3{\bf y}\, g_D({\bf y}, \{ \bp{i}\},q )
\, e^{i \left({\bf q}-\sum_l(-1)^{d_l}{\underline{\bf p}_l}\right) \cdot {\bf y}},
\label{gtilde}
\end{equation}
and similarly for $\tilde{g}_S$. Stationarity constrains
$|{\bf q}|\equivE_{\vq}=-\sum_l (-1)^{s_l} E_{\underline {{\bf k}}_l}$.
Let us turn our attention to $\cal A$.
Given that we have a neutrino
propagator $G$ in our amplitude, and assuming V-A lepton currents,
we can write
\begin{equation}
S(\{ k_i \}, \{ p_j \} )-1 = \int d^4y\,e^{i \sum_l (-1)^{d_l} p_l \cdot y}
\int d^4x\,e^{i \sum_l (-1)^{s_l} k_l \cdot x}\, i\int {d^4s\over (2\pi)^4}
e^{ \mp i s\cdot(y-x)} M_2\, P_L\, G(s)\, P_R\, M_1,
\label{eq:factorit}
\end{equation}
where
$M_1$ and $M_2$ are the same as in Eqs. (\ref{msmd}), and
$s$ is the off-shell propagator momentum.
The upper (lower) sign of $\mp$ in the
exponential is for neutrino (antineutrino) oscillations;
this arises from choosing $x$ ($y$) to always
correspond to the source (detector).
That is, for neutrino oscillations of flavor $\alpha$
to flavor $\beta$, the Green's function is
$iG^{\beta\alpha}(y,x)=\langle T\{\nu^\beta(y)\bar\nu^\alpha(x)\}\rangle_0
=i\int{d^4s\over(2\pi)^4}\,e^{-is\cdot(y-x)}G^{\beta\alpha}(s)$
(with $T\{\}$ and $\langle \rangle_0$ denoting a time-ordered product
and vacuum expectation value respectively),
while for antineutrino oscillations $\alpha\rightarrow \beta$,
the labeling is $iG^{\alpha\beta}(x,y)$.
Insert the identity
\begin{equation}
{q^\mu \xi^\nu \{\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu\} \over 2q\cdot \xi}=1
\label{eq:ident1}
\end{equation}
on both sides of the Green's function in equation \eqr{eq:factorit},
where as before $q=(E_{\vq},\,\hat{\bf L}E_{\vq})$, and we define
$\xi= (E_{\vq},\, \hat{\bf L}\sqrt{(E_{\vq})^2 - m^2})$
in which the parameter
$m^2 < E_{\vq}^2$, though its precise value is unimportant in this context.
We note that since $q$ is null, $q\cdot \gamma = \sum_s u^s(q)\bar u^s(q)$
(or $q\cdot \gamma = \sum_s v^s(q)\bar v^s(q)$, if one wishes to consider
antineutrino oscillations).
From the explicit form of $u$ and $v$ it is easy
to see that
\begin{eqnarray}
P_L\, (q\cdot\gamma)(\xi\cdot\gamma)&=&P_L\, u^-(q)\bar u^-(q)\,
(\xi\cdot\gamma),
\ \ \ \ P_L\, (\xi\cdot\gamma)(q\cdot\gamma)=
(\xi\cdot\gamma)\,P_R\, u^+(q)\bar u^+(q),\nonumber\\
(\xi\cdot\gamma)(q\cdot\gamma)\, P_R &=& (\xi\cdot\gamma)\,
u^-(q)\bar u^-(q)\,P_R,
\ \ \ \ (q\cdot\gamma)(\xi\cdot\gamma)\, P_R=
u^+(q)\bar u^+(q)\, P_L\, (\xi\cdot\gamma). \label{spinors}
\end{eqnarray}
[The same relations hold for $u^\pm(q)$ replaced by $v^\mp(q)$.]
Soon we will show the form that the Green's function
must have, after localization by the source and detector, in order
that the term with
$u^-$ (or $v^+$)
on both sides of $G$ be
the only one to contribute. If more than one spin
contributes, we will not recover the usual quantum mechanical
treatment without spins taken into account. In that case, working
with the full scattering picture of \eqr{eq:amplitude} is useful.
Keeping only the
term with the relevant spinor on either side of $G$,
one can
show that Eq. (\ref{eq:amplitude}) becomes
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}= -\int d^4y \; g_D({\bf y},\{\bp{i}\},q)\, e^{i \sum_l (-1)^{d_l} {\underline p_l}\cdot y}
\int d^4x\; g_S({\bf x},\{\bk{i}\},q)\, e^{i \sum_l (-1)^{s_l} {\underline k_l}\cdot x}\,
i\int {d^4s\over (2\pi)^4}
e^{\mp i s\cdot(y-x)} \bar P\, G(s)\, P, \label{amplitude2}
\end{equation}
where
$P=\gamma^0 u^-(q)/(2E_{\vq}) = \gamma^0 v^+(q)/(2E_{\vq}) $,
$\bar P=P^\dagger \gamma^0$,
and $g_S$ and $g_D$ are given
by Eq. (\ref{eq:stationary}).
In passing, we would like to remark that in
\eqr{amplitude2}, we can always write
(for neutrino oscillations, for example)
\begin{equation}
g_S({\bf x}, \{ \bk{i} \},q)\, e^{i \sum_l (-1)^{s_l} {\underline k_l}\cdot x} = i \bar{u}^-(q)\, M_1(\{ \bk{i}
\})\, f_S(x, \{ \bk{i} \} )
\end{equation}
(and similarly for $g_D$) where $f_S$ is a scalar function of
${\bf x}$. Then we obtain the form (again assuming the single-spin
contribution is justified after spatial integration)
\begin{equation}
{\cal A} = \int d^4x\, d^4y\, f_S(x, \{\bk{i} \}) f_D(y, \{ \bp{i}
\} ) \int \frac{d^4s}{(2 \pi)^4} e^{-i s \cdot (y-x) } i {\cal M}(\{
\bk{i} \}, s, \{ \bp{i} \} ),
\label{eq:usual}
\end{equation}
which is a common starting point of analysis in the literature as
in Refs. \cite{camp,ioapilaf}. However,
with arbitrarily chosen smearing functions $f$, it is difficult to
assess what actual scattering question the amplitude is an answer to,
because the smearing functions are not the wave
functions of the in-out particles, but are the wave functions smeared
over the matrix elements. As a consequence, the normalization is
usually ignored in this approach. We will return to the normalization
later in this section.
Returning to Eq. (\ref{amplitude2}), integration over $x^0$, $y^0$,
and $s^0$ gives an overall energy-conserving delta function and
sets $s^0 = E_{\vq}$
(for antineutrino oscillations,
$s^0 = -E_{\vq}$). We also note that the chiral structure of
$\bar P\, G P$ (as well as the original matrix element)
picks out only the $G_{LR}$ block of the neutrino propagator,
where $G_{LR}$ is the nonzero $2\times2$ submatrix left by
$P_L G P_R$.
In addition, the localization of $g_S$ and $g_D$ around
${\bf x}_S$ and ${\bf y}_D$ respectively ``clamps down'' on the coordinate
space Green's function.
In particular, if the characteristic widths $L_S$ and $L_D$ of
$g_S$ and $g_D$ are much smaller than the source-detector
distance $L=|{\bf y}_D-{\bf x}_S|$, we
note that if the ``oscillation
probability'' is to be disentangled from the details of neutrino
production and detection,
the relevant portion of the Green's function
for oscillations $\alpha\rightarrow\beta$
must
take the form
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{LR}^{\beta\alpha}(s^0=E_{\vq},{\bf y},{\bf x}) &=& \int {d^3{\bf s}\over (2\pi)^3}\,
e^{i{\bf s} \cdot ({\bf y}-{\bf x})}\,G_{LR}^{\beta\alpha}(s^0=E_{\vq},{\bf s})\nonumber\\
& \simeq& -E_{\vq} \left(1-\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\cdot \hat{\bf L}\right)
{e^{iE_{\vq}\hat{\bf L}\cdot({\bf y}-{\bf x})} \over 4\pi |{\bf y}_D-{\bf x}_S|}
H^{\beta\alpha}(E_{\vq},{\bf y}_D,{\bf x}_S)\ \ \ \ \ (\nu\ \rm{osc.}), \nonumber\\
& & \nonumber\\
G_{LR}^{\alpha\beta}(s^0=-E_{\vq},{\bf x},{\bf y})
& \simeq& +E_{\vq} \left(1-\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\cdot \hat{\bf L}\right)
{e^{iE_{\vq}\hat{\bf L}\cdot({\bf y}-{\bf x})} \over 4\pi |{\bf y}_D-{\bf x}_S|}
\bar H^{\alpha\beta}(E_{\vq},{\bf y}_D,{\bf x}_S)\ \ \ \ \ (\bar\nu\ \rm{osc.}),
\label{gform}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\hat{\bf L} = ({\bf y}_D-{\bf x}_S)/|{\bf y}_D-{\bf x}_S|$ points from the source towards
the detector,
and
the quantities
$H$ and $\bar H$ have
only flavor
indices.
The
factor $E_{\vq} \left(1-\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\cdot \hat{\bf L}\right)$
arises from the kinetic term in the Lagrangian, and
takes this form due to
the relativistic limit.
Another key
ingredient
is the factor $e^{iE_{\vq}|{\bf y}-{\bf x}|}$, which
is the leading phase factor in the
relativistic limit coming from $e^{ i {\bf s} \cdot ({\bf y}-{\bf x})}$ evaluated
at the
poles
of $G_{LR}$.
In addition,
$1/|{\bf y}-{\bf x}|$ comes from the
asymptotic expansion of the left hand side of \eqr{gform} in the limit
that $|{\bf y}-{\bf x}| \rightarrow \infty$, and it can be considered to be
the monopole term in a multipole expansion. We will discuss the
validity of the factorization and the asymptotic expansion further
below in momentum space.
Before we talk about momentum space, let us
give an example of \eqr{gform} by considering the vacuum propagator.
In that case, it is straightforward to show that
(anticipating the relativistic limit)
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{LR}(s^0,{\bf x},{\bf y})
& =& \left(s^0 + i\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\cdot
\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}\right)\left[M^{-1}
G_{RR}(s^0,{\bf x},{\bf y})\right], \label{glrgrr}\\
\left[M^{-1} G_{RR}(s^0,{\bf x},{\bf y})\right]^{\alpha\beta}&=&
- {e^{i|s^0||{\bf x}-{\bf y}|} \over 4\pi |{\bf x}-{\bf y}|}
\sum_j U_{\alpha j}U_{\beta j}^* \exp\left(-i{m_j^2|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|\over
2|s^0|}\right), \label{grr}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$G_{RR}$ is the nonzero $2\times2$ submatrix left by
$P_R G P_R$, $M$ is the mass matrix appearing in the Lagrangian,
and the $m_j$ are the mass eigenvalues.
In Eq. (\ref{grr}) we have made the flavor indices explicit;
the relationship between the
flavor fields and mass eigenstate fields is $\nu_\alpha = \sum_i
U_{\alpha i} \psi_i$, where the $U_{\alpha i}$ are elements of a
unitary matrix.
For $|s^0|L\gg 1$,
\begin{equation}
G_{LR}^{\alpha\beta}(s^0,{\bf x},{\bf y})\simeq
- {e^{i|s^0||{\bf x}-{\bf y}|} \over 4\pi |{\bf x}-{\bf y}|}
\left[s^0 -|s^0|\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\cdot
\hat{\bf r}({\bf x},{\bf y})\right]
\sum_j U_{\alpha j}U_{\beta j}^* \exp\left(-i{m_j^2|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|\over
2|s^0|}\right), \label{glrfinal}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\bf r}({\bf x},{\bf y})=({\bf x}-{\bf y})/|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|$.
To apply Eq.\ (\ref{glrfinal}) to neutrino oscillations one takes
$s^0\rightarrowE_{\vq}$ and
${\bf x},{\bf y} \rightarrow {\bf y},{\bf x}$. For antineutrino oscillations,
$s^0\rightarrow -E_{\vq}$ and
${\bf x},{\bf y}\rightarrow{\bf x},{\bf y}$.
After making these substitutions
we will be integrating Eq. (\ref{glrfinal}) over
localization functions
of characteristic widths
$L_S$ and $L_D$ centered on ${\bf x}={\bf x}_S$
and ${\bf y}={\bf y}_D$.
This means that for
$L_S,L_D \ll L$,
we may replace ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf y}$ by ${\bf x}_S$ and ${\bf y}_D$
everywhere except the phase factors, in which we consider
the first order variation,
\begin{eqnarray}
|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|&\simeq& | {\bf x}_S-{\bf y}_D | + \hat{\bf L} \cdot \left[ ({\bf y}-{\bf y}_D)
- ({\bf x}-{\bf x}_S) \right] \nonumber\\
&= &\hat{\bf L} \cdot ({\bf y}-{\bf x}).
\label{dapprox}
\end{eqnarray}
We see that
a necessary mathematical condition
(in addition to the relativistic assumption
and $E_{\vq} L\gg 1$)
for
Eqs. (\ref{glrgrr}-\ref{glrfinal})
to reduce to the form of Eqs. (\ref{gform})
is $m_j^2\, L_{S,D} /(2E_{\vq}) \ll 1$ [which also implies
the more familiar $(m_j^2-m_i^2)\, L_{S,D} /(2E_{\vq}) \ll 1$].
The physical basis of these conditions
can also be inferred from Eqs. (\ref{glrgrr}-\ref{glrfinal}).
$E_{\vq} L\gg 1$ allows the propagating neutrino to become
an on-shell relativistic particle, and also allows appreciable
oscillation phase to build up over the source-detector distance.
$m_j^2\, L_{S,D} /(2E_{\vq}) \ll 1$ requires
that no appreciable oscillation phase build up on length
scales comparable to the width of the external particle wave packets.
The necessity of these conditions for disentanglement of the
flavor oscillations from the details of neutrino production and
detection is evident.
The origin of these conditions can
also
be
understood in momentum space. First, rewrite \eqr{amplitude2} as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A} & = & - (2 \pi) \delta\left(\sum_l (-1)^{s_l} E_{\underline {{\bf k}}_l} +
\sum_l (-1)^{d_l} E_{\underline {{\bf p}}_l}\right) i \int \frac{d^3 s}{(2 \pi)^3}
e^{ \pm i {\bf s} \cdot ({\bf y}_D - {\bf x}_S)} e^{ -i \left(\sum_l (-1)^{s_l}
{\underline {\bf k}_l} \cdot {\bf x}_S + \sum_l (-1)^{d_l} {\underline {\bf
p}_l} \cdot {\bf y}_D \right )}\nonumber\\ & &\times
\tilde{h}_{D}({\bf s}, \{ \bp{i} \}, q)
\tilde{h}_{S}(- {\bf s}, \{ \bk{i} \}, q) \bar{P}\;
G\left(s^0 = \mp\sum_l (-1)^{s_l} E_{\underline {{\bf k}}_l} ,{\bf s} \right) P
\label{eq:a}
\end{eqnarray}
where the functions $\tilde{h}_{S}$ and $\tilde{h}_{D}$ can be
approximated to have no ${\bf x}_S$ or ${\bf y}_D$ dependence.
This can easily be seen to be exactly true for the ideal case of isotropic
smearing functions, e.g. $g_D({\bf y}, \{ \bp{i}\},q )= h_D(|{\bf y}-{\bf y}_D|)$;
Eq. (\ref{gtilde}) then yields $\tilde{g}_D = e^{i{\bf u}\cdot{\bf y}_D}
\tilde h_D(|{\bf u}|)$, where ${\bf u}
\equiv {\bf s}-\sum_l(-1)^{d_l}{\underline{\bf p}_l}$.
Because the propagator will in general
have poles corresponding to the mass of the physical neutrino states,
the dominant contribution to the integral in the asymptotic limit $ L
E_{{\bf q}} \rightarrow \infty$ will be from a term that contains the
integrand of \eqr{eq:a}
as a factor evaluated at the poles and stationary phase points
(critical points).
For the vacuum, the constant potential,
and the adiabatically spatially varying background potential cases,
one can asymptotically expand the integral
\eqr{eq:a} in the limit $LE_{{\bf q}} \rightarrow \infty$
(similarly as
in Ref. \cite{grimusstock}) to find that
to leading approximation, the term $\tilde{h}_{D}({\bf s}, \{ \bp{i} \},
q) \tilde{h}_{S}(-{\bf s}, \{ \bk{i} \},q)$
can
be moved outside of the integral with the replacement ${\bf s} \rightarrow
{\bf s}_*$ where ${\bf s}_*$ corresponds to one of the critical points. By
factoring out $\tilde{h}$, we have implicitly assumed that
$\tilde{h}_{D}({\bf s}, \{ \bp{i} \},q) \tilde{h}_{S}(-{\bf s}, \{ \bk{i}
\},q)$ is not sensitive to the splittings in the critical points
(otherwise different pole momenta ${\bf s}$ of $G_{LR}$ will cause
$\tilde{h}_{D}({\bf s}, \{ \bp{i} \},q) \tilde{h}_{S}(-{\bf s}, \{ \bk{i}
\},q)$ to have different values, preventing factorization). This
means that the wave packets must be flat in momentum space at least
within the range of pole momentum splitting.
Also, if this is not the case, one of the poles will not contribute
(because the amplitude of the wave packet has fallen off with respect
to the amplitude at the other pole), and no neutrino oscillations will
occur (or more accurately, the neutrino
oscillations will be greatly suppressed relative to the background).
We will refer to this flatness of the wave packet as insensitivity to
${\bf s}_*$ splitting.
Also note that because of the presence of the exponential in Eq. (18),
this leading term in the asymptotic expansion
will not be a good approximation unless the inverse
``momentum scale height'' (i.e. logarithmic derivative) of
$\tilde{h}_{D}\,\tilde{h}_{S}$ near the poles is much less than L.
Hence, factoring out the wave packet dependence which is crucial for
the validity of the usual quantum mechanical treatment requires the
wave packet factor $\tilde{h}_{D}\,
\tilde{h}_{S}$ to be insensitive under $1/L$
momenta variations as well as the ${\bf s}_{*}$ splitting variations.
While localization is clearly necessary for the observation of oscillations,
the source and detector localization scales $L_S,L_D$ implied by Eq.
(\ref{eq:stationary}) cannot be smaller than the Compton wavelength
of the lightest external particles. In the case that all the external particles
connected to a given vertex are nonrelativistic, this
gives rise to a constraint on the masses of these external particles.
To see this,
consider the ideal case mentioned above
in which $g_D({\bf y}, \{ \bp{i}\},q )\approx h_D(|{\bf y}-{\bf y}_D|)$.
Then $\tilde{g}_D = e^{i{\bf u}\cdot{\bf y}_D}
\tilde h_D(|{\bf u}|)$, where $\tilde h_D(|{\bf u}|)$ is damped for $|{\bf u}|
\equiv |{\bf s}_*-\sum_l(-1)^{d_l}{\underline{\bf p}_l}|$ larger than $1/L_D$.
Hence the ${\bf s}_*$ splitting insensitivity
condition can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left| \sum_l (-1)^{s_l} {\underline {\bf k}_{l}} + {\bf s}_* \right| & \ll &
\frac{1}{L_S} < M_{LS} \nonumber \\
\left| \sum_l (-1)^{d_l} {\underline {\bf p}_{l}} - {\bf s}_* \right| & \ll &
\frac{1}{L_D} < M_{LD}.
\label{eq:osccond1}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have denoted the lightest external particle masses to be
$M_{LS}$ and $M_{LD}$ for source and detector, respectively.
The critical momentum will
be ${\bf s}_*
\approx \hat{\bf L} \sqrt{(\sum_l (-1)^{s_l} E_{\underline {{\bf k}}_l})^2 - \tilde{m}_{j}^2}$ where $\tilde{m}_j$
is the effective pole mass of the particle. Hence, if $\tilde{m}_{j}
\ll \left|\sum_l (-1)^{s_l} E_{\underline {{\bf k}}_l}\right|$ and the external particles are nonrelativistic, then
\eqr{eq:osccond1} can be satisfied only if about equal mass of
external particles enter and leave the source/detector vertices. If
any of the
the external particles
connected to a given vertex
are sufficiently relativistic, this severe
constraint does not arise.
We
now show that Green's function must take the
form found in Eqs. (\ref{gform}) after being spatially ``clamped'' by the
source and detector if the terms projected by the
spinors
$u^-$ (or $v^+$)
on both sides of $G$
are to
be the only contributions to the
amplitude. In Sec. \ref{sec:cback}, where we study the
neutrino propagator in a uniform, static medium, we will find it
convenient to identify
$\hat{\bf L}$ of Eq. (\ref{gform}) with
the positive third spatial direction. In that case it is
straightforward to show,
using Eq. (\ref{spinors}),
that the terms with
spinors of different spins on either side of $G$
pick out
the off-diagonal
spinor space
elements of $G_{LR}$, while the terms
with
the same spins
on both sides pick out the
diagonal
spinor space
elements.
The matrix $\left(1-\sigma^3\right)$ from Eqs. (\ref{gform}) confirms that
only $G_{LR}^{22}$ is nonzero, and therefore only the term with
$u^-(q)$
[$v^+(q)$] on both sides of $G$ survives for the neutrino
(antineutrino) oscillations.\footnote{Note that with
$\hat{\bf L}$ set to the third spatial direction, both $u^-(q)$ and
$v^+(q)$ have 4-spinor components $(0,\sqrt{2 E_{\vq}}, 0, 0)$. }
Recalling that ${\bf q}=\hat{\bf L}\,E_{\vq}$, and upon inserting Eqs. (\ref{gform})
into Eq. (\ref{amplitude2}) and Eq. (\ref{amplitude2}) into Eq.
(\ref{eq:almost}),
we finally arrive at the neutrino oscillation probability
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{\nu_ \alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta} &=&
\left|H^{\beta\alpha}(E_{\vq},{\bf y}_D,{\bf x}_S) \right|^{2},\ \ \ \ (\nu\ \rm{osc.}),
\nonumber\\
P_{\bar\nu_\alpha\rightarrow\bar\nu_\beta} &=&
\left|\bar H^{\alpha\beta}(E_{\vq},{\bf y}_D,{\bf x}_S) \right|^{2},\ \ \ \
(\bar\nu\ \rm{osc.}),
\label{oscprob}
\end{eqnarray}
where $H$ and $\bar H$ are defined by Eqs. (\ref{gform}),
and we have assumed that the detector particle $D$ is nonrelativistic
such that $v_{\nu D}=1$.
With the cancellation of the source and detector wave packets, one can see
why employing a separate quantum mechanical model to compute
the oscillation probability is possible. [Note that the standard
vacuum oscillation probability is recovered here,
as is clear from Eqs. (\ref{gform}-\ref{glrfinal})].
We emphasize that
the Green's function here is the full propagator in any given theory and
we have made no severe assumptions about the nature of the
production and detection effective
vertex.\footnote{The most significant
assumptions leading to our final result were the V-A type of lepton currents;
the stationary approximation in \eqr{eq:stationary}; relativistic
neutrinos, i.e. $(E_{\vq} - |{\bf s}_*|)/E_{\vq} \ll 1$, where $|{\bf s}_*|$
is the magnitude of a pole in the momentum space propagator;
sufficiently localized and separated source and detector, i.e.
$(E_{\vq} - |{\bf s}_*|) L_{S,D} \ll 1$; and $E_{\vq} L \gg 1$.
} Hence, as
expected, the production/detection independent field theoretical effects
on neutrino oscillations come from the coordinate space Green's function.
What perhaps is less expected is the fact that unless the
wave packets of the external particles satisfy specific properties,
the transition probability will not just depend on the propagator, but
the entire coherent scattering process which neutrino oscillation really is.
Such tangled wave packet dependence is discussed for example in Ref.\
\cite{ioapilaf}.
Before concluding this section, we would like to note that we can
easily work out the neutrino oscillation detection rate including the
normalization if we assume a particular class of wave packets.
Let us define a box wave packet as a configuration such that the
superposition integral gives, for each
outgoing particle, for example,\footnote{We
will write the wave packet centered about ${\bf x}_S$, since the one
centered about ${\bf y}_D$ is analogous.}
\begin{equation}
\int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 \sqrt{2 E_k}} \psi_{S}(k, {\underline k})
e^{i k \cdot x}\approx
e^{iE_{\underline{{\bf k}}}x^0}
\int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 \sqrt{2 E_k}} \psi_{S}(k, {\underline k})
e^{-i {\bf k} \cdot {\bf x}}
= N e^{i {\underline k} \cdot x} B({\bf x} -{\bf x}_S),\label{box}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is a constant independent of $x$ and
$B({\bf z})$
is a
function which vanishes if
${\bf z}$ is outside of a box centered
about the origin with each dimension of length
$L_S$ and is 1 everywhere else.
The approximation in Eq. (\ref{box}) is valid for
$x^0 \ll (E_{\underline{{\bf k}}} L_S)/(2\pi|\underline{{\bf k}}|)$.
The normalization condition $\int \frac{d^3k}{(2 \pi)^3}
|\psi(k)|^2 =1$ fixes $N$ and implies
\begin{equation}
\psi_{S}(k)= {1\over\sqrt{V}}
\left[ 1- {\cal O}\left(\frac{1}{L^2
E_{\underline{{\bf k}}}^2}\right)\right] e^{i({\bf k}- {\underline{\bf k}}) \cdot {\bf x}_S}
D_S({\bf k}-{\underline{\bf k}}),
\label{eq:normal}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
D_S({\bf v}) = 8\, \frac{ \sin(v_x L_S/2) \sin(v_y L_S/2) \sin(v_z L_S/2)}{v_x
v_y v_z}.
\label{eq:boxtrans}
\end{equation}
Hence, since the box scale must be larger than the Compton wavelength
scale, these external particles will generally have ``plane wave in a
box'' type of normalization
[up to a $(2 \pi)^3
\delta^{3}({\bf k}-{\underline{\bf k}})$ type of localization factor
$D_S$].
This wave packet can be used to calculate the event rate using
\eqr{eq:amplitude} in a standard way. Since
$\psi_S$
will have a width
$2 \pi/L_S$,
smearing of any function that is proportional to momenta
whose magnitude at the peak of the distribution is of the order
$2 \pi/L_S$,
(or less) will deviate significantly from the Dirac $\delta$
smearing of that function. Fortunately, because $M_1$ and $M_2$ do
not depend on such small momenta, we can write the amplitude in the
form of \eqr{eq:usual} with
\begin{equation}
f_{S}(x, \{\bk{i} \})= \prod_j^{I_S+F_S} \left[ \frac{e^{-i(-1)^{s_j}
{\underline k_j} \cdot x}}{\sqrt{2 E_{{\underline{\bf k}}_j} V_S}}
B({\bf x}-{\bf x}_S) \right]
\label{eq:separate}
\end{equation}
(and similarly for
$f_{D}$) which is what one would use to calculate
scattering of particles confined to a box interacting with particles
that can propagate outside of the box.
Explicitly, the transition rate per source and detector particle is
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
d \Gamma & = &(2 \pi)\, \delta\left(\sum_l (-1)^{s_l} E_{\underline {{\bf k}}_l} + \sum_l (-1)^{d_l} E_{\underline {{\bf p}}_l}\right)
\prod_j^{I_S+F_S}\frac{1}{2
E_{{\underline{\bf k}_{j}}} V_S }
\prod_i^{F_D+1}\frac{1}{ 2 E_{{\underline{\bf p}_{i}}} V_D}
\prod_b^{F_S} \frac{d^3 {\underline{\bf k}}_{b} V_S}{(2 \pi)^3}
\prod_a^{F_D} \frac{d^3 {\underline{\bf p}}_{a} V_D}{(2 \pi)^3}
\nonumber \\
& &\times\left| \int \frac{d^3 {\bf s}}{(2 \pi)^3} e^{\pm i {\bf s} \cdot
({\bf y}_D -{\bf x}_S)} D_S\left(\sum_l (-1)^{s_l} {\underline{\bf k}}_l \pm {\bf s}\right)
D_D\left(\sum_l (-1)^{d_l} {\underline{\bf p}_l} \mp
{\bf s}\right) i {\cal M} \right|^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $D_S$ is defined by \eqr{eq:boxtrans},
and $D_D$ is similarly defined.
In this case, one can also use the usual heuristic box
quantization formalism to calculate the event rates including the
normalization. For pedagogical purposes we carry out this simple
exercise explicitly using
a fermion field toy model in
the Appendix.
To summarize this
section, we have shown to what extent the
neutrino ``oscillation probability'' is determined by the
production/detection wave packet-independent propagator of the field
theory. If wave packets for the production and
detection events described in \eqr{rate} satisfy suitable localization
properties and the effective mass splitting of the neutrinos is not
large compared to the momentum width of the wave packets,
the neutrino propagator determines the probability of transition as
defined by \eqr{rate}. This factoring of the wave packets out of the
transition amplitude is crucial to recover the usual quantum
mechanical picture of neutrino oscillations. Furthermore, we see how
the multiparticle nature of the field theory becomes irrelevant as the
poles of the propagator are the only states to contribute in this
limit. For this factorization to be possible, the source-detector
separation $L$ must be large enough such that the wave packets do not
vary over $1/L$ momentum perturbations about the pole momentum, and
the pole momenta splitting must be small enough such that the wave
packet amplitudes take on approximately the same value for the various
pole momenta [as discussed between \eqr{eq:a} and \eqr{eq:osccond1}].
Furthermore, since the usual quantum mechanical treatment neglects the
spin of the neutrinos, only one spin projection of the Green function
must contribute to the amplitude to recover the usual treatment. We
have seen in this section that the relativistic limit of the on shell
neutrinos and the chiral nature of the interactions ensure this. Now
that we see that wave packet dependence can be factored out (as is
implicit in the usual simple quantum mechanical treatment), we shall
concentrate on the wave packet-independent field theoretic calculation
of the MSW effect, which is encoded in the propagator within a
background medium.
\section{Effective Lagrangian}
In this section, we briefly explain the effective potential employed
in our calculation of the MSW effect. Focusing on the physics well
below the electroweak scale, we write the usual electroweak effective
Hamiltonian density as (see for example \cite{kuorev1})
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_I= \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \left( J_c^{\mu} J_{c \mu}^{\dagger} +
J_N^{\mu} J_{N \mu} \right), \label{ewham}
\end{equation}
where $J_c^{\mu}$ is the charged current and $J_N^{\mu}$ is the
neutral current. Take for example the contribution to the
neutrino-electron interaction of the form
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_I = \frac{4 G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \bar{\nu}_e \gamma^\mu P_L
\nu_e \bar{e} \gamma_\mu P_L e,
\label{eq:enuint}
\end{equation}
which will be dominant for the MSW effect. We can distinguish two
different types of scattering: forward scattering, for which the
background particles do not change their momenta; and non-forward
scattering. In calculating our transition rate, we will not account
for
non-forward scattering contributions
because these can be considered to be
separate production events.
With this restriction, in expanding the S-matrix perturbatively,
the main background contribution will come from the
expectation values of \eqr{eq:enuint} taken with respect to the
electron background states. The scattering amplitude will then receive
contributions proportional to powers of
\begin{equation}
\langle V_\mu^e \rangle \equiv 2 \sqrt{2} G_F \langle n |
\bar{e} \gamma_\mu P_L e| n \rangle
\end{equation}
where $n$ labels some many-body background electron state (not
necessarily translationally invariant). Note that the right hand side
is proportional to the left handed electron current of state $|n
\rangle$.
In an experimental setting, we are really interested in ensemble
averages of the probabilities (not the averages of the $S$
matrix). However, for
macroscopic numbers of electrons, we expect the main contribution to
come from a set of degenerate states having the same spatial
localization as the
macroscopic
distribution function. This
approximation will break down if the density matrix is not sharply
peaked about one set of states giving degenerate contributions to the
scattering amplitude.
We will assume that such a peaked distribution
exists, and we will merely assign
macroscopic
currents to the
expectation value of currents that will arise in the scattering
amplitude calculation.
This means that
we will replace the interaction Hamiltonian
density of \eqr{eq:enuint} with the effective density
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_I^{\rm eff} = \frac{4 G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \bar{\nu}_e \gamma^\mu P_L
\nu_e J_\mu^e \label{nueeff}
\end{equation}
where $J_\mu^e$ is the
macroscopic
left-handed electron current.
For example, for an unpolarized $e^{\pm}$ background one
would employ---based on consideration of the sum over spin states
of single particle expectation
values of $\bar e \gamma^\mu P_L e$, for example---the
following expression:
\begin{equation}
J_\mu^e = {1\over 2}\int {d^3{\bf p}\over (2\pi)^3}\left[
f_{e^-}({\bf p})-f_{e^+}({\bf p})\right]{p_\mu\over E_{{\bf p}}},
\end{equation}
where the $f_{e^\pm}({\bf p})$ are the usual distribution functions,
including a factor of two for spin degeneracy.
As usual, this procedure neglects higher order
correlations.
Note that for electrons in thermal equilibrium, our prescription, e.g.
\begin{equation}
\langle V_\mu^e \rangle = \sqrt{2}G_F(n_{e^-}-n_{e^+}) \delta_{\mu 0}
\end{equation}
gives the same mass shift as
the real time thermal field formalism
employed by \cite{notraf}.
As another example, the effective potential due to background neutrinos
is of interest in the envelope of a supernova/nascent neutron star, where
the neutrino flavor composition can affect, for example,
the explosion mechanism \cite{fuller} or the outcome of possible heavy
element nucleosynthesis \cite{qf1,qf2}. In addition to the $e^\pm$ background,
we must consider neutrino-neutrino forward scattering arising from
another term in Eq. (\ref{ewham}),
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_I = {G_F\over \sqrt{2}}\sum_{i,j}\bar{\nu}_i \gamma^\mu P_L
\nu_i \bar{\nu}_j \gamma_\mu P_L \nu_j, \label{nunu}
\end{equation}
where the indices $i,j$ label the mass eigenstate fields.
We work in the mass basis because the external
neutrino background consists of on shell states, a point whose
consequences were emphasized in Ref. \cite{sigl} (see also Ref.
{\cite{qf2}, and references in these).
As seen previously, in the perturbative expansion of the S-matrix we
will have occasion to take a background expectation value of
this interaction (this time with respect to a many-body
background neutrino state). Two of the neutrino fields will
be paired with fields in the ``production'' and ``detection''
interactions, leaving two other fields whose background
expectation value is taken:
\begin{equation}
\langle {\cal H}_I \rangle =
{G_F\over \sqrt{2}}\sum_{i,j}2 \bar{\nu}_i \gamma^\mu P_L
\nu_i \langle \bar{\nu}_j \gamma_\mu P_L \nu_j\rangle
+ {G_F\over \sqrt{2}}\sum_{i,j} 2 \bar{\nu}_i \gamma^\mu P_L
\langle\nu_i \bar{\nu}_j\rangle \gamma_\mu P_L \nu_j. \label{nunuave}
\end{equation}
While the correspondence of the expectation value in the first
term of Eq. (\ref{nunuave}) with a macroscopic current is apparent,
the meaning of the second term is less clear.
We seek guidance
by considering the expectation values with respect to the single
particle neutrino states $|{\bf q}\,s\,\nu_k\rangle$ of momentum ${\bf q}$,
spin $s$, and mass $m_k$.
The expectation value in the first term of Eq. (\ref{nunuave})
is
\begin{equation}
\langle{\bf q}\,s\,\nu_k | \bar\nu_j\gamma^\mu P_L \nu_j
|{\bf q}\,s\,\nu_k\rangle = {\delta_{jk}\over(2\pi)^3(2E_{\vq})}
\bar u({\bf q}\,s\,\nu_k)\gamma^\mu P_L u({\bf q}\,s\,\nu_k).\label{eval1}
\end{equation}
We consider a relativistic neutrino background, so that to leading
order there are only negative helicity states; then the momentum
space spinors in Eq. (\ref{eval1}) are approximately
\begin{equation}
u({\bf q}\,s\,\nu_k) \simeq \pmatrix{\sqrt{2E_{\vq}}\xi^-(\hat{\bf q})\cr 0},
\ \ \ \ \ \xi^-(\hat{\bf q}) = \pmatrix{-\sin(\theta/2)e^{-i\phi}
\cr \cos(\theta/2)}, \label{spinor}
\end{equation}
where $(\theta,\phi)$ denote the polar and azimuthal angles that
define $\hat{\bf q}$.
The first term in Eq. (\ref{nunuave}) becomes
\begin{equation}
{G_F\over \sqrt{2}}\sum_{i,j}2 \bar{\nu}_i \gamma^\mu P_L
\nu_i \langle \bar{\nu}_j \gamma_\mu P_L \nu_j\rangle =
\sqrt{2} G_F \sum_{i,j} \chi_i^\dagger {\delta_{jk}\over
(2\pi)^3}{q_\mu \bar\sigma^\mu \over E_{\vq}}\chi_i,\label{term1}
\end{equation}
where $\chi_i$ denotes the upper two components of $P_L\nu_i$
and $\bar\sigma^\mu = (1,-\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$})$.
Turning to the second term in Eq. (\ref{nunuave}),
one finds
\begin{equation}
\langle{\bf q}\,s\,\nu_k | \nu_i\bar \nu_j
|{\bf q}\,s\,\nu_k\rangle = -{\delta_{ik}\delta_{jk}
\over(2\pi)^3(2E_{\vq})}
u({\bf q}\,s\,\nu_k)\bar u({\bf q}\,s\,\nu_k).
\end{equation}
Employing Eq. (\ref{spinor}), the second term in Eq. (\ref{nunuave})
becomes
\begin{equation}
{G_F\over \sqrt{2}}\sum_{i,j}2 \bar{\nu}_i \gamma^\mu P_L
\langle \nu_i \bar{\nu}_j\rangle \gamma_\mu P_L \nu_j =
\sqrt{2} G_F \chi_k^\dagger {\delta_{ik}\delta_{jk}\over
(2\pi)^3}{q_\mu \bar\sigma^\mu \over E_{\vq}}\chi_k.\label{term2}
\end{equation}
Noting the similarity between Eqs. (\ref{term1}) and (\ref{term2}),
in the relativistic limit we replace the Hamiltonian density of
Eq. (\ref{nunu}) with the effective density
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_I^{\rm eff} = \sqrt{2}G_F \sum_{i,j}\bar\nu_i
J_{\nu_j}^\mu \gamma_\mu
P_L \nu_i + \sqrt{2}G_F \sum_i
\bar\nu_i J_{\nu_i}^\mu\gamma_\mu
P_L \nu_i, \label{nunueff}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
J_{\nu_i}^\mu = \int {d^3{\bf p}\over (2\pi)^3}\left[
f_{\nu_i}({\bf p})-f_{\bar\nu_i}({\bf p})\right]{p^\mu\over E_{{\bf p}}}.
\label{jnu}
\end{equation}
The flavor fields $\nu_\alpha$
are related to the mass eigenstate fields $\nu_i$
by $\nu_\alpha = \sum_i U_{\alpha i}\nu_i$, where
the $U_{\alpha i}$ are elements of a unitary matrix.
In the limit of vanishing mixing angles $(U_{\alpha i}=
\delta_{\alpha i})$ and a thermal background, the effective
interaction of Eq. (\ref{nunueff}) gives the same mass shifts
as obtained in Ref. \cite{notraf}.
For nontrivial mixing, however,
in terms of the flavor fields Eq. (\ref{nunueff}) becomes
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_I^{\rm eff} = \sqrt{2}G_F \sum_{\alpha,j}
\bar\nu_\alpha J_{\nu_j}^\mu\gamma_\mu
P_L \nu_\alpha + \sqrt{2}G_F \sum_{\alpha,\beta}
\bar\nu_\alpha\left(U_{\alpha i} J_{\nu_i}^\mu
U_{i\beta}\right)\gamma_\mu
P_L \nu_\beta. \label{nunueff2}
\end{equation}
Considered as a matrix in flavor space, the quantity in parentheses
in the second term of Eq. (\ref{nunueff2}) contains
off-diagonal elements. It is clear from our derivation that
the presence of these off-diagonal terms
derives from the fact that the background neutrinos are
mass eigenstates, since they must be on shell. This origin
of off-diagonal flavor space terms in the background
potential due to neutrino-neutrino scattering was
pointed out in Ref. \cite{sigl}.
In calculations of the effects of neutrino flavor oscillations in
the supernova environment, the supernova core is typically treated
as a stationary source of neutrinos free-streaming from a
``neutrinosphere,'' with the flux at the neutrinosphere being
taken from large-scale numerical computations.
Since the neutrinos forming the background also undergo flavor
transformation, self-consistency between the oscillation probability
and the background must be achieved.
Following the framework of Ref. \cite{sigl}, such a calculation
was carried out in Ref. \cite{qf2} in the quantum mechanical picture
of neutrino oscillations. This involved a rather complicated
procedure involving a
flavor basis density matrix to describe the
neutrinos above the neutrinosphere.
Casual inspection of the form of the second term in
Eq. (\ref{nunuave}) would seem to make this kind of approach necessary.
However, having shown that this term can plausibly be written in
terms of a macroscopic mass basis current,
we see that the self-consistency between neutrino background
and oscillation probability is most easily achieved by working in
the mass eigenstate basis.\footnote{It would seem reasonable
to define neutrino flavor distribution functions in the relativistic
limit. While {\em at the emission point} (i.e. the neutrinosphere)
one could argue that these would be related to the mass basis
distribution functions by $f_{\nu_i}({\bf p}) = \sum_\alpha
|U_{\alpha i}|^2 f_{\nu_\alpha}$, at points above the neutrinosphere
the relation between these sets of distribution functions is
rather complicated, due to the flavor/mass oscillations of
free-streaming neutrinos in a background. The resulting absence of
a simple connection
between the macroscopic flavor and mass neutrino currents at
arbitrary position to plug into Eq. (\ref{nunueff2}) makes working in
the mass basis seem much more straightforward.}
Given effective interaction Hamiltonians like
Eqs. (\ref{nueeff}) and (\ref{nunueff}), the oscillation probability can be
computed (in any basis)
as described in Secs. \ref{sec:cback} and \ref{sec:vback}.
We write Eq. (\ref{jnu}) as
\begin{equation}
J^\mu_{\nu_i}(r)=
\int {E_{{\bf p}}^2\, d E_{{\bf p}}\, d(\cos\theta) d\phi \over
(2\pi)^3}\,\left[ f_{\nu_i}(E_{{\bf p}},\cos\theta,r)
- f_{\bar\nu_i}(E_{{\bf p}},\cos\theta,r)\right]
{p^\mu\over E_{{\bf p}} },
\end{equation}
where
$p^\mu=(E_{{\bf p}},\,\hat{\bf p} E_{{\bf p}} )$,
$r$ is the radial position of a point above the neutrinosphere,
and $\theta$ is the
angle between the neutrino momentum and the radial
direction at the point with radial position $r$.
Since the neutrinos
are free-streaming, the distribution functions at $r$ can be expressed
simply in terms of the ``known'' neutrino
distribution functions at the neutrinosphere, e.g.:
\begin{equation}
f_{\nu_i}(E_{{\bf p}},\cos\theta,r)=\sum_{\nu_j}
f_{\nu_j}(E_{{\bf p}},\cos\psi,R)\, P_{\nu_j
\rightarrow \nu_i}(E_{{\bf p}},\cos\theta,r),
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the radius of the neutrinosphere, and $\psi$
is the angle of the neutrino emission with respect to
the radial direction at the emission point; this angle is
related to $\theta$ by
$\cos\psi = \sqrt{1-[(r/R)\sin\theta]^2}$.
The dependence of the oscillation probabilities
on path length (and the background encountered on
a particular path) are implicit in the $r,\theta$
dependence.
With an iterative procedure,
self-consistency between the macroscopic
neutrino currents and the oscillation
probabilities should be achieved.
\section{Constant Background}
\label{sec:cback}
Having constructed effective interaction Hamiltonians as
described in the last section,
we
employ the neutrino effective Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = \bar\nu \left[\gamma^\mu(i\partial_\mu - V_\mu P_{L}) - M\right] \nu,
\end{equation}
where $M$ is the mass matrix and $V_\mu$ is a uniform background potential
matrix.
We
make no assumptions about the number of neutrino generations
or the structure of the potential matrix (other than to keep in mind that
it might be singular). The canonical anticommutation relations yield the
equation satisfied by the Green's function $G(x,y)$,
\begin{equation}
\left[\gamma^\mu(i\partial_\mu - V_\mu P_{L}) - M\right] G(x,y) = \delta^4(x-y),
\label{green}
\end{equation}
where $i\,G(x,y)\equiv \langle T{\psi(x)\bar\psi(y)}\rangle_0$.
With our convention for the $\gamma$ matrices it is convenient
to define the $2\times 2$ (in spinor space)
matrices $G_{IJ}$, the ``chiral blocks''
of the Green's function. Specifically, $G_{IJ}$ is the nonzero
$2\times 2$ submatrix of $P_I G P_J$, where $I,J$ can take the values
$L,R$.
In Sec. II we noted that, with the assumption of V-A interactions,
$G_{LR}$ is the object of interest.
We also saw in Sec. II that with the assumption of stationarity it
is natural to Fourier transform the time variable while maintaining
interest in the spatial dependence of the Green's function.
Defining $J = M^{-1} G_{RR}$, from Eq. (\ref{green}) we find
\begin{equation}
G_{LR}(\omega,{\bf x},{\bf y}) = (\omega + i\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} \cdot
\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$})
J(\omega,{\bf x},{\bf y}), \label{glr}
\end{equation}
where $f(x,y) = \int{d\omega\over 2\pi}\, e^{-i\omega(x^0-y^0)}
f(\omega, {\bf x},{\bf y})$.
In the context of neutrino oscillation experiments we are in interested
in well-separated source and detector positions, so we ignore terms
in $J$ with more than one factor of $|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|$ in the denominator,
\begin{eqnarray}
J(\omega,{\bf x},{\bf y}) &=& \int {d^3 p \over (2\pi)^3}\, e^{i{\bf p} \cdot
({\bf x}-{\bf y})} \,J(\omega, {\bf p}) \nonumber \\
&=& \int_0^{\infty} {du \, u^2 \over (2\pi)^3} \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi \,
{1\over i u |{\bf x}-{\bf y}|} \left[ e^{iu|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|} J(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r})
\right.\nonumber\\
& &\left. - e^{-iu|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|} J(\omega, u,\hat{\bf p}=-\hat{\bf r}) +
{\cal O}\left(J\over u|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|\right)\right], \label{j1}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have integrated the $\cos\theta$ integral by parts, and
defined $u\equiv |{\bf p}|$ and $\hat{\bf r}\equiv ({\bf x}-{\bf y})/|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|$.
It is evident that the two leading terms are azimuthally symmetric, and
that their the sum is even in $u$.
Furthermore, the Feynman boundary conditions should ensure
that the two leading terms give equal contributions. We then have
\begin{equation}
J(\omega,{\bf x},{\bf y}) \simeq {1\over (2\pi)^2 i |{\bf x}-{\bf y}|}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} du\, u\, e^{iu|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|}
J(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r}). \label{jxy}
\end{equation}
From Eq. (\ref{green}), we find that $J$ obeys the momentum
space equation
\begin{equation}
\left[\omega^2 - |{\bf p}|^2 - M^2 - \omega V^0 + {\bf p} \cdot {\bf V}
+ \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}
\cdot \left(V^0{\bf p} - \omega{\bf V} + i {\bf V} \times
{\bf p}\right)\right] J(\omega,{\bf p}) = 1, \label{jmom}
\end{equation}
or $D(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r}) J(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r}) = 1$.
Detailed expressions for the spinor space elements of
$D(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r})$
for general orientation of ${\bf r}$ are not particularly illuminating.
However, it is easy to formally express
the spinor space elements of $J(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r})$
in terms of the elements of $D$:
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{11}(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r})&=& \left[ D^{11} - D^{12}(D^{22})^{-1}
D^{21}\right]^{-1}, \label{j11}\\
J^{22}(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r})&=& \left[ D^{22} - D^{21}(D^{11})^{-1}
D^{12}\right]^{-1}, \label{j22}\\
J^{12}(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r})&=& -(D^{11})^{-1}D^{12}J^{22},\\
J^{21}(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r})&=& -(D^{22})^{-1}D^{21}J^{11}.
\end{eqnarray}
These results are valid without any relativistic limit
assumptions.
Given specific mass and potential matrices, one could solve explicitly
for $J(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r})$. To study neutrino oscillations,
we then need $J(\omega,{\bf x},{\bf y})$, whose behavior is seen from Eq. (\ref{jxy})
to be determined by the
poles of $J(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r})$ with positive imaginary part
(as determined by the Feynman boundary conditions).
A few general comments regarding these poles are in order. Consider for example
$J^{22}$,
which can be expressed
\begin{equation}
J^{22}(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r}) = ({\rm det\ } D^{11})
\left[({\rm det\ } D^{11}) D^{22} - D^{21}(C^{11})^T
D^{12}\right]^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $(C^{11})^T$ is the transpose of the matrix of cofactors of
$D^{11}$. Since the diagonal elements of $D^{11}$ and $D^{22}$ are
second order in $u$, $({\rm det\ } D^{11})$ is of order $2n$ in
$u$, where $n$ is the number of neutrino generations; and overall the
denominator of $J^{22}(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=+\hat{\bf r})$ will be a polynomial
of order $4n$ in $u$. This is sensible in terms of a quasiparticle picture
associated with the propagator: Each neutrino field, with two spin states
each for particles and antiparticles, represents four states. For a single
vacuum field the masses of these four states are degenerate; however,
the presence of a parity
and rotational invariance
violating potential breaks this degeneracy.
Let us examine the simplifications that occur in the relativistic limit
and with source and detector localization.
In
the relativistic
limit the poles contributing to the integral in Eq. (\ref{jxy})
take the form
\begin{equation}
u \simeq |\omega| - {\tilde m^2\over 2|\omega|} + i\epsilon,
\end{equation}
with the Feynman boundary conditions imposed by giving the
``masses'' $\tilde m^2$ a small negative imaginary part. (There are also
negative poles, with negative imaginary parts, that do not contribute
to the integral; these factors each become $\simeq 2|\omega|$
when evaluated at the positive poles.)
Furthermore, following the discussion of Sec. \ref{sec:general}
regarding spatial localization,
Eq. (\ref{jxy}) takes the
form
\begin{equation}
J(\omega,{\bf x},{\bf y}) \simeq {2|\omega|\,e^{i \omega \hat{\bf L} \cdot({\bf x}-{\bf y})}
\over 4\pi |{\bf x}_S-{\bf y}_D|}
\sum_j
e^{-i{\tilde m_j^2\over2|\omega|}|{\bf x}_S-{\bf y}_D|}
\left. \left[\left(u - |\omega| + {\tilde m_j^2\over 2|\omega|}\right)
J\left(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=\frac{\omega}{|\omega|}\hat{\bf L}\right)\right]
\right|_{u\rightarrow
|\omega| - {\tilde m_j^2\over 2|\omega|}}, \label{jxy2}
\end{equation}
where the sum is over the poles with positive imaginary parts.
We recall that $\omega$ is fixed
by energy delta functions, to a positive value
for neutrino oscillations and a negative value
for antineutrino oscillations.
Because the spatial localization sets
$\hat{\bf r}=\pm \hat{\bf L}$
(with $\hat{\bf L}$ taken to be the third spatial
direction), the matrix $D$ takes the relatively simple spinor space form
\begin{equation}
\left[D\left(\omega,u,\hat{\bf p}=\frac{\omega}{|\omega|} \hat{\bf L}\right)\right]=
\pmatrix{d -\omega\left(1 - {u\over|\omega|}\right)V^0 + \omega
\left({u\over|\omega|}-1\right)V^3 &
-\omega \left(1 + {u\over|\omega|}\right)(V^1 - iV^2) \cr
-\omega\left(1 - {u\over|\omega|}\right)(V^1 + iV^2) &
d - \omega\left(1 +
{u\over|\omega|}\right)V^0 + \omega\left( {u\over|\omega|} + 1\right)V^3}.
\label{dmatrix}
\end{equation}
where $d \equiv \omega^2-u^2-M^2$.
Next we examine the momentum space pole structure of
$J^{22}$ in the relativistic limit. In
\eqr{j22},
since the residues of only the positive poles contribute, we can replace $u$ by
$|\omega|$ whenever it multiplies a component of $V^\mu$, committing errors
of only ${\cal O}(\omega V^0 /\omega^2)$ or less with respect to
other terms present. In that case, $D_{21}$ vanishes and
$J^{22}\rightarrow (D^{22})^{-1}$
with
\begin{equation}
D^{22} \rightarrow \omega^2 - u^2 - M^2 - \frac{\omega}{|\omega|} 2 q \cdot V
\label{d22}\\
\end{equation}
where $q =(|\omega|,\hat{\bf L} |\omega|)$ is the same as the neutrino
momentum defined just below \eqr{detamp}.
We note that the denominator of $J^{22}$ is now only
of order $2n$ in $u$; thus in the relativistic case, two of the
quasiparticle propagating states are projected out.
This is because in the relativistic limit the
spin states naturally coincide with the chiral states.
This is confirmed by noting
that in Eq. (\ref{j22}), for example ($\omega >0$ case), as
$D^{21}\rightarrow 0$ as $u\rightarrow \omega$, half of the poles
contributing to $J^{22}$ come from (det $D^{11}) \rightarrow 0$.
But for $u\rightarrow \omega$, $D^{11} \rightarrow \omega^2 - u^2
-M^2$. Thus these poles correspond to the vacuum masses; these are
the right handed particle states and left handed antiparticle states
whose masses are unaffected by the left handed effective potential.
As $D^{21}$ reaches zero, the contribution of these poles vanishes completely.
For $|\omega||{\bf x}-{\bf y}|\gg 1$, Eq. (\ref{glr}) becomes
\begin{equation}
G_{LR}(\omega,{\bf x},{\bf y}) \simeq \omega (1 - \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}
\cdot \hat{\bf L})
J(\omega,{\bf x},{\bf y}). \label{glr2}
\end{equation}
Since we have chosen $\hat{\bf L} =({\bf y}_D-{\bf x}_S)/|{\bf y}_D-{\bf x}_S|$ to coincide
with the third spatial
dimension,
the only nonzero component of
$G_{LR}$ is $G_{LR}^{22}$ which for neutrino oscillations is
$G_{LR}^{22}(|\omega|;{\bf y},{\bf x}) =
2|\omega| J^{22}(|\omega|,{\bf y},{\bf x})$,
where the spinor space indices are exhibited and the mass/flavor
indices are suppressed (note that $J^{21}$ vanishes),
and for antineutrino oscillations is $G_{LR}^{22}(-|\omega|;{\bf x},{\bf y}) =
-2 |\omega| J^{22}(-|\omega|,{\bf x},{\bf y})$.
Thus we see that the Green's function takes the required form
of Eqs. (\ref{gform}).
The matrix
$M^2 + 2q\cdot V$ (or $M^2 - 2 q\cdot V$) of \eqr{d22} is precisely
the effective mass matrix $\tilde M^2$
appearing in the usual quantum mechanical
model of neutrino (or antineutrino) oscillations. The effective mass matrix
can be diagonalized by a unitary transformation, $\tilde U \tilde M^2
\tilde U^\dagger=1$.
Thus for neutrino oscillations,
for example,
\begin{equation}
(D^{22})^{-1}_{\beta\alpha} = \tilde U_{\beta j} \tilde
U_{\alpha j}^* (\omega^2 - u^2 - \tilde m_j^2+i\epsilon)^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $\tilde U_{\beta j}$ are the elements of $\tilde U$
and $\tilde m_j^2$ are
the eigenvalues of $\tilde M^2$.
Then Eq. (\ref{glr2}) becomes, using Eq. (\ref{jxy2}),
\begin{equation}
G_{LR}^{\beta\alpha}
(\omega,{\bf y},{\bf x}) = -|\omega|(1 - \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}
\cdot \hat{\bf L})
{e^{i|\omega|\hat{\bf L}\cdot({\bf y}-{\bf x})} \over 4\pi |{\bf y}_D-{\bf x}_S|}
\sum_j \tilde U_{\beta j} \tilde
U_{\alpha j}^*
e^{-i{\tilde m_j^2\over2|\omega|}|{\bf y}_D-{\bf x}_S|} \label{glr3},
\end{equation}
where we have assumed that the various conditions discussed
in Sec. II are satisfied. Comparison
of Eq. (\ref{glr3}) with Eqs. (\ref{gform},\ref{oscprob})
shows that the oscillation probability derived here is precisely
the same as that found in the usual quantum mechanical model.
The antineutrino case works out in a similar manner.
\section{Nonuniform Background}
\label{sec:vback}
In this section we consider the case in which the
effective potential $V^\mu=V^\mu({\bf x})$, that is, we allow
it to vary in space (but not time).
From Eqs. (\ref{glr3}),(\ref{gform}), and (\ref{oscprob}),
it is clear that in the constant potential case the
portion of the Green's function comprising the
oscillation amplitude obeys a Schr\"{o}dinger-type equation,
the same one used in the standard quantum mechanical picture.
While one might think to simply replace the constant potential
in this Schr\"odinger equation with a spatially
varying one---thus arriving immediately at the standard
result---we shall go back a little further in order to
see what is being left out in the process.
In allowing for spatial variation in $V^\mu$,
Eqs. (\ref{glr}-\ref{jxy})
are unchanged; but Eq. (\ref{jmom}) becomes an integral
equation, as $J(\omega,{\bf p})$ must be convolved with the
momentum space dependence of $V^\mu$.
Since such equations are difficult to deal with
nonperturbatively, in this section, we
take a different route of working with a partial
differential equation in coordinate space. The coordinate space
version of Eq. (\ref{jxy}) is
\begin{equation}
\left[\omega^2 +\nabla^2
- M^2 - \omega V^0({\bf x}) -i{\bf V}({\bf x})\cdot\right.${\boldmath $\nabla$}$
-i ${\boldmath $\sigma$}$ \cdot \left(V^0({\bf x})\right.${\boldmath $\nabla$}$
-i\omega{\bf V}({\bf x}) + i {\bf V}({\bf x}) \times
${\boldmath $\nabla$}$\left.\left.\right)\right] J(\omega,{\bf x},{\bf y}) =
\delta^3({\bf x}-{\bf y}). \label{jxy3}
\end{equation}
Unlike in the case of an integral equation, to define the Green's
function using this equation, we must also separately specify the
boundary condition. We shall assume that the production region is
localized to a region of adiabatically constant potential.
Furthermore, since we expect the virtual particles to all have the
same phase just after being produced, our boundary condition
prescription will be that the the Green's function $J$ asymptote to
the constant potential Green's function on an infinitesimal sphere
centered about ${\bf y}$.\footnote{Note that one must match more than just
the limiting singularity of the Green's function at ${\bf x}={\bf y}$ to
define a unique solution.}
The form of Eq. (\ref{jxy}), together with our experience in the
vacuum and constant potential cases, suggests that in the
relativistic limit [$M^2/2|\omega|^2 \ll 1,
V|\omega|/|\omega|^2 \ll
1$ where we suppressed the matrix indices]
we look for solutions of $J$ of the form
\begin{equation}
J(\omega,{\bf x},{\bf y})=-{e^{i|\omega||{\bf x}-{\bf y}|}\over 4\pi|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|}
F(\omega,{\bf x},{\bf y}). \label{jf}
\end{equation}
With this substitution,
\begin{eqnarray}
(\nabla^2+\omega^2) J &=& \delta^3({\bf x}-{\bf y}) e^{i|\omega||{\bf x}-{\bf y}|}
F - {2|\omega|\,e^{i|\omega||{\bf x}-{\bf y}|}\over 4\pi|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|}
\left[{1\over 2|\omega|} \nabla^2 F + i (\hat{\bf r} \cdot
\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} F) - {1
\over |\omega||{\bf x}-{\bf y}|}(\hat{\bf r} \cdot
\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} F)\right], \label{ddj} \\
\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} J &=&
- {2|\omega|\,e^{i|\omega||{\bf x}-{\bf y}|}\over 4\pi|{\bf x}-{\bf y}|}
\left[ {i\hat{\bf r} \over 2}F + {1\over 2|\omega|}
\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} F - {\hat{\bf r}
\over 2|\omega||{\bf x}-{\bf y}|} F\right], \label{dj}
\end{eqnarray}
where as before $\hat{\bf r} \equiv {({\bf x}-{\bf y})/ |{\bf x}-{\bf y}|}$.
Requiring the first term on the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{ddj})
to cancel the delta function in Eq. (\ref{jxy3}) gives a
boundary condition on $F$, namely (restoring flavor indices)
\begin{equation}
F^{\beta\alpha}(\omega,{\bf x},{\bf y})|_{{\bf x}\rightarrow{\bf y}} = \delta^{\beta\alpha}.
\label{bc}
\end{equation}
Aside from this boundary condition, we are interested in
well-separated ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf y}$
(specifically $|\omega||{\bf x}-{\bf y}|\gg 1$), so that we
may ignore the last term of Eqs. (\ref{ddj}) and (\ref{dj}).
Then Eq. (\ref{jxy3}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
i (\hat{\bf r} \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} F) +
{1\over 2|\omega|} \nabla^2 F - {1\over 2|\omega|}
\left[M^2 + \omega V^0 - |\omega|(\hat{\bf r} \cdot {\bf V})
\right.& &\nonumber\\
\left.- \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}
\cdot \left(V^0|\omega|\hat{\bf r} - \omega{\bf V} +
i |\omega|{\bf V} \times
\hat{\bf r} \right)\right] F + {\cal O}\left({V|\omega|
\over |\omega|^2}|\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} F|\right)&=&0,
\label{ddf}
\end{eqnarray}
where in accordance with the relativistic condition
$V|\omega|/|\omega|^2 \ll 1$,
we will neglect the terms represented by
${\cal O}(V|\omega||\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} F|
/ |\omega|^2)$ in comparison with the
first term of Eq. (\ref{ddf}).
One can distinguish three cases: (1)
$|\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} F| \gg \epsilon F$, where
$\epsilon = V^0 + \tilde{M}^2/(2|\omega|)$ and
$\tilde{M}^2$ denotes the largest mass matrix eigenvalue squared;
(2)
$|\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} F| \sim \epsilon F$; and
(3) $|\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} F| \ll \epsilon F$.
One can
argue that case (1) is not interesting since all
terms leading to flavor mixing are rendered negligible. Case (3) is
also not of present interest because one can argue using
Eq. (\ref{ddf}) that it violates our relativistic assumption. In
case (2),
$|\nabla^2 F/(2|\omega|)|$ can be neglected compared with
$| \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} F|$,
provided that
$|\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} V^0|/\epsilon^2
\lesssim 1$.
Writing $F' \equiv \hat{\bf r}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} F$,
Eq. (\ref{ddf}) becomes
\begin{equation}
iF' + {1\over 2|\omega|} D(|\omega|,{\bf x})F = 0, \label{fprime}
\end{equation}
where the spinor space elements of $D(|\omega|,{\bf x})$
for the particular
case when ${\bf x}$ lies along the third spatial axis $\hat{\bf L}$ are given by
Eq. (\ref{dmatrix}) with $V\rightarrow V({\bf x})$ and $u\rightarrow
|\omega|$.
Since Eq. (\ref{glr2}) holds under the
assumptions of case (2), together with the spatial localization
of the source and detector, we see that
$G_{LR}^{22}$ is the only nonvanishing component. Hence, from
Eqs. (\ref{fprime}),(\ref{jf}),(\ref{gform}), and (\ref{oscprob}), we
find that the neutrino oscillation amplitude $H$ obeys the
Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{equation}
iH' = {1\over 2|\omega|}\left[M^2 + 2 q \cdot V({\bf x})\right]H,
\end{equation}
where $q = (|\omega|,\hat{\bf L}|\omega|)$.
Similarly, in the case of antineutrino oscillations
$(\omega < 0)$, the oscillation amplitude obeys
\begin{equation}
i\bar H' = {1\over 2|\omega|}\left[M^2 - 2 q \cdot V({\bf x})\right]\bar H.
\end{equation}
Before concluding this section, a remark
regarding the boundary conditions is in order. Note that $F$ of
\eqr{fprime} satisfying the boundary condition \eqr{bc} is in general
different from $F$ satisfying \eqr{jxy3} with its associated boundary
condition [described just below \eqr{jxy3}]. In particular, although
\eqr{fprime} is valid naively only far away from ${\bf y}$, as we threw
out the last terms of Eqs. (\ref{ddj}) and (\ref{dj}), we still
insisted on the boundary condition \eqr{bc} at ${\bf y}$ to be the same as
the boundary condition that would have been used for the exact
equation. To justify this, we must show that the terms that we threw
out are negligible even near the origin. We can argue this by noting
that for
case (2),
we are already assuming $|{\boldmath \nabla}
V^0|/\epsilon^2 \lesssim 1$ which turns out to imply (by expanding the
potential to linear order in Taylor series about ${\bf y}$) that in the
relativistic limit the fractional variation of $V^0$ is much smaller
than 1 until $|\omega ({\bf x} - {\bf y})| \gg 1$ (after which the terms
proportional to $1/|{\bf x} - {\bf y}|$ that we threw out are negligible).
That means that the potential can be treated as a constant until the
terms proportional to $1/|{\bf x} - {\bf y}|$ become negligible. This implies
that one can place the boundary condition for the varying potential
case on a sphere (centered about ${\bf y}$) on which \eqr{fprime} is valid
using the solution to the constant potential case. As we saw in the
last section, since the exact solution to the constant potential case
on this sphere (with the appropriate boundary condition) is, up to
relativistically suppressed terms, the same as the solution obtained by
\eqr{fprime} with \eqr{bc}, we can just set the boundary condition for
the varying potential case using \eqr{bc} as well. Note, however,
that since our argument depends on the adiabaticity of the potential
near the virtual particle production point, in other situations, one
may need to be more cautious with the boundary conditions.
Thus under appropriate conditions the results of the usual simplified
picture are confirmed, including the boundary condition
$H^{\beta\alpha}(\omega,{\bf x},{\bf y})|_{{\bf y}\rightarrow{\bf x}}=
\delta^{\beta\alpha}$.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conc}
Starting from quantum field theory (QFT), we have
defined a physically meaningful flavor oscillation
probability; determined that portion of the neutrino
propagator that comprises the oscillation amplitude; and
derived the
``Schr\"{o}dinger equation'' for
that amplitude
in the
presence of spatially varying background matter. As expected, the
``Schr\"{o}dinger equation'' really corresponds to a time independent
one since its derivation depends on the time-independence of the
effective potential.
In fact, the usual quantum mechanical approach is only really suited to
problems in which oscillations occur in space only (that is, stationary
systems like that studied here) or time only (e.g. the thermal bath
in the early universe). While we have
assumed the stationary case here, the basic framework could also be
used to study oscillations in space in the presence of a
time-dependent background. Ultimately, the description of flavor
oscillating neutrinos in space and time in more general
systems---i.e. those that do not lend themselves to interpretation
in terms of a ``source'' and ``detector''---would require a
formulation in terms of density matrices (cf. Ref. \cite{sigl})
or Wigner functions (cf. Ref. \cite{sireraperez}).
For situations that can be interpreted in terms of a
``source'' and ``detector,''
we have also reviewed the conditions under which QFT will be useful in
describing the neutrino oscillation process.\footnote{
Many of these conditions were noted in Refs.
\cite{rich,grimusstock,camp,kier,cohere,ioapilaf}. }
As long as we are looking in the regime in
which the virtual neutrino goes on shell (rendering any propagator
radiative corrections to be negligible or be merely a constant shift),
the many body aspect of QFT is rendered irrelevant. In that case,
only the production/detection vertex structure and the spins of the
neutrinos are missing from the usual quantum mechanical treatment.
These, in general, are less difficult to accommodate in the quantum
mechanical treatment than the many body effects. Still, we believe
them to be more straightforwardly accommodated in the quantum field
theoretical treatment. For weak interactions, the chiral nature of the
interactions combined with the relativistic nature of the on shell
neutrinos suppresses all but one spin degree of freedom. Finally, the
smallness of the neutrino mass splittings as well as the neutrinos
going on shell allows one to factor out the production/detection part
of the neutrino scattering process from the ``oscillation'' part,
reducing the problem to the usual
quantum mechanical
system
involving a single spinless particle.
To state this another way, we have argued that
in the context of stationary systems,
the quantum field
theoretic formulation used in this work is not of much use except when
one or more of the following is true: the on-shell neutrino momentum
is nonrelativistic, the production or detection vertices are
non-chiral, the external particle wave packets vary appreciably about
the pole value (value of the wave packet evaluated at the neutrino
momenta) over momentum variations order of the inverse source-detector
distance $1/L$, or the effective mass splittings (determined by the
effective potential including the background matter contributions) are
large compared to the spread in the momenta of the external
production/detection particles.
When the neutrinos are non-relativistic or the interactions are not
chiral, more than one spin contributes per amplitude. In that case
the usual quantum mechanical treatment must be modified to incorporate
the effects due to the various spin components.
In particular, in this case
an oscillation probability cannot be determined
apart from the production and detection processes since
two neutrino spin contributions are summed before the amplitude is
squared.
This is, of course,
automatically accounted for in a quantum field theoretic treatment.
Also, if the wave packet varies appreciably about the pole value when the
momentum is varied by ${\cal O}(1/L)$, the wave functions of the
external particles creating and absorbing the virtual neutrino do not
simply factorize out of the oscillation probability amplitude. Ref.\
\cite{ioapilaf} is a study of one such situation. They find that the
oscillation amplitude can exhibit a novel ``plane-wave'' behavior.
Just as most effects, this probably can also be accounted for in the
quantum mechanical formulation, but it is much easier in the quantum
field theoretical treatment used in this paper. The
involvement of the details of the external particles' wave function in
determining the oscillation probability also applies when the
effective mass splitting is much larger than the momentum spread in
the external wave packets, but in such cases, it is not clear whether
any neutrino oscillations can be observed in general because of the
strong suppression of the amplitudes (however, see for example Ref.\
\cite{ioapilaf}).
We here make a few comments regarding Majorana vs. Dirac neutrinos.
If the neutrinos were Majorana instead of Dirac, the only general
arguments that would change are those dependent upon the existence of a
right handed neutrino. Although we couched the mathematics in the Dirac
spinor formalism, owing to the assumption of chiral nature of neutrino
interactions and the relativistic limit, none of our general arguments
depended upon the existence of a right handed neutrino. Hence,
our conclusions for the relativistic limit
are also valid for Majorana neutrinos. (Formulae for
``neutrinos'' apply to negative helicity Majorana neutrinos,
while those for ``antineutrinos'' apply to positive helicity
Majorana neutrinos.)
From our justification of the ``Schr\"{o}dinger equation'' for
stationary, flat spacetime systems, we expect that the heuristic
ansatz used in Ref.\ \cite{cardall} for studying neutrino oscillations
in a stationary curved spacetime to be valid to the extent that the
flat spacetime treatment is valid. In a nonstationary curved
spacetime, in addition to the time dependence of the potential, there
may arise extra complications of using the S-matrix formalism due to
the nontrivial Bogoliubov transformations of the asymptotic states.
This also deserves further investigation.
\acknowledgements{ CYC thanks Georg Raffelt for helpful
conversations. We thank the warm hospitality of the
Theoretical Astrophysics group at Fermilab where part of this work was
carried out. This work was started at the GAAC sponsored meeting held
at the Aspen Center for Physics during the summer of 1998. CYC is
supported by DOE grant FG02-87ER40317.}
|
\section{Introduction}
Globular clusters have long been recognized as
excellent fossil records of the formation history of their
host galaxies (Ashman \& Zepf 1998 and references therein).
They also provide critical testbeds for the study of stellar
evolution and stellar dynamics.
However, the formation process of globular clusters themselves
is not well understood.
One hypothesis is that merger-induced starbursts are favorable
environments for globular cluster formation (Schweizer 1987,
Ashman \& Zepf 1992). Ashman \& Zepf (1992) specifically predicted
that Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images of gas-rich mergers
would reveal young globular clusters, readily identifiable through
their very compact sizes, high luminosities, and blue colors.
This prediction has been dramatically confirmed.
Initial discoveries of compact, bright, blue star clusters
in HST images of the peculiar galaxy NGC~1275 by
Holtzman et al.\ (1992) and in the well-known galaxy merger
NGC~7252 by Whitmore et al.\ (1993),
have been followed up by the observations of similar
objects with the characteristics of young globular clusters
in a large number of starbursting and merging
galaxies (see list in Ashman \& Zepf 1998).
The identification of these compact, bright, blue objects
as young star clusters has been confirmed by ground-based
spectroscopy in several systems (e.g.\ Schweizer \& Seitzer 1998,
Brodie et al.\ 1998, Zepf et al.\ 1995, Schweizer \& Seitzer 1993).
There are even possible mass estimates from high resolution
spectroscopy of a few nearby examples (e.g.\ Ho \& Filippenko 1997).
These observations provide significant support for the
idea that globular clusters form in galaxy mergers and strong
starbursts. They also suggest that globular cluster formation
may be a regular part of the starbursting process.
The empirical evidence for globular cluster formation
in these environments is broadly consistent with the hypothesis
that globular clusters primarily form in mergers and starbursts
rather than in other sites. Other globular cluster formation
scenarios appear to have difficulties accounting for the
observational properties of globular cluster systems
(e.g.\ Ashman \& Zepf 1998, Harris 1996 and references therein).
In particular, correlations between cluster and host galaxy properties
and the absence of dark matter are problematic for primordial
globular cluster formation models (e.g.\ Peebles \& Dicke 1968,
Rosenblatt et al.\ 1988). Similarly, thermal instability models
for globular cluster formation (e.g.\ Fall \& Rees 1985)
appear to be unable to account for the absence of a correlation
between globular cluster metallicity and mass along with the
high metallicities of typical globular clusters ([Fe/H] $> -1$).
The discovery of young globular cluster systems in
nearby starbursts and galaxy mergers opens up the possibility
of more detailed, empirical studies of the formation and evolution
of globular clusters. One of the questions that remains to be
answered is the efficiency with which globular clusters form
in starbursts and mergers. This efficiency is critical for
determining if most or all globular clusters can form in
merger-like conditions. The efficiency can also constrain
models of the formation the clusters themselves. For example, models
in which globular clusters form as cores in much larger clouds
predict low efficiencies, while models in which typical molecular
clouds are compressed may be more efficient.
A closely related question is the dynamical evolution of
globular cluster systems. Most studies to date have concentrated
on developing theoretical models and matching these to the
properties of old globular cluster systems that have undergone
evolution over most of a Hubble time. Attempts to infer the
initial population and the effects of evolution from the remnant
population are difficult. Observations of young cluster systems
can provide valuable input into the initial conditions and early
dynamical evolution of globular cluster systems. This is not only
true of the mass (luminosity) function, but also of the
radii and densities with which the clusters form.
The efficiency of globular cluster formation in mergers
and of the dynamical evolution of globular cluster populations
also have significant implications for the use of globular
cluster systems as fossil records of the formation history
of their host galaxies. For example, Ashman \& Zepf (1992)
predicted that if elliptical galaxies form by mergers, they
should have two or more populations of globular clusters.
One of these populations originates from the halos of the
progenitor spirals and is therefore spatially extended and
metal-poor, while the other forms during the merger and is
thus more spatially concentrated and metal-rich.
This prediction of multiple populations in the globular cluster
systems of ellipticals formed by mergers has now been confirmed
in many cases (e.g.\ Ashman \& Zepf 1998 and references therein).
However, it has not yet been clearly demonstrated that
the efficiency of cluster formation in galaxy mergers is
sufficient to account for the metal-rich globular cluster
population observed in elliptical galaxies. Furthermore, although
there are strong theoretical arguments that the mass function
of globular cluster systems evolves significantly over
time to resemble the log-normal mass function of old
globular cluster systems (e.g.\ Gnedin \& Ostriker 1997,
Murali \& Weinberg 1997a), this evolution has not
been demonstrated observationally.
The goal of this paper is to address the questions
of the formation and evolution of globular clusters through
the study of the galaxy merger NGC~3256. The HST observations
on which this study is based and the analysis of these data
are presented in $\S 2$. The resulting sample of a large number
of compact, bright, blue objects in NGC~3256 is examined in
detail in $\S 3$. This section includes the
determination of the relationship between the magnitudes, colors,
and radii of the young cluster sample and the luminosity function.
The implications of the results for the formation efficiency and
dynamical evolution of globular cluster systems are discussed
in $\S 4$, and the conclusions are given in $\S 5$.
\section{Observations and Data Reduction}
\subsection{Target Galaxy}
We utilized HST and WFCP2 to obtain high resolution images of
the galaxy NGC~3256. This galaxy was selected for our program because
it has long been identified as a galaxy merger (e.g.\ Toomre 1977)
and is fairly nearby, with $cz_{\odot} = 2820$ $\,{\rm km\,s^{\scriptscriptstyle -1}}$\ (English et al.\ 1999)
which places NGC~3256 at a distance of 37 Mpc for
H$_0$ = 75 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. As shown in Figures 1 and 2
(plates 1 and 2), the central region of NGC~3256
has star forming knots, dust lanes, and loops,
along with a more extended, smoother component. In the radio
continuum and at $2.2 \mu$ there appear to be two nuclei
separated by about $5''$, or about 1 kpc (Norris \& Forbes 1995,
Kotilainen et al.\ 1996, Doyon, Joseph, \& Wright 1994).
Tidal tails can also be seen in the optical
images in Figure 1, and have been shown to extend out to $\sim$
50 kpc in HI (English et al.\ 1999).
Toomre (1977) placed it in the middle of his sequence of
disk galaxy mergers,
suggesting that it is dynamically older than the NGC~4038/4039 system
(the Antennae), but younger than NGC~7252.
Of the eleven mergers on the Toomre list, NGC~3256 also
has the most molecular gas ($1.5 \times 10^{10}$ \hbox{$\thinspace M_{\odot}$}, Casoli et al.\ 1991,
Aalto et al.\ 1991, Mirabel et al.\ 1990), and is the
brightest in the far-infrared ($L_{FIR} = 3 \times 10^{11}$ \hbox{$\thinspace L_{\odot}$},
Sargent et al.\ 1989).
\subsection{HST Observations}
The WFPC2 images of NGC~3256 were obtained with the
Planetary Camera (PC) centered on the galaxy. At a distance of 37 Mpc,
each PC pixel is 8 pc, and the PC covers a total of 7 kpc $\times$ 7 kpc,
encompassing the starburst region identified in previous studies.
The PC data centered on NGC~3256 are the subject of this paper.
The data at larger radii will be discussed in future papers.
We imaged NGC~3256 in the F450W and F814W filters.
Two equal exposures were obtained through each filter, with
total exposures times of 1800s in F450W and 1600s in F814W.
For each filter, the two exposures were combined utilizing
a cosmic-ray rejection routine kindly provided by Rick White.
As a check on this procedure, we also performed the more standard
CCREJECT task in STSDAS on the images in each filter, and then
set a strict criterion for matching the object lists
between the two filters. The final results were very similar
to those produced by White's routine (c.f.\ Schweizer et al.\ 1996,
Miller et al.\ 1997). A visual examination
of the few differences favored the results of White's routine,
so we used these combined images for further analysis.
In any case, the number of compact sources observed is far
greater than any possible residual defects.
The resulting combined images are shown in Figure 2 (Plate 2).
\subsection{Cluster Identification}
A wealth of blue, compact objects is revealed in the
HST images shown in Figure 2 (Plate 2).
In order to determine the magnitudes and sizes of
the compact objects discovered in the HST images,
we first used the DAOFIND task in IRAF to identify objects.
This task convolves the image with a Gaussian kernel,
finds the best fitting Gaussian function at each point, and
then searches for density enhancements which are both
greater than a given threshold value and the
brightest density enhancement in a localized region determined
by the width of the Gaussian kernel.
For this analysis, we set the FWHM of the Gaussian to be
2.8 pixels, which is the apparent width expected for
an object with a true FWHM of roughly 2 pixels.
We also applied broad cuts with the DAOFIND sharpness
and roundness criteria to eliminate a few extremely diffuse or
sharp features.
There are two notable effects of identifying objects in
this standard way. One is that it introduces a selection bias
against objects significantly larger than the smoothing kernel.
This is a direct result of the search for density enhancements
on a given scale. Although not an issue if all of the objects
are unresolved or marginally resolved, this selection effect
needs to be accounted for in studies of the distribution of
object sizes. A second aspect of DAOFIND is that the threshold is
defined globally. Several other globular cluster searches
have been performed using a local threshold, rather than a
global one (e.g.\ Kundu et al. 1998, Carlson et al.\ 1998,
Miller et al.\ 1997). Although this has the advantage of giving
a uniform number of false detections over the image, it does
so at the cost of producing a non-uniform magnitude limit
across the frame. As this is critical for our purposes,
we retain the global threshold, and simply set it high
enough that the probability of a spurious source in
regions of high background (noise) is negligible.
Perhaps the most critical aspect is that the detection
algorithm is well-understood, and can be run on a variety
of artificial datasets to explore the success with which is recovers
objects of various luminosities, colors, and sizes.
\subsection{Cluster Photometry}
The next step is to determine the magnitudes of the
identified objects. Because of crowding, variable background, and
signal to noise, it is not possible to determine the brightness
profile of the objects out to large radius. Therefore we
perform aperture photometry from one to several pixels in
radius, and correct these modest apertures to total magnitudes.
If the objects were unresolved, the aperture
correction to total magnitude would be straightforward,
as the HST point spread function (psf) is reasonably well-understood.
Moreover, an aperture of several pixels incorporates the majority
of the light from an unresolved source, even in the PC,
so the overall correction is not a large one. However,
the objects we detect in NGC~3256 are resolved, as expected
for objects with sizes like those of Galactic globular clusters
at the distance of NGC~3256. In this case, the aperture
corrections depend on both the psf and the intrinsic
radial profile of the object.
There is a limited amount of spatial information in the
surface brightness profile within the few pixels radius
out to which it can be reliably measured. Therefore, if a form
of the profile is assumed, the radial scale of that profile can
be determined by the difference between magnitudes at small
radii. A Gaussian shape for the intrinsic profile of the
clusters has been adopted in most previous work (e.g.\ Whitmore et al.\ 1993,
Whitmore \& Schweizer 1995, Schweizer et al.\ 1996).
In order to facilitate comparison with these studies, we
also adopt a Gaussian profile for the clusters,
although we note that this will tend to underestimate
the total magnitude if the clusters follow a more
extended profile, such as a modified Hubble law
(e.g.\ Holtzman et al.\ 1996, Carlson et al.\ 1998, Ostlin et al.\ 1998).
In detail, we determine the size of each object
by comparing the difference between magnitudes within
apertures of one and three pixels ($m_3 - m_1$)
to a table of values for a wide range of
Gaussian profiles convolved with the HST psf given by the
TINYTIM software (Krist 1993).
This is done in both the B and the I filters,
and the resulting intrinsic FWHM is taken as the average
of the two. We tested this procedure by using I-band (F814W)
observations of unsaturated stars in the globular cluster
Omega Cen as the basis for the HST psf. This psf gives the
same inferred sizes as the TINYTIM psf when the intrinsic
input FWHM is greater than about 0.5 of a PC pixel.
For objects with intrinsic sizes less than 0.5 of a PC pixel,
a slightly ($\sim 10\%$) smaller size is inferred with the
Omega Cen psf than with the TINYTIM psf. This difference
in inferred size due to different psfs is much smaller than
the uncertainty introduced
by the assumption of a form for the intrinsic surface brightness
profile of globular clusters with only a single free parameter.
Therefore, we adopt the TINYTIM results for the remaining analysis.
We note that although the absolute errors in total magnitudes
and half-light radii due to the requirement of an assumed
profile form for the clusters in the sample can be significant,
they should give good {\it relative}
sizes and total magnitudes, providing the clusters are roughly
similar to each other in structural characteristics.
Moreover, any systematic error is likely to affect both filters,
so that the colors will be mostly unaffected.
The total magnitude of each object is determined
by applying the aperture correction from the magnitude within
an aperture of 2 pixels in radius to a total magnitude,
appropriate for the measured
size for each object. This aperture correction for an object
of typical size in our sample is roughly 0.85 magnitudes in B
and 1.0 magnitudes in I. It compares to 0.25 magnitudes in B
and 0.48 in I for completely unresolved objects. These differences
emphasize both that our objects are significantly resolved, and
that the colors are largely unaffected by the correction
to total magnitudes (cf.\ Holtzman et al.\ 1996).
We correct the magnitudes and colors of the objects for Galactic
reddening using the dust maps of Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis (1998).
These give $E(B-V)= 0.12$, and extinction
in our HST filters of $A_{F450W} = 0.47$ and $A_{814W}=0.23$.
The absolute photometric calibration to
the standard B and I$_C$ system is achieved using the
Holtzman et al.\ (1995) zero points for the F450W and F814W filters.
\section {Analysis}
The color, magnitude, and sizes of the objects detected
in NGC~3256 are plotted in Figure 3 \footnote{The positions, magnitudes,
colors, and sizes of the objects found in NGC 3256 are also given
in Table 1, available either in the electronic journal or from the
first author.}.
Several features of the cluster system of this galaxy merger are apparent
in this diagram. One is the very large number of bright star clusters
in this galaxy, approximately 1,000 with $M_{B} < -9$ inside of
the central 7 kpc $\times$ 7 kpc. These objects account for
approximately $19\%$ of the B light and $7\%$ of the I light
within this region. The star clusters generally have blue
colors. The bright magnitudes and blue colors are indicative
of massive star clusters at young ages.
For reference, Figure 4 shows the prediction of two
stellar population models for the color and magnitude
of a $2 \times 10^5$ \hbox{$\thinspace M_{\odot}$}\ globular cluster as a function of age.
The clusters are also compact like globular clusters, with typical
sizes of $\ {\raise-0.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ 10$ pc.
Only a few of the 1,000 objects are expected to be compact background
galaxies or foreground stars, based on similar analyses of
blank fields, such as the Hubble Deep Field.
In order to address the true distribution of the population
in color, size, and magnitude, simulations of artificial datasets
are required to calibrate the detection procedure. For example,
the absence of objects with very faint B magnitudes and blue B-I
colors may be caused by the detection limit in the I band.
Similarly, the absence of large, faint clusters may also
be possibly due to selection effects. Therefore,
we created a grid of artificial objects with a range of magnitudes
in each bandpass, and a range of sizes for each magnitude.
By creating a full grid of artificial stars in both bandpasses,
we can address the issue of any effect of incompleteness in
B or I on the color distribution at faint magnitudes.
The difference between input and output magnitudes also
provides a calibration of the effect of ``bin jumping''
when constructing luminosity functions.
Similarly, by incorporating a range of sizes in the artificial
star tests, we can address the question of the intrinsic
size distribution of the cluster population. This study is
the first in which all of these effects have been modeled.
We can then test the consistency of various models
of the luminosity, color, and sizes of the candidate globular
clusters in NGC~3256 against the observations. Specifically,
we create model data sets with various combinations of
luminosity functions, color-magnitude relations, and
luminosity-size relations. For the luminosity function
and luminosity size-relation, we adopt a power-law
form, while we use a linear relation between color and magnitude.
The intrinsic widths of the color and size distributions are
drawn from the data at bright magnitudes where they are unaffected
by selection. Predictions for observables for each model
are made by convolving the model with the
selection functions derived from the simulations
described above.
We compare these predictions of various models to
the luminosity function, color-magnitude
relation, and luminosity-size relation observed for the
candidate young globular clusters in NGC~3256 (Figure 3).
A model is considered to fit the color-magnitude and luminosity-size
relation if the linear regression of these parameters is
statistically consistent with the data. To insure that
the results are not dependent on the use of a linear fit,
we also compare the median colors and sizes as a function
of magnitude of the models to the observations, with the
uncertainties in the medians of the data determined via bootstrapping.
For the luminosity function, the goodness of the fit is determined
using the double-root-residual test (Ashman, Bird, \& Zepf 1994).
We also test the effects of changes in
any one of the underlying distributions on all of the observed
properties, as they are not decoupled from each other.
For example, an underlying
luminosity function can be flat, but if the clusters are
smaller at faint magnitudes, they will be easier to detect,
and the luminosity function will appear to rise at faint
magnitudes. Similarly, a trend of color with magnitude can
also give rise to an apparent luminosity function different
than the underlying one if different color clusters are
detected with different efficiency at faint magnitudes.
We find that the best fitting model cluster
population has little or no correlation between
luminosity and color (B-I independent of $M_{B}$),
a shallow correlation between
luminosity and radius ($r \propto L^{0.07}$),
a power-law luminosity function $N(L) \propto L^{-1.8}$.
This best fitting model is shown in Figure 5.
The statistical uncertainties on the parameters of
the underlying cluster population are roughly
0.05 in the slope of the magnitude-color relation, and
0.1 in the exponent of both the radius-luminosity
relation and the luminosity function. We discuss
the magnitude-color relation, luminosity-size relation, and
luminosity function individually in more detail below.
\subsection{Color-Magnitude Relation}
The broad color distribution and absence of a strong
relationship between color and luminosity places strong constraints
on the nature and evolution of the young cluster system in NGC~3256.
In order to produce the observed range of colors, either
differential reddening by dust or a range of ages is required.
However, both reddening and age generally produce fainter magnitudes
for redder objects (see Figure 4).
This is not observed in NGC~3256,
as shown by the similar color-magnitude diagrams of the data
(Figure 3) and a simulated data set with no relationship between
color and magnitude (Figure 5).
A quantitative measure of the close agreement between
the observations and a simulated data set with no relationship
between color and magnitude is the similar
median (B-I) colors as a function of B magnitude, which are
given in Table 2. In contrast, a simulated data set with an
intrinsic slope of (B-I) $\propto 0.5$B, like that expected for
a standard reddening law, gives a much steeper relation between
(B-I) color and B magnitude, as shown in Table 2.
Similar results are obtained using other robust measures of
the average color as a function of magnitude.
The fundamental result is that we are unable to account for
the broad range of observed colors solely by differential reddening
or a broad age distribution because there is no intrinsic
trend of redder colors with fainter magnitudes.
The observations can be accounted for in two ways.
One possibility is that the young cluster system in NGC~3256
has an age distribution up to several hundred Myr {\it and}
low mass clusters are preferentially destroyed over this timescale.
In this way, the typical luminosity of the older, redder cluster
population will not become much fainter than the younger bluer,
cluster population because the younger population will have
more low-mass clusters. A modest amount of reddening may also
be required to produce the colors of the reddest clusters, but
not so much that a strong color-luminosity trend is produced.
The lack of a strong color-luminosity relation can
also be accounted for if most of the clusters are very young.
At ages up to $\sim 10$ Myr, stellar population
models predict a fairly broad range of colors
with little change in B luminosity (see Figure 4).
This effect is due to red supergiants, and is
stronger in the Leitherer et al.\ (1998) models
than the Bruzual \& Charlot (1998) models because of
the increased presence of red supergiants in the former models.
As in the previous case, some reddening may be required
to produce the reddest clusters, but reddening
can not be the primary determinant of the cluster colors,
or a color-magnitude relation would be introduced, contrary
to the observations. The critical aspect of the possibility
that red supergiants at young ages account for much of the
observed color spread is the requirement of a very young age
for the system as a whole because all of the models begin
to produce a significant color-luminosity trend after $\sim 10$ Myrs.
Both the destruction and red supergiant hypotheses
can account for a broad color distribution without a strong
color-luminosity relation. An additional constraint is that
the range of ages in the young cluster population would not
be expected to be less than the dynamical time of the region
in which they formed. Adopting a radius of 3 kpc for the region
in which the young clusters are found, and a typical velocity
of $v \approx 150$ $\,{\rm km\,s^{\scriptscriptstyle -1}}$, we find a dynamical time of 20 Myr.
Thus the very young age hypothesis is marginally inconsistent
with the requirement that the cluster population not form on
a timescale shorter than the dynamical time.
Other explanations for the absence of a strong
color-luminosity trend are strongly constrained by the
large observed color spread. For example, a model in which
younger clusters are more heavily reddened than older
clusters can give a weak color-luminosity trend. However,
it does so at the cost of narrowing the color spread, and
therefore fails to account for the observations.
\subsection{Luminosity-Radius Relation}
A second observation of relevance for models of the
formation and evolution of young star clusters is the
luminosity-radius relationship. The NGC~3256 young star
cluster system has a very shallow relationship between
radius and luminosity, roughly $r \propto L^{0.07}$.
The relationship of radius with mass is likely to be similar
to that with luminosity. This follows from the absence of a
correlation between color and luminosity which suggests the
mass-to-light ratio is mostly independent of luminosity.
Thus, cluster mass is likely to be fairly independent
of radius.
A weak correlation between mass and radius
has significant implications for the formation and
evolution of globular clusters.
Clouds in hydrostatic equilibrium follow the relationship
$ r \propto M^{1/2} P^{-1/4}$ (e.g.\ Ashman \& Zepf 1999,
Elmegreen 1989). The shallow observed correlation
between radius and mass therefore suggests that
higher mass clusters form at higher pressure.
If confirmed, this will play a significant role in
developing models of globular cluster formation.
A shallow relationship between mass and radius
also suggests that on average low-mass clusters are formed
with lower density and are less bound than higher mass clusters.
Therefore, they will be more susceptible to destruction
by mass loss at early ages, and through tidal shocks
over time. This result is an important input into
determinations of the effect of dynamical evolution on
the mass function of clusters, as discussed in the previous
and the following subsections. In particular, studies
of the dynamical evolution of globular cluster systems
must adopt some relation between radius and mass for
the initial cluster population (e.g.\ Ostriker \& Gnedin 1997
and references therein). Without data from young clusters,
this relation has been based on observations of old cluster
populations, whose properties may have already been altered by
dynamical evolution. Thus, observations of the radii
of young cluster systems are an important part of the
study of dynamical evolution of globular cluster systems.
These conclusions regarding the mass-radius relationship
require confirmation, as the clusters are only marginally
resolved in the present data. We are able to recover differences
in the sizes of the objects, given a form for the radial profile
of the cluster. The inferred mass-radius relationship for the cluster
population should not be sensitive to the form of the profile
adopted because it is only based on relative values of
cluster radii. Therefore, our result is not likely
to be sensitive to the specific cluster profile chosen,
although it will be affected by any systematic changes in the shape
of the profile with cluster mass.
\subsection{Luminosity Function}
The luminosity function of the NGC~3256 cluster system
has a best-fitting power with slope about $-1.8$, with tentative
evidence that it flattens at faint magnitudes. This slope is similar
to that found in other young globular cluster systems in galaxy
mergers (e.g.\ Whitmore \& Schweizer 1995, Schweizer et al.\ 1996,
Miller et al.\ 1997, Carlson et al.\ 1997) and also to that
for populous clusters in the LMC (Elmegreen \& Efremov 1997,
Elson \& Fall 1985).
The most notable difference between the observed luminosity
function and a power-law convolved with observational selection
is that the data appear to be flatter at the faint end than
the model. In order to assess the statistical significance
of this difference, we utilized a double-root-residual
test (Ashman et al.\ 1994). The test indicates
the difference is significant at about the $2.5\sigma$ level.
However, given the uncertainties modeling the selection
at these faint levels, any deviation from a power-law
slope is tentative. Although the luminosity function of the
NGC~3256 cluster system is now roughly a power-law, both the
luminosity-color and luminosity-radius relation suggest that it
is likely to evolve significantly over time. This is also expected on
theoretical grounds (e.g.\ Gnedin \& Ostriker 1997, Murali \& Weinberg 1997a).
A comparison of the observations to these theoretical expectations
is presented below.
\section {Discussion}
HST imaging of the galaxy merger NGC~3256 has revealed
a large population of objects with the bright luminosities,
blue colors, and compact sizes expected of objects like Galactic
globular clusters at young ages. In this section, we explore
in more detail the relation of young clusters observed in starbursting
and merging galaxies like NGC~3256 to old globular clusters,
and to implications these observations have for models of the
formation of globular clusters.
\subsection{Cluster Mass Function and Dynamical Evolution}
The power-law luminosity function is the one feature
of the NGC~3256 young cluster system that is decidedly different
from that of old globular cluster systems around galaxies like
M87 and the Milky Way, which have lognormal luminosity functions.
Although the masses and sizes inferred for many of the young
clusters in NGC~3256 are similar to those of old globular clusters
(e.g.\ Figures 3 and 5),
the difference in the shape of the luminosity function has long
been used to argue that the clusters in mergers and starbursts
are fundamentally different than in the old systems
(e.g.\ van den Bergh 1995). However, it has also long been realized
that dynamical evolution can significantly alter the mass function
of clusters systems over a Hubble time (e.g.\ Fall \& Rees 1977,
Gnedin \& Ostriker 1997, Murali \& Weinberg 1997a, 1997b,
Ashman \& Zepf 1998 and many references therein).
We therefore consider whether observations of the mass
and luminosity functions of cluster systems over a range of ages
can be consistently accounted for by dynamical evolution.
The two long-term dynamical processes that may
be relevant for determining the shape of the globular cluster mass
function are evaporation and tidal shocking. These have the following
scalings between the lifetime of a cluster and its mass and radius
$ t_{evap} \propto M^{1/2} ~ r^{3/2} $, and $ t_{sh} \propto M ~ r^{-3} $.
The timescale for tidal shocks also depends on the cluster orbit
and galaxy potential. As long as these are similar in the
galaxies being compared, the scaling is independent of these parameters.
Therefore, we concentrate on the scaling of the destruction
timescale with cluster mass and radius.
In $\S 3.2$, we found that cluster mass and radius may
be only weakly dependent on one another with $r \propto L^{\sim 0.07}$.
With this result, the equations above give a timescale for
destruction that scales as roughly $M^{2/3}$ for both
evaporation and tidal shocking.
These give relative timescales for destruction of clusters
as a function of their mass.
An absolute timescale can be placed on these scalings
through the known turnover mass and age of the globular cluster
systems of galaxies like the Milky Way and M87. This allows us
to determine the cluster mass scale that is undergoing destruction
at the ages corresponding to young cluster systems observed in
galaxy mergers. In this way, we find that at an age of 100 Myr,
the characteristic mass scale set by dynamical processes is
$10^{-3}$ of that for the globular cluster systems of the
Milky Way and M87.
At 500 Myr the corresponding number is about $10^{-2}$ of
the characteristic mass scale of old globular cluster systems.
This calculation is also based on the simplifying assumption
that the dynamical processes are independent of one another,
which is not strictly true. However, the numbers given above
are not likely to be dramatically wrong as long as the
observation that $M$ and $r$ are mostly independent holds.
If long-term dynamical processes are responsible for evolution
of the mass function, the above calculation suggests the ``turnover''
in the mass function in young globular cluster systems will occur
at much smaller masses than in older globular cluster systems
like that in the Galaxy. These small masses make such a turnover
very difficult to observe directly in young systems. Specifically,
the above calculation suggests that clusters with masses of
roughly $1\%$ of the current turnover mass are being destroyed
at the ages typical of young globular cluster systems,
such as the NGC~3256 system studied here, as well as the
NGC~1275 system (Carlson et al.\ 1998) and the NGC~7252 system
(Miller et al.\ 1997). This corresponds to clusters five magnitudes
below the current turnover of the globular cluster luminosity function.
In order to calculate the detectability of a dynamically
induced turnover in young cluster systems, the expected brightening
of young clusters must also be accounted for. Stellar populations models
(e.g.\ Bruzual \& Charlot 1998) predict that old objects of this
magnitude were about 5.0 magnitudes brighter in B and 3.7 in V
at the ages inferred for NGC~3256 from their colors. The corresponding
brightening for the slightly older NGC~1275 and NGC~7252 cluster systems
we will also study is about 4.2 magnitudes in B and 3.1 in V.
The predicted brightening in these young cluster systems relative
to $\sim 13$ Gyr old populations is dependent primarily on the mass
function between several \hbox{$\thinspace M_{\odot}$}\ and slightly less than one \hbox{$\thinspace M_{\odot}$}.
The adopted numbers are for a Salpeter (1955) slope of $x =1.35$
are somewhat less for flatter mass functions.
The net result is that in young cluster systems observed
in the B-band, such as NGC~3256, the observations must reach
absolute magnitudes around the current turnover luminosity
in old globular cluster systems, roughly $B = -6.8$. As can
been seen in Figure 3, the observations fail by several
magnitudes to reach such faint levels. In fact, it will be
difficult to obtain reliable cluster counts at such magnitudes
because of potential confusion with individual bright stars,
which can have similar luminosities.
Analyses of the NGC~1275 and NGC~7252 datasets give similar
conclusions that the highest mass scale at which dynamical
evolution is expected to be effective is well below the
observational limit. In particular, for these $\sim 500$ Myr old
systems, the observations would have to reach limits
of about $B \ {\raise-0.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ -6$ and $V \ {\raise-0.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ -5.5$, while the
observations are limited to about two magnitudes brighter.
The luminosity functions of known cluster systems are
therefore consistent with a model in which globular clusters
form with a power-law mass function, and evolve through well-known
dynamical processes to have the log-normal mass function
observed in old systems such as the Milky Way and M87.
Testing this hypothesis by directly looking for the turnover
in young cluster systems is difficult because the mass scale
is predicted to be extremely small. This work suggests that
searches for turnovers in globular cluster mass functions
might be more profitable in more intermediate-age systems
in which the predicted mass scale may be accessible to observation.
In order to improve the predictions for the dynamical
evolution of young globular cluster systems, better constraints
on the initial mass-radius relation are required. Studies of young
cluster systems are critical for providing these constraints because
these systems have not undergone as much dynamical evolution and
will more accurately reflect the relationship between mass and
radius at the time the young clusters formed. This relation plays
a major role in the dynamical calculations. Specifically,
the timescales for evaporation and tidal shocking depend
on both mass and radius. If the relationship between mass
and radius is stronger than it appears to be in our
observations of the NGC~3256 system, the timescales for
disruption of clusters of different masses will be affected.
For example, if $r \propto M^{1/2}$, then $t_{evap}$ will
have a very steep dependence on mass, and $t_{sh}$ will
be shorter for larger masses. In this case, the mass
scale for evaporation at 100 Myr would be only about
a factor of 5 less than that after 10 Gyr, and only
a factor of 3 less at 500 Myr compared to 10 Gyr.
However, the tidal shocking would then be inversely
correlated with mass, so both high and low mass clusters
would be destroyed and the observational predictions
in this case are less clear.
Perhaps the safest conclusion then from our
analysis of the formation and destruction of globular
clusters is that information on the radii of the clusters
as well as their mass function is critical for determining
the effects of dynamical evolution and comparing of mass
functions of young and old cluster systems. The cluster radii
and mass-radius relation also have significant implications
for models of the formation of young globular clusters.
Further exploration of observational constraints on the
initial mass-radius relation is a promising route for
future studies.
\subsection {Efficiency of Compact, Massive Cluster Formation}
The census of compact, young star clusters in NGC~3256
allows the determination of the efficiency with which clusters
form. The simplest characterization of efficiency is the
fraction of new stars formed that are in dense star clusters.
As described in $\S 3.1$, this fraction is about $20\%$
based on the percentage of blue light that is in dense
star clusters. This value is similar to that observed
in smaller starburst regions by Meurer et al.\ (1995).
It is somewhat larger than the fraction of blue light
in dense star clusters observed in the older NGC~7252 system,
suggesting that either the
formation efficiency peaks near the peak of the starburst
or the dynamical evolution removes some of the clusters
on the timescale of the age of the NGC~7252 system.
A critical aspect of these NGC~3256 data is that they
demonstrate that high formation efficiency can occur
over a large area (7 kpc $\times$ 7 kpc) encompassing
much of a $\sim L_{*}$ galaxy. These data also indicate that
the fraction of stars that form in these dense star clusters
is not negligible, and suggest that this is an interesting
mode of star formation.
A second way to characterize the efficiency of
cluster formation is to compare it to the total amount of
gas available. This is less straightforward than comparing
the fraction of light, but connects more directly to current
theoretical models. The total amount of molecular gas
inferred from CO observations and standard assumptions
regarding the conversion to H$_2$ mass is $1.5 \times 10^{10}$ \hbox{$\thinspace M_{\odot}$}\
(Casoli et al.\ 1991, Aalto et al.\ 1991, Mirabel et al.\ 1990).
The total mass in the young cluster system can be estimated
from the color of each object, and a stellar populations model
that allows color to be converted to age and mass-to-light ratio.
The observed luminosity can then be converted into mass.
Applying this procedure individually to each cluster in
the NGC~3256 cluster sample and summing up
gives a total mass in the young cluster system of
$6 \times 10^{7}$ \hbox{$\thinspace M_{\odot}$}. This is based on taking all
objects with $(B-I) < 1.5$ and inferred sizes less than 15 pc,
and using the Charlot-Bruzual stellar population models
with a Miller-Scalo initial mass function. A Salpeter
initial mass function would increase the mass estimate
by approximately $50\%$. Reddening of observed objects is less
of a factor because its effects on the mass estimate cancel
out to first order. Specifically, reddening makes the objects
fainter, decreasing the apparent luminosity, but also
redder, increasing the inferred mass-to-light ratio,
so in the end the mass estimate is similar. For example,
the mass estimate for the NGC~3256 cluster system is
only about $30\%$ greater for an internal reddening of
$A_B = 1.0$ compared to $A_B=0.0$. An additional effect
is that some clusters may be extincted beyond detection.
The resulting efficiency for the formation of massive,
compact clusters computed in this way is then about $0.5\%$.
This is a lower limit in the sense that cluster formation
is ongoing and there is plenty of gas mass left from which to
form more clusters. If clusters continue to make up $\sim 20\%$
of the stars formed, the total cluster mass fraction at the
end of the starburst will be closer to this value.
Therefore, the observations place the formation efficiency
between $0.5-20\%$ depending on how exactly efficiency
is defined and what happens in the future of the starburst
in NGC~3256.
It is interesting to compare our observed efficiency
of globular cluster formation in NGC~3256 to the fraction
of mass in old stellar populations that is in globular clusters.
The highest observed fraction of mass in globular clusters to
total stellar mass is about $1\%$, as seen in the Galactic halo
and the richest extragalactic globular cluster systems such as M87
(e.g.\ Ashman \& Zepf 1998). Typical elliptical galaxies have
ratios about five times lower, around $0.2\%$. Therefore,
the globular cluster formation efficiency observed in NGC~3256
is more than sufficient to account for the globular cluster
systems of elliptical galaxies.
More specifically, if the mass fraction of stars that form
in globular clusters is closer to $20\%$ over the full
starburst/merger event, then mergers have an over-efficiency
problem.
This over-efficiency problem can be alleviated in
several ways. One possibility is that the progenitor spirals
are gas-poor, which may be true at the current
epoch but seems unlikely at high redshift when most mergers
are likely to occur. A more likely explanation is significant
dynamical destruction of the cluster population. This
destruction is predicted by theory and required by
observation if the power-law luminosity functions of
young cluster systems are to match the lognormal luminosity
function of old globular cluster systems.
Conversely, if the overall mass fraction
of stars that form in globular clusters is closer to $0.5\%$,
then gas-rich mergers will make about the right number
of globular clusters for moderately rich systems, and
gas-poor mergers will lead to moderately poor globular
cluster systems. The reality is likely to be somewhere
between these two extremes. It is unlikely that all globular
cluster formation in NGC~3256 will immediately cease while
the large reservoir of cold gas continues to form stars,
as required for the overall efficiency to be $0.5\%$.
It is also unlikely that all of the remaining gas
will form stars in a starburst in which $20\%$ of the new
stars are formed in dense, massive clusters, as is currently
happening in NGC~3256. Moreover, many clusters are expected
to be lost due to dynamical processes.
The high efficiency of globular cluster formation observed
in NGC~3256 also has significant implications for theoretical
models of globular cluster formation. In particular, scenarios
in which globular clusters form as cores within proposed super
giant molecular clouds (SGMCs) predict that only about $\sim 0.2\%$
of the mass of the cloud forms stars in dense cores, as
seen in Galactic giant molecular clouds (McLaughlin \&
Pudritz 1996, Harris \& Pudritz 1994). Thus the observed
globular cluster formation efficiency appears to pose
a problem for the SGMC scenario. A second problem is the
long timescale for the formation of SGMCs in these models
compared to the apparently rapid formation of globular clusters
in galaxy mergers and starbursts.
The observations appear to be more consistent with models of
globular cluster formation in which the clusters form from
highly compressed giant molecular clouds of typical mass for
spiral galaxies. These may either originate from the progenitor
spirals or be newly made GMCs.
\subsection{Conclusions}
The primary conclusions of our study of HST images
in B and I of the galaxy merger NGC~3256 are:
\noindent 1. NGC~3256 has a very large population
of compact, bright, blue objects. Many of these clusters have
estimated sizes and masses like those of Galactic globular
clusters. On this basis, we identify some fraction of these
objects as young globular clusters.
\noindent 2. The young cluster system has a broad range of
colors, but little or no correlation between color
and luminosity. This observation requires either
destruction of low mass clusters over time or a very
young age ($\ {\raise-0.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ $ 20 Myr) for the young cluster system.
\noindent 3. Dynamical evolution is likely to significantly affect
the mass function of the young cluster system. If the system is
not very young, this has already been observed. The mass-radius
relation for the cluster population is an important constraint
on the predictions for dynamical evolution of the cluster population.
\noindent 4. The large number of candidate young globular clusters
indicates a high efficiency of cluster formation. This
is observed across the 7 kpc $\times$ 7 kpc region studied.
The efficiency of cluster formation in the galaxy merger
NGC~3256 is more than sufficient to account for the metal-rich
globular cluster populations in elliptical galaxies if these form
from gas-rich mergers.
\acknowledgments
We thank Richard Larson for useful discussions, Dave Carter for
collaborating in obtaining the AAT image of NGC~3256, and Eddie Bergeron
for making the color images frmo the HST data. We thank an anonymous
referee for helpful suggestions. S.E.Z. and K.M.A. acknowledge support
for this project from NASA through grants GO-05396-94A and AR-07542-96A
awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the
Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA
under contract NAS 5-26555. SEZ also acknowledges the support of a
Hubble Fellowship and fruitful discussions with colleagues
at UC Berkeley during the early stages of this work.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
It has been an extremely fruitful idea to study a conformal field theory by
putting it on various surfaces, with or without boundaries. Apart from the
sphere, that has been considered first, prime examples of non--trivial
geometries include the torus \cite{cardy1} and the cylinder
\cite{cardy2,cardy3}. They serve to probe different facets of a given conformal
theory. However the data specific of these surfaces are inextricably
related to each other, and this fact provides very stringent constraints on the
theory itself, allowing for example to determine its field content.
For minimal conformal theories, the problem on the torus for single--valued
fields has been resolved in \cite{ciz}: consistent models have a periodic
partition function that can be associated in a unique way with a pair
$(A,G)$ of simple Lie algebras of ADE type.
The solution of the analogous problem for the cylinder is much more recent,
even if early calculations in either specific models or with specific boundary
conditions have been carried out in \cite{cardy2,cardy3,sb}. The recent
discovery in \cite{aos} of a new conformally invariant boundary condition in
the 3--state Potts model triggered a renewal of interest in the problem. For
minimal models, its solution was given in \cite{bpz,bppz}, and shown to be
encoded in the same Dynkin graphs that specify the torus partition function.
When a model has a symmetry, necessarily discrete in this context, fields can be
multiple--valued on the torus, so that non--periodic sectors exist. Furthermore,
the fields transform under the symmetry group, and, upon diagonalization, can be
assigned charges. All this information is encoded in frustrated partition\break
$$\mbox{}$$
\vspace{2.3cm}
\mbox{}
\noindent
functions, covariant under the modular group of the
torus, a fact that can be used to, first, detect the presence of a symmetry,
and then to compute the various partition functions \cite{zuber,rv}.
In this article, we address the question of the action of
the symmetry group on the cylinder partition functions for the minimal
models. We show how the symmetry group acts on the boundary conditions, and
identify the invariant (or symmetric) ones. We then study the charge assignments
of the fields that occur in the presence of those boundary conditions.
Section II is a reminder about the minimal conformal models on a torus and on a
cylinder. In Section III, we discuss the action of the symmetry group on the
conformally invariant boundary conditions, which is then used in Section IV to
compute frustrated partition functions on a cylinder, or equivalently the charge
assignment of the boundary fields. Section V contains explicit formulae and
computational details of a particular assignment. Its unicity (in fact non--unicity)
is examined in Section VI, from which we conclude that, in general, a large number
of distinct charge assignments are consistent. We also derive selection rules
for the boundary fusion coefficients. We finish, in Section VII, with an analysis
of the unitary models for which we propose an unambiguous charge assignment.
Section VII contains the most interesting corollary of the previous sections. An
analysis based on the expected consequences of the Perron--Frobenius theorem fixes
a unique charge assignment in the unitary $(A,A)$ models, which we conjecture to
be the correct one. This is in sharp contrast with the models of the $(A,D)$ and
$(A,E_6)$ series. For those, there is no consistent charge assignment that is
compatible with the Perron--Frobenius theorem, the reason being that there
is no way to ensure an invariant ground state in all sectors. Motivated by the
results obtained for the Potts model \cite{aos}, we will interpret this phenomenon
as the non--existence of positive classical Boltzmann weights for some invariant
boundary conditions. A simple characterization of them suggests itself in terms of
their Dynkin graph labels.
\section{Minimal models}
\label{sec:rem}
Minimal models are classified by a pair $(A,G)$ of simply--laced
simple Lie algebras with coprime Coxeter numbers, $p$ and $q$. One may assume
that $p$ is odd. Their periodic partition function on a torus of modulus
$\tau$ is a sesquilinear form in the Virasoro characters
\begin{equation}
Z(A,G) = \sum_{i,j} \; M_{ij}\,\chi^*_i(\tau)\,\chi^{}_j(\tau), \qquad M_{ij}
\in {\Bbb N},
\end{equation}
where $i,j$ are labels for Virasoro highest weight representations. They lie in
the Kac table $\{(r,s)\;:\;1 \leq r \leq p-1,\, 1 \leq s \leq q-1\}$, in which
$(r,s)$ and $(p-r,q-s)$ must be identified. The connection with the Lie
algebras is best brought out by writing the diagonal elements $M_{ii}$ as
\cite{ciz}
\begin{equation}
Z(A,G) = {\textstyle {1 \over 2}} \sum_{r \in \text{Exp}\,A \atop s \in \text{Exp}\,G}\;
|\chi_{r,s}|^2 + \text{off-diagonal},
\label{zpp}
\end{equation}
where $r$ and $s$ run over the exponents of $A$ and $G$. The full expressions
of the partition functions are given in \cite{ciz}.
The question of the symmetry group has been first addressed in \cite{z}, and
solved in {rv} for the unitary models $|p-q|=1$. The analysis can however be easily
extended to the non--unitary minimal models, with the following result. With the
exception of the models $(A_{p-1},A_{q-1})$ with $p$ {\it and} $q$ odd, which have
no symmetry at all, the other models $(A,G)$ have a finite symmetry group $\Gamma$,
which is the group of automorphisms of the Dynkin graph of $G$, that is,
$\Gamma(G)=Z_2$ except
$\Gamma(D_4)=S_3$ and $\Gamma(E_7,E_8)=\{e\}$.
When a model has a symmetry group, the fields may have a non--trivial monodromy
along the two periods of the torus, transforming as $\phi(z+1) = {}^{g}\phi(z)$
and $\phi(z+\tau) = {}^{g'}\!\phi(z)$ for two commuting\footnote{That forces us to
focus on Abelian subgroups of $\Gamma$. Thus in this paper we consider
$Z_2$ and $Z_3$ (sub)groups only.} elements $g,g' \in \Gamma$.
In the Hamiltonian formalism, this amounts to give a Hilbert space
${\cal H}_g$ of states with a $g$--monodromy along the first period, which are
then acted on by $g'$ when transported along the second period. The latter action
can be diagonalized, $\,^{g'}|\phi\rangle = e^{2i\pi Q/N} |\phi\rangle$, defining
the charge $Q$ of the field $\phi$ under the action of $g'$, an element of order
$N$.
The field content of ${\cal H}_g$ as well as their charges can be read off from
the frustrated partition functions $Z_{g,g'}(A,G)$. These are still
sesquilinear forms but with coefficients in ${\Bbb Z}(e^{2i\pi/|\Gamma|})$:
\begin{equation}
Z_{g,g'} = {\rm Tr}_{{\cal H}_g} \;\Big[q^{L_0-c/24}\,\bar q^{\bar
L_0-c/24}\,g'\Big].
\end{equation}
Because a modular transformation mixes the two periods, it must be accompanied
by a corresponding change of monodromies so that the net effect
vanish (for a fixed pair $(A,G)$):
\begin{equation}
Z_{g,g'}(\tau) = Z_{g^ag'^c,g^bg'^d}({\textstyle{a\tau +b \over c\tau +d}}).
\label{tor}
\end{equation}
All such functions are given explicitly in \cite{rv} (with a straightforward
extension to the non--unitary case). The function (\ref{zpp}) corresponds to
$g=g'=e$.
On a cylinder, say of length $L$ and perimeter $T$, only one Virasoro algebra
remains, so that the partition function is linear rather than sesquilinear in
the characters \cite{cardy2}. Conformally invariant boundary conditions
$\alpha,\beta$ must be prescribed on the two boundaries, and a monodromy condition
$g$ must be imposed along the periodic coordinate, $\phi(z+T)={}^g\phi(z)$. We
first consider a trivial monodromy, $g=e$.
If the time variable is defined to run along the periodic direction, the
partition function is the trace of the transfer matrix $e^{-TH_{\alpha,\beta}}$,
\begin{equation}
Z^e_{\alpha,\beta}(\tau) = \sum_i \; n^i_{\alpha,\beta} \, \chi_i(\tau), \qquad
\tau=iT/2L.
\label{form1}
\end{equation}
The integer $n^i_{\alpha,\beta}$ gives the multiplicity of the primary field
with Kac label $i$ in the Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{\alpha,\beta}$.
Alternatively, one may view the time evolution as going from one boundary to the
other. In this case, the states on constant time surfaces belong to the bulk
periodic Hilbert space ${\cal H}_e$, and are propagated in time from one
boundary state $|\alpha\rangle$ to the other $|\beta\rangle$ (formally also in
${\cal H}_e$). The partition function is then
\begin{equation}
Z^e_{\alpha,\beta}(\tau) = \langle \beta| e^{-LH_e} |\alpha\rangle,
\label{preform2}
\end{equation}
with $H_e$ the Hamiltonian corresponding to periodic bulk sector.
The boundary states are conformally invariant, satisfying $(L_n-\bar
L_{-n})|\alpha\rangle$ for all $n \in \Bbb Z$ \cite{cardy3}. The solutions to this
equation are the Ishibashi states \cite{i}: every highest weight representation
$[i \otimes \bar i]$ contains exactly one such state, which we denote by
$|i\rangle\rangle$, while the other representations $[i \otimes \bar j]$, for $i
\neq j$, do not contain any. In the present situation, the Ishibashi states
must be taken from the space ${\cal H}_e$, and hence are labelled by ${\cal
E}_e = \{i \;:\; [i \otimes \bar i] \in {\cal H}_e\}$.
Expanding the boundary states in the basis of Ishibashi states, $|\alpha\rangle
= \sum_i \; c^i_\alpha \, |i\rangle\rangle$, makes the partition function
(\ref{preform2}) take the form
\begin{equation}
Z_{\alpha,\beta}(\tau) = \sum_{i \in {\cal E}_e} \; c^i_\alpha \,
\bar c^{i}_\beta \, \chi_i({\textstyle{-1 \over \tau}}).
\label{form2}
\end{equation}
The arguments of the characters in (\ref{form1}) and (\ref{form2}) are related
by the modular transformation $\tau \mapsto {-1 \over \tau}$, under which the
characters transform linearly through a unitary matrix $S$. Comparing the two
formulae then yields Cardy's equation \cite{cardy3}
\begin{equation}
n^i_{\alpha,\beta} = \sum_{j \in {\cal E}_e} \; S_{i,j} \, c^j_\alpha \,
\bar c^{j}_\beta.
\label{cyl}
\end{equation}
The relations (\ref{cyl}) are overdetermined for the vectors $c^j$, and
provide a means to classify the boundary conditions $|\alpha\rangle$, to compute
the spectra of ${\cal H}_{\alpha,\beta}$, and in turn the surface scaling
dimensions. Such calculations have been carried out in \cite{cardy2,sb,aos},
but the general answer appeared only very recently in \cite{bpz,bppz}. Let 1 be
the label corresponding to the vacuum representation, namely to
$(r,s)=(1,1)=(p-1,q-1)$.
In \cite{bppz}, it was observed that, upon setting $c^i_\alpha =
\psi^i_\alpha / \sqrt{S_{1,i}}$ for a set of complete and orthonornal vectors
$\psi^i$, Cardy's equation appears as an explicit diagonalization
\begin{equation}
n^i_{\alpha,\beta} = \sum_{j \in {\cal E}_e} \; \psi^j_\alpha \, {S_{i,j} \over
S_{1,j}} \, \bar\psi_\beta^{j}.
\label{nie}
\end{equation}
The matrices $n^i$ have eigenvalues ${S_{i,j}/S_{1,j}}$, and a
common eigenbasis is given by the vectors $\psi^j$. As a result, they satisfy
the fusion rules
\begin{equation}
n^i \, n^j = \sum_k \; N_{ij}^k \, n^k.
\end{equation}
Reversing the argument, the authors of \cite{bppz} conclude that an $\Bbb
N$--valued representation of the fusion algebra of dimension $|{\cal
E}_e|$ provides a solution to Cardy's equation with $|{\cal E}_e|$ different
boundary conditions. When $c^i_\alpha = \psi^i_\alpha / \sqrt{S_{1,i}}$ is
an invertible matrix, this solution yields the maximal set of
conformally invariant boundary conditions. Note that the boundary states
$|\alpha\rangle$ are determined up to a phase, but the fact that the entries of
$n^i$ are to be positive integers leaves only a global, unobservable, phase.
For minimal models, this was all made explicit in \cite{bpz}. For the model
$(A,G)$, it was shown that each node in the product Dynkin
diagram $A \times G$, quotiented by an appropriate $Z_2$ automorphism,
defines a boundary condition and vice--versa. Indeed, from (\ref{zpp}), the
number of Ishibashi states in the periodic sector is $|{\cal E}_e| = {\textstyle {1 \over 2}}
|\text{Exp} A \times \text{Exp} G|$, so that only half the nodes can define
distinct boundary conditions. We will use the variables $\alpha,\beta$
and $(a_i,b_i)$ as labels for the nodes of $A \times G$. The letters $A$ and $G$
will denote at the same time the Lie algebras, the Dynkin diagrams or the
corresponding adjacency matrices.
As a result of the quotient of the product graph, the matrices $n^i$,
for $i=(r,s)$, are given by \cite{bpz}
\begin{eqnarray}
n^i_{(a_1,b_1),(a_2,b_2)} &=& (\hat N_r)_{a_1,a_2}\,(V_s)_{b_1,b_2} +
(\hat N_r)_{a_1,a^*_2}\,(V_s)_{b_1,b^*_2} \nonumber \\
&=& n^i_{(a^*_1,b^*_1),(a_2,b_2)} = n^i_{(a_1,b_1),(a^*_2,b^*_2)}.
\label{ni}
\end{eqnarray}
In this formula, the $\hat N$'s and the $V$'s are the fused adjacency matrices
of $A$ and $G$ respectively. They are defined recursively by $X_m = X_2X_{m-1} -
X_{m-2}$, with $X_1={\bf 1}$ and $X_2=A$ if $X=\hat N$, and $X_2=G$ if $X=V$.
Equivalently,
\begin{equation}
\hat N_r = U_{r-1}(A), \qquad V_s = U_{s-1}(G),
\end{equation}
where
$U_m(2\cos{x}) = \sin{(m+1)x}/\sin{x}$ is the $m$--th Tchebychev polynomial of
the second kind. The automorphism $(a,b) \mapsto (a^*,b^*)$ can be determined
from the condition $n^{(r,s)}=n^{(p-r,q-s)}$ (necessary if the $n^i$ are to
satisfy the fusion algebra). It yields $a^*$ and $b^*$ to be given\footnote{The
automorphism $^*$ in $G$ thus coincides with the charge conjugation in the
corresponding affine algebra $\hat G$.} by the non--trivial automorphism of $A$
and $G$, for $G \neq D_{\text{even}},E_7,E_8$, and $b^*=b$ for
$G=D_{\text{even}},E_7,E_8$.
Viewing the tensor products $F^i(A,G) = \hat N_r \otimes V_s$ as the fused
adjacency matrices of $A \times G$, the above result may be summarized by
saying that $n^i$ is a folded fused adjacency matrix of $A \times G$
\begin{equation}
n^i_{\alpha,\beta} = F^i_{\alpha,\beta}(A,G) + F^i_{\alpha,\beta^*}(A,G).
\label{nif}
\end{equation}
The eigendata for the matrices $A$ and $G$ make sure that the matrices in
(\ref{ni}) satisfy the minimal model fusion algebra. For the $(A,A)$ models,
the $a_i$ (resp. $b_i$) labels run over the same set as $r$ (resp. $s$), and the
matrices $n^i$ are the fusion matrices $N^i$ themselves \cite{cardy3}.
\section{Symmetric boundary conditions}
\label{sec:sym}
We now proceed to the analysis of the cylinder partition functions when there
is a group of symmetry $\Gamma$. From now on, we thus take $q$ even, and $G
\neq E_7,E_8$.
The boundary states are combinations of periodic Ishibashi states, on which
the action of $\Gamma$ is known from the torus partition functions $Z_{e,g}$.
This induces an action on the boundary states which one can determine.
That action must be by permutations.
For the minimal models, a boundary state corresponds to a pair of nodes of $A$
and $G$,
\begin{equation}
|(a,b)\rangle = \sum_{i \in {\cal E}_e} \; {1 \over
\sqrt{S_{1,i}}} \,\psi^i(a,b)\, |i\rangle\rangle.
\label{exp}
\end{equation}
where the $\psi^i$ form an eigenbasis for the concrete matrices in (\ref{ni}).
Let us denote by $\sigma$ the automorphisms of the Dynkin graph of $G$, so that
every $\sigma$ has fixed points. (The automorphism of the $A$ factor has a free
action, and is used to obtain a set of representatives under the $^*$ involution,
see (\ref{ni}).) Each $\sigma$ has a diagonalizable action on the eigenvectors
$\psi^i$.
The action of $g \in \Gamma$ on a periodic Ishibashi state can be read off from
the diagonal terms in the frustrated partition function $Z_{e,g}(A,G)$
\cite{rv}. These can be compactly presented as follows. If $g$ has order $N$,
and if one writes the diagonal terms in $Z_{e,g}$ as
\begin{equation}
Z_{e,g} = \sum_{i \in {\cal E}_e} \; \zeta_{N}^{Q_{g}(i)} \: |\chi_i|^2 +
\ldots,
\end{equation}
then, for a proper choice of the $\psi^i$, the phase is seen to be exactly
equal to the eigenvalue of $\psi^i$ under an order $N$ automorphism $\sigma$:
\begin{equation}
\psi^i(a,\sigma(b)) = \zeta_{N}^{Q_{g}(i)} \, \psi^i(a,b).
\label{auto}
\end{equation}
The $\sigma$ that is induced by $g$ through the previous formula is unambiguous
in the models $(A,G)$ if $G$ is not $D_4$: the only non--trivial $g$
induces the only non--trivial $\sigma$. When the $D_4$ algebra is involved,
exactly which $\sigma$ in $S_3$ arises from a set of charges $Q_g$ (univoquely
given by $Z_{e,g}$) depends on the eigenbasis we choose. In particular, a same
set of $Z_2$ charges can lead to the three different (but conjugate) order two
$\sigma$'s.
It quickly follows from (\ref{exp}) and (\ref{auto}) that an order $N$ group element
$g$ acts on the boundary states as an order $N$ automorphism $\sigma$:
\begin{equation}
|(a,b)\rangle \longrightarrow |^g(a,b)\rangle = |(a,\sigma(b))\rangle.
\end{equation}
Therefore, for any subgroup $\gamma$ of $\Gamma$, the $\gamma$--symmetric boundary
conditions correspond to the nodes of $A \times G$ that are fixed by
a group $\gamma$ of automorphisms of $G$. This set of nodes form a graph which
we call the fixed point graph and denote by $A \times G^\gamma$.
In particular, the boundary conditions that are invariant under a group
element $g$ correspond to the nodes in $A \times G^\sigma$, with
$G^\sigma$ the part of $G$ that is fixed by the automorphism $\sigma$ induced
by $g$. As before the pairs of nodes which are related by the $^*$ automorphism
define the same invariant boundary conditions. In the minimal models, the fixed
point diagrams that arise for the various choices of
$g$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
(A_{p-1},A_{q-1})\;:\quad && T_{(p-1)/2} \times A_1,\nonumber \\
(A_{p-1},D_{q/2+1})\;:\quad && T_{(p-1)/2} \times A_{q/2-1}, \quad
(g^2=e), \nonumber \\
(A_{p-1},D_4)\;:\quad && T_{(p-1)/2} \times A_1, \quad (g^3=e),\nonumber \\
(A_{p-1},E_6)\;:\quad && T_{(p-1)/2} \times A_2,
\label{fixdyn}
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_{(p-1)/2}$ denotes the tadpole diagram obtained by quotienting
$A_{p-1}$ by its automorphism $^*$.
For instance, the fixed point graph of an element $g$ of order two in the
$(A_{p-1},D_{q/2+1})$ model is graphically given by
\hskip 1truecm
\begin{picture}(180,35)(0,-10)
\put(-4,0){\circle*{4}}
\put(-10,-10){\makebox(0,0)[b]{\small $a\!=\!1$}}
\put(-2,0){\line(1,0){15}}
\put(15,0){\circle*{4}}
\put(15,-10){\makebox(0,0)[b]{\small 2}}
\put(17,0){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(30,0){...}
\put(40,0){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(52,0){\circle*{4}}
\put(52,-10){\makebox(0,0)[b]{\small $p-1 \over 2$}}
\put(52,7){\circle{14}}
\put(83,0){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\times$}}
\put(110,0){\circle*{4}}
\put(104,-10){\makebox(0,0)[b]{\small $b\!=\!1$}}
\put(112,0){\line(1,0){15}}
\put(129,0){\circle*{4}}
\put(129,-10){\makebox(0,0)[b]{\small 2}}
\put(131,0){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(144,0){...}
\put(154,0){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(166,0){\circle*{4}}
\put(166,-10){\makebox(0,0)[b]{\small ${q \over 2}-1$}}
\end{picture}
\vskip 0.4truecm
\section{Cylinder partition functions}
\label{sec:cpf}
The consequences of a symmetry can now be pursued at the level of the partition
functions. Let us suppose that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are two boundary conditions
that are invariant under a group element $g$, of order $N$.
It implies that the transfer matrix $e^{-H_{\alpha,\beta}}$ and $g$ commute, and
can be diagonalized in the same basis. The effect, on the cylinder partition
function, of the insertion of $g$ on a line connecting the two boundaries is to
affect each Virasoro tower with a $N$--th root of unity, so that the first form
(\ref{form1}) becomes
\begin{equation}
Z^g_{\alpha,\beta}(\tau) = \sum_i \; n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta} \, \chi_i(\tau).
\end{equation}
This shows that $n^{(g)\,i}$ must be related in the following way to the
restriction of $n^i$ to the $g$--symmetric boundary conditions: an entry of $n^i$
equal to $n$ becomes in $n^{(g)\,i}$ a sum of $n$ $N$--th roots of unity.
In the second form, the boundary state $|\alpha\rangle$ is propagated to
$|\beta\rangle$ by the Hamiltonian that acts on the bulk sector twisted by $g$,
so that
\begin{equation}
Z^g_{\alpha,\beta}(\tau) = \langle \beta| e^{-LH_g} |\alpha\rangle.
\end{equation}
This formula makes it clear that the states $|\alpha\rangle$ and
$|\beta\rangle$ should have a projection in the twisted Hilbert space ${\cal
H}_g$, and being conformally invariant, must have expansions in Ishibashi
states of the bulk $g$--sector, themselves labelled by ${\cal E}_g = \{i \;:\;
[i \otimes \bar i] \in {\cal H}_g\}$. Setting $|\alpha\rangle = \sum_i \;
c^{(g)\,i}_\alpha \, |i\rangle\rangle_g$, one obtains a Cardy equation
\begin{equation}
n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta} = \sum_{j \in {\cal E}_g} \; S_{i,j} \,
c^{(g)\,j}_\alpha \, \bar c^{(g)\,j}_\beta,
\label{cylt}
\end{equation}
for all boundary conditions which are $g$--symmetric.
By inspecting the torus partition functions $Z_{g,e}(A,G)$ \cite{rv} (see also
the next section), one readily sees that the matrices $c^{(g)\,i}_\alpha$ are
square, namely
\begin{equation}
|{\cal E}_g| = {\textstyle {1 \over 2}} \, |A \times G^\sigma| = |T \times G^\sigma|,
\end{equation}
where the factor ${\textstyle {1 \over 2}}$ accounts for the identification under $^*$.
Let us also note that, since the $g$--Ishibashi states form a basis for boundary
states that are invariant under $g$, they should themselves be all neutral for
consistency. This is again easily checked from $Z_{g,g}$.
The rest of this article is devoted to a discussion of the solutions to the
Cardy equation (\ref{cylt}). We will suggest that the proper
physical solution is a natural generalization to $g \neq e$ of the two
formulae (\ref{nie}) and (\ref{nif}) for $n^i$.
Our first statement is that a particular solution, compatible with $n^i \equiv
n^{(e)\,i}$, is provided, modulo a sign $\delta_i$, by the folded fused
adjacency matrices of the graph $A \times G^\sigma$:
\begin{equation}
\tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta} = \delta_i \, \big[F^i_{\alpha,\beta}
(A,G^\sigma) + F^i_{\alpha,\beta^*}(A,G^\sigma)\big], \quad \delta_i=\pm 1.
\label{fff}
\end{equation}
Here $\alpha=(a_1,b_1)$ and $\beta=(a_2,b_2)$ are pairs of nodes in $A \times
G^\sigma$ (with the usual identification under $^*$), and the automorphism $^*$
is the same as before.
When $g,\sigma \neq e$, this formula can be simplified because every $b_2$ in
$G^\sigma$ is a fixed point of $^*$. Indeed since $\beta$ is a node of $A \times
G^\sigma$, $b_2$ is a fixed point of $\sigma$. But $\sigma$ and $^*$ coincide,
except for $G=D_{\text{even}}$ for which $^*$ is trivial. Thus the folding
by $^*$ acts on $a_2$ only, resulting in an effective folding of the $A$ factor
onto a $T$ graph (hence the graphs (\ref{fixdyn})). One also checks that the
folded fused adjacency matrices of $A_{p-1}$ are the fused adjacency matrices of
$T_{(p-1)/2}$. Thus the matrices in (\ref{fff}) are simply proportional to the
fused adjacency matrices of the fixed point diagram
\begin{equation}
\tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta} = \delta_i \, F^i_{\alpha,\beta}(T,G^\sigma)
= \delta_i \, U_{r-1}(T)_{a_1,a_2} U_{s-1}(G^\sigma)_{b_1,b_2}.
\label{nigf}
\end{equation}
The matrices $F^i(T,G^\sigma)$ fall short of satisfying the minimal fusion
algebra, but the factors $\delta_i$ can be adjusted so that the $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ do
satisfy it.
The fusion algebra of the minimal model ${\cal M}(p,q)$ is polynomially generated
by two generators $X$ and $Y$, which one can associate with the representatives of
$N^{(2,1)}$ and $N^{(1,2)}$ \cite{dms}. The other elements of the algebra are
explicitly given by Tchebychev polynomials
\begin{equation}
N^i = U_{r-1}(X) \, U_{s-1}(Y),
\label{pform}
\end{equation}
and the generators must satisfy three relations:
\begin{equation}
U_{p-1}(X) = U_{q-1}(Y) = U_{p-2}(X) - U_{q-2}(Y) = 0.
\label{rel}
\end{equation}
The matrices $F^i(T,G^\sigma)$ have the proper form (\ref{pform}), and
$T_{(p-1)/2}$ and $G^\sigma$ do indeed satisfy the first two
relations in (\ref{rel}). This is most easily seen by verifying that all
eigenvalues satisfy the relevant equation. For instance, the eigenvalues
$\lambda_m$ of $T_{(p-1)/2}$ are in
\begin{equation}
\text{spec}(T_{{p-1\over 2}}) = \{2\cos{\textstyle{\pi m \over
p}}\;:\; 1 \leq m\,\text{odd} \leq p-1\},
\label{spectrum}
\end{equation}
and clearly satisfy $U_{p-1}(\lambda_m)=0$.
In the same way, one computes that
\begin{equation}
U_{p-2}(T_{{p-1\over 2}}) = {\bf 1}.
\end{equation}
The corresponding calculation for $G^\sigma$ yields\footnote{The adjacency matrix
of $A_1$ is the number zero, so that its fused adjacency matrices are $U_{s-1}(0)
= (-1)^{(s-1)/2}$ for $s$ odd, and 0 for $s$ even.}, in the same four cases as in
(\ref{fixdyn}),
\begin{eqnarray}
G^\sigma=A_1\;: && \qquad U_{q-2}(G^\sigma) = (-1)^{{q \over 2}+1}\,{\bf 1},
\nonumber\\
G^\sigma=A_{{q \over 2}-1}\;: && \qquad U_{q-2}(G^\sigma) = -{\bf 1}, \nonumber\\
G^\sigma=A_1\;: && \qquad U_{q-2}(G^\sigma) = {\bf 1},\nonumber\\
G^\sigma=A_2\;: && \qquad U_{10}(G^\sigma) = -{\bf 1},
\label{ug}
\end{eqnarray}
where the last line refers to the models $(A_{p-1},E_6)$ for which $q=12$.
Thus, except when $G^\sigma=A_1$ and when $q=2 \bmod 4$, the last condition in
(\ref{rel}) is not fulfilled.
Owing to the parity properties of the Tchebychev polynomials, $U_m(-x) = (-1)^m
U_m(x)$, one easily sees that $X=(-1)^{{q \over 2}+1}\,T_{(p-1)/2}$ in the first
and third cases of (\ref{ug}), and $X=-T_{(p-1)/2}$ in the second and fourth ones,
together with $Y=G^\sigma$, do satisfy all three conditions and therefore
generate the correct algebra.
Correspondingly, one finds that the matrices $\tilde n^{(g)\,i} = F^i(X,Y) =
\delta_i F^i(T,G^\sigma)$ with the following signs,
\begin{eqnarray}
(A_{p-1},A_{q-1}) \;: && \quad \delta_i = (-1)^{(r+1)({q \over
2}+1)},\nonumber\\
(A_{p-1},D_{{q \over 2}+1})\;: && \quad \delta_i = (-1)^{r+1}, \qquad
(g^2=e),\nonumber\\ (A_{p-1},D_4)\;: && \quad \delta_i = 1, \qquad (g^3=e),
\nonumber\\ (A_{p-1},E_6)\;: && \quad \delta_i = (-1)^{r+1}.
\label{deltas}
\end{eqnarray}
obey the minimal fusion algebra. Because of the signs $\delta_i$ but also because
the matrices $F^i(T,G^\sigma)$ are not positive for $\sigma \neq e$ (they are
however of constant sign), the $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ provide $\Bbb
Z$--representations\footnote{In case of a $Z_3$ symmetry group, one might expect
${\Bbb Z}(e^{2i\pi/3})$--valued representations. This is however excluded by the
symmetry $Z^g_{\alpha,\beta} = Z^g_{\beta,\alpha}$ (time reversal invariance),
which implies the reality of $n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta}$.} of the minimal fusion
algebra.
It remains to prove our earlier assertion that the so--defined $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$
are solutions to Cardy's equation (\ref{cylt}).
Since they satisfy the fusion algebra, the $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ must have
eigenvalues given by ratios ${S_{i,j} \over S_{1,j}}$ of $S$ matrix elements. It
is not difficult to see, by looking first at the partition functions $Z_{g,e}$ to
get ${\cal E}_g$ and then by computing the ratios explicitly, that the eigenvalues
of $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ are precisely the above ratios for $j \in {\cal E}_g$ (see
next section). Thus the following diagonalization formulae hold
\begin{equation}
\tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta} = \sum_{j \in {\cal E}_g} \; \psi^{(g)\,j}_\alpha \,
{S_{i,j} \over S_{1,j}} \, \bar\psi_\beta^{(g)\,j},
\label{nig}
\end{equation}
where the vectors $\psi^{(g)\,j}$ form a common orthonormal eigenbasis
(also common to all fused adjacency matrices $F^i(T,G^\sigma)$ of the fixed point
diagram). This yields the value of the coefficients in (\ref{cylt})
\begin{equation}
c^{(g)\,j}_\alpha = {1 \over \sqrt{S_{1,j}}}\,\psi^{(g)\,j}_\alpha.
\label{coeff}
\end{equation}
To complete the proof, it is enough to show that they are compatible with the
$n^i$, in the sense that has been explained in Section \ref{sec:sym}: an entry in
$n^i$ equal to $n$ goes over, in $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$, to a sum of $n$ roots of
unity, and moreover $\tilde n^{(g)\,1} = {\bf 1}$. One may verify that this is
indeed the case. We omit the proof here since, to a large extent, it is given in
the next section.
The formulae (\ref{fff}) and (\ref{nig}) bear much resemblance
with the corresponding ones for $n^i$, of which they constitute a natural
extension. Like the $n^i$, the matrices $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ have a graph theoretic
description derived from that of $n^i$ through the action of $g$, they satisfy
the minimal fusion algebra, and their eigenvalues are exactly labelled by the
set ${\cal E}_g$ which specifies the diagonal terms of the twisted partition
functions $Z_{g,e}$. In a sense, this set ${\cal E}_g$ can also be viewed as the
set of exponents of the fixed point graph that serves to define $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$.
\section{More explicit formulae}
\label{sec:expl}
We give here the computational details and the proofs that were missing in the
previous section.
We begin by recalling the formula giving the $S$ matrix elements in
the minimal model ${\cal M}(p,q)$, for $i=(r,s)$ and $j=(r',s')$,
\begin{equation}
S_{i,j} = \sqrt{8 \over pq} \, (-1)^{rs'+r's+1} \, \sin{\pi qrr' \over p} \,
\sin{\pi pss' \over q}.
\end{equation}
We examine in turn each of the three infinite series.
\subsection{The series (A,A)}
The models $(A_{p-1},A_{q-1})$, $p$ odd and $q$ even, have the symmetry group
$Z_2$. The invariant boundary conditions $\alpha=(a,b)$ are controlled by the
tadpole graph $T_{(p-1)/2} \times A_1$, i.e. $a$ runs from 1 to $(p-1)/2$ and
$b=q/2$.
The frustrated partition functions are \cite{rv},
\begin{equation}
Z_{g,e}(A,A) = {\textstyle {1 \over 2}} \sum_{r,s} \chi_{r,s}^* \, \chi^{}_{r,q-s} = \sum_{1 \leq
r\;\text{odd} \leq p-1 \atop 1 \leq s \leq q-1} \; \chi_{r,s}^* \,
\chi^{}_{r,q-s},
\end{equation}
from which it follows that the twisted Ishibashi states $|j\rangle\rangle_g$ can
be labelled by
\begin{equation}
{\cal E}_g(A,A) = \{j=(m,{\textstyle {q \over 2}}) \;:\; 1 \leq m \;{\rm odd}
\leq p-1\}.
\end{equation}
(Which representative $(r,s)$ or $(p-r,q-s)$ we take does not matter, since the
$S$ matrix elements are the same.)
For these values of $j$, an easy calculation yields
\begin{equation}
{S_{i,j} \over S_{1,j}} = (-1)^{(r+1)({q \over
2}+1)}\,U_{r-1}(-2\cos{\textstyle {\pi qm \over p}})\,U_{s-1}(0).
\label{ratios1}
\end{equation}
Since $q$ is even, the numbers which appear as arguments of $U_{r-1}$ coincide
with the set (\ref{spectrum}) of eigenvalues of the incidence matrix
$T_{(p-1)/2}$. A simple comparison with the matrices $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$, as
computed from (\ref{nigf}) and (\ref{deltas}),
\begin{equation}
\tilde n^{(g)\,i} = (-1)^{(r+1)({q \over 2}+1)} \, U_{r-1}(T_{p-1 \over
2}) \, U_{s-1}(0).
\end{equation}
shows that the eigenvalues of $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ are indeed the numbers in
(\ref{ratios1}) for $j \in {\cal E}_g$.
As mentioned before, the matrices $n^i$ are the fusion matrices $N^i$
themselves \cite{cardy3}, equal, from (\ref{ni}), to
\begin{equation}
n^i_{(a_1,{q \over 2}),(a_2,{q \over 2})} = N^i_{(a_1,{q \over 2}),(a_2,{q \over
2})} = U_{r-1}(T_{{p-1\over 2}})_{a_1,a_2},
\end{equation}
for all odd $s$, and identically equal to zero for $s$ even. This then leads to
\begin{equation}
\tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{(a_1,{q \over 2}),(a_2,{q \over 2})} = (-1)^{(r+1)({q \over
2}+1)+{s-1 \over 2}} \, N^i_{(a_1,{q \over 2}),(a_2,{q \over 2})}.
\label{aa}
\end{equation}
This equation shows clearly that $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ is compatible with $n^i$ in
the sense explained before.
\subsection{The series (A,D)}
All models $(A_{p-1},D_{q/2+1})$, with two coprime integers $p,q$ and $p$ odd as
before, have also a $Z_2$ symmetry. The non--trivial group element $g$ induces the
automorphism $\sigma$ of $D_{q/2+1}$ which exchanges the last two nodes.
Therefore the symmetric boundary states correspond to the nodes $(a,b)$ of the
fixed point diagram $T_{(p-1)/2} \times A_{q/2-1}$, pictured in Section
\ref{sec:sym}, so that $a$ is between 1 and $(p-1)/2$, and $b$ is between 1
and $q/2-1$.
The eigenvalues of $T_{(p-1)/2}$ have been recalled earlier, while those of
$A_{q/2-1}$ are well known:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \text{spec}(T_{{p-1\over 2}}) = \{2\cos{\textstyle{\pi m \over p}}\;:\; 1
\leq m\,\text{odd} \leq p-1\}, \label{spect} \\
&& \text{spec}(A_{{q \over 2}-1}) = \{2\cos{\textstyle{\pi m' \over q}}\;:\; 1
\leq m'\,\text{even} \leq q-1\}.
\label{speca}
\end{eqnarray}
The frustrated (antiperiodic) partition function on the torus is (the
double sums run over $[1,p-1]\times[1,q-1]$) \cite{rv}
\begin{equation}
Z_{g,e}(A,D) = \sum_{r \, {\rm odd} \atop s \,{\rm even}} |\chi^{}_{r,s}|^2 +
\sum_{r \, {\rm odd} \atop s=1+{q \over 2} \bmod 2} \chi_{r,s}^*\chi^{}_{r,q-s}.
\end{equation}
Thus the Kac labels of the $g$--Ishibashi states $|j\rangle\rangle_g$ can be
chosen in the set
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal E}_g(A,D) &=& \{j=(m,m') \;:\; 1 \leq m \;{\rm odd} \leq p-1, \nonumber\\
&& \hskip 0.6cm 1 \leq m' \;{\rm even} \leq q-1\}.
\end{eqnarray}
{}From this, one computes
\begin{equation}
{S_{i,j} \over S_{1,j}} = (-1)^{r+1} \, U_{r-1}(-2\cos{\textstyle{\pi qm
\over p}}) \, U_{s-1}(-2\cos{\textstyle{\pi pm' \over q}}),
\label{rat}
\end{equation}
which coincide, in view of (\ref{spect}) and (\ref{speca}), with the eigenvalues
of
\begin{equation}
\tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta} = (-1)^{r+1} \:
U_{r-1}(T_{{p-1\over 2}})_{a_1,a_2} \, U_{s-1}(A_{{q \over 2}-1})_{b_1,b_2}.
\label{ad}
\end{equation}
The numbers in the set $\{2\cos{\textstyle{\pi pm' \over
q}}\}$ come by pairs of opposite sign, so that the set of ratios (\ref{rat}), for
fixed $i$, is the same whether or not there is a minus sign in the argument of
$U_{s-1}$. Each individual ratio however differs by a factor $(-1)^{s+1}$, which
then leads to an alternative solution $(-1)^{s+1} \tilde n^{(g)\,i}$.
Finally the compatibility of $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ with the original matrices $n^i$
can be established. In the sector of invariant boundary conditions, the latter
read
\begin{equation}
n^i_{\alpha,\beta} = U_{r-1}(T_{{p-1\over 2}})_{a_1,a_2} \, U_{s-1}(D_{{q \over
2}+1})_{b_1,b_2},
\end{equation}
where $b_1,b_2$ are restricted to lie in $[1,q/2-1]$. One may
simply notice the following modular identity (same values of the indices)
\begin{equation}
U_{s-1}(D_{{q \over 2}+1}) = U_{s-1}(A_{{q \over 2}-1}) \bmod 2.
\end{equation}
It has the immediate consequence that
\begin{equation}
\tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta} = n^i_{\alpha,\beta} \bmod 2,
\end{equation}
which shows the required compatibility.
One may note that all the entries of $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ are in $\{0,+1,-1\}$,
and that those of $n^i$ are in $\{0,1,2\}$, which implies that all doubled
primary fields have opposite $Z_2$ charges within each pair.
When $q=6$, i.e. for the $(A_{p-1},D_4)$ models, $Z_3$ invariant boundary
conditions can be investigated. They are labelled by nodes $(a,2)$ with $a$ in
$T_{(p-1)/2}$.
The $Z_3$ frustrated partition functions on the torus are \cite{rv}
\begin{equation}
Z_{g,e}(A,D_4) = \sum_{r\,{\rm odd}} |\chi^{}_{r,3}|^2 + \sum_{r\,{\rm odd}}
\chi^*_{r,3}[\chi^{}_{r,1}+\chi^{}_{r,5}]+{\rm c.c.},
\end{equation}
so that the Ishibashi states in the $Z_3$--twisted sector have labels $j=(m,3)$
for $m$ odd between 1 and $p-1$.
The matrices $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ in (\ref{nigf}) can be compared with the
restriction of $n^i$ to the sector of invariant boundary conditions, given by
$U_{r-1}(T_{(p-1)/2})_{a_1,a_2} U_{s-1}(D_4)_{2,2}$. All matrices are identically
zero for $s$ even, while for $s$ odd:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& n^i = U_{r-1}(T_{{p-1\over 2}}) = \tilde n^{(g)\,i},
\quad \text{for}\;s=1,5,\nonumber\\
&& n^i = 2U_{r-1}(T_{{p-1\over 2}}), \quad
\tilde n^{(g)\,i} = -U_{r-1}(T_{{p-1\over 2}}), \quad \text{for}\;s=3. \nonumber\\
\label{z3}
\end{eqnarray}
As in the $Z_2$ case, the second line shows that the doubled fields have
opposite and non--zero $Z_3$ charge (if $\omega \neq 1$ is a third root of unity,
$\omega +\omega^2=-1$).
\subsection{The series (A,E$_{\bf 6}$)}
The models $(A_{p-1},E_6)$ are similar to the $(A,D)$ models. In particular the
formula for the matrices $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ is the same as for the $(A,D)$ models
(with $A_{q/2-1}$ replaced by $A_2$).
A unique feature of the models based on $E_6$ however is that some of the fields
occur tripled in some boundary conditions (in addition to some others being
doubled). One finds that these are the fields $(r,s)$ with $s=5$ and 7, in the
boundary conditions corresponding to the nodes $(a,3)$, for $a$ in
$T_{(p-1)/2}$ (with $b=3$ the intersection of the three branches of $E_6$). This
follows from the fused adjacency matrices $U_4(E_6)$ and $U_6(E_6)$, which, when
restricted to the nodes $b=3,6$ corresponding to the symmetric boundary conditions,
read
\begin{equation}
U_4(E_6) = U_6(E_6) = \pmatrix{3 & 0 \cr 0 & 1}.
\end{equation}
\section{Unicity}
The boundary conditions that are invariant under a group element $g$
correspond to boundary states which have expansions in $g$--Ishibashi
states \footnote{The full expansion of $|\alpha\rangle$ involves Ishibashi states
from the $g$--twisted bulk sectors for all $g$ which leave $\alpha$ invariant.}
\begin{equation}
|\alpha\rangle = \sum_{i \in {\cal E}_g} \; c^{(g)\,i}_\alpha \,
|i\rangle\rangle_g.
\end{equation}
The coefficients in (\ref{coeff}) provide a specific solution $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$
to Cardy's equation (\ref{cylt}). As for the $n^i$, one may raise the question of
the unicity of this solution.
For every $g$, the symmetric boundary conditions exhaust the $g$--Ishibashi
states. It means that every other symmetric boundary state must be a linear
combination of those we already have, and so must be one of them. However, since
the boundary states $|\alpha \rangle$ enter Cardy's formula through scalar
products, it is the boundary rays more than the boundary states which matter.
Thus the basic question is whether one keeps a sensible solution if one
multiplies the boundary states by phases.
Clearly if the symmetric boundary states are multiplied by phases,
$|\alpha\rangle \rightarrow \varphi_\alpha |\alpha\rangle$, the matrices change
according to $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta} \rightarrow \varphi_\alpha
\varphi^*_\beta \tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta}$, which satisfy the minimal
fusion algebra for any choice of phases.
Whereas for $g=e$, the positivity of $n^{(e)\,i}=n^i$ forces all the phases to
be equal, this is no longer the case when $g \neq e$. Since the matrices
$n^{(g)\,i}$ are $\Bbb Z$--valued, the only condition one has is that the
phases must be equal up to signs, $\varphi_\alpha=\epsilon_\alpha \, \varphi$.
For a $Z_2$ symmetry (or subgroup), the new matrices $\epsilon_\alpha
\epsilon_\beta \tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta}$ are also solutions of the Cardy
equation, because they too are compatible with the $n^i$. Indeed the
compatibility amounts to check that $n^i$ and $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ coincide
modulo 2, which obviously remains true if signs are inserted. Moreover, the
identity occurs in the diagonal boundary conditions only, $\alpha =
\beta$, for which the signs cancel out.
On the contrary, in the case of a $Z_3$ symmetry, the insertion of signs
$\epsilon_\alpha$ does not yield sensible solutions (as far as the minimal models
are concerned). The reason is that some of the fields occur with multiplicity
two. Since the corresponding entries in $n^{(g)\,i}$ must be real combinations of
two third roots of unity, they can only be 2 or $-1$. Therefore, changing their
sign by inserting some $\epsilon_\alpha$ is not consistent.
Thus when the symmetry group is $Z_2$, there is a vast number of seemingly
acceptable solutions. These various solutions differ by the charges which are
assigned to the primary fields in mixed boundary conditions ($\alpha \neq
\beta$). The freedom we have in choosing the $\epsilon_\alpha$ reflects the fact
that the charge normalization in mixed boundary conditions cannot be fixed a
priori, unlike what happens for diagonal boundary conditions, in which an
identity occurs.
One may try to derive more constraints on the charge normalizations by requiring
that the boundary charge assignments be compatible with {\it (i)} the charge
assignments in the bulk, and {\it (ii)} the boundary field operator product
coefficients.
The first requirement is a condition on the way bulk fields close to a boundary
(taken to be $y=0$) expand in boundary fields \cite{cl,l}
\begin{equation}
\phi_j(x+iy) \sim \sum_{{\rm b.c.}\;\alpha} \sum_k \; ^{(\alpha)}\!B_j^k \,
(2y)^{h_k-2h_j} \, \phi_k^{\alpha\alpha}(x),
\label{bbe}
\end{equation}
where the summation on $\alpha$ is over all boundary conditions, not just the
invariant ones. The $Z_2$ symmetry implies selection rules on the coefficients
since a bulk field of a given parity should expand in a combination of boundary
fields that transforms the same way. It means that the parity of the field
$\phi_k^{\alpha \alpha}$ must match that of $\phi_j$ for all invariant boundary
conditions $\alpha$ such that $^{(\alpha)}\!B_j^k \neq 0$.
Since these expansions involve fields in diagonal boundary conditions only, the
selection rules that follow are the same no matter what the signs
$\epsilon_\alpha$ are. This does not prove however that the selection rules are
indeed satisfied. For the diagonal models $(A,A)$, the coefficients
$^{(\alpha)}\!B_j^k$ are known explicitly \cite{r}, and it would be interesting
to check directly that their values are consistent with the boundary charge
assignment found here.
The second check concerns the operator algebra of the boundary
fields themselves \cite{cl,l}
\begin{equation}
\phi^{\alpha\beta}_i(x) \, \phi^{\beta\gamma}_j(x') \sim \sum_k \;
C^{(\alpha\beta\gamma)\,k}_{ij}(x-x')^{h_k-h_i-h_j}\,\phi^{\alpha\gamma}_k(x').
\label{bope}
\end{equation}
Restricting to invariant boundary conditions $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$, the
discrete symmetry implies again selection rules which require that the charges
given by the matrices $n^{(g)\,i}$ provide a grading of the boundary
fusion algebra\footnote{We leave aside the cases where some matrix elements
$n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta}$ are zero without having the corresponding elements in
$n^i$ equal to zero. This happens when primary fields come in pairs of opposite
charge.}:
\begin{equation}
C^{(\alpha\beta\gamma)\,k}_{ij} \neq 0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad
n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta} n^{(g)\,j}_{\beta,\gamma} = n^{(g)\,k}_{\alpha,\gamma}.
\label{bbf}
\end{equation}
It is obvious that if the matrix coefficients $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta}$
satisfy (\ref{bbf}), the same will be true of $\epsilon_\alpha \epsilon_\beta
\tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta}$, so that here too, these matrices are all
consistent with the boundary operator product expansion (\ref{bope}), or else
none of them is. As the discrete symmetry is expected to occur, one can be
confident in the fact that the selection rules will be satisfied. We give below
examples of selection rules in the most explicit case, namely the diagonal models.
We have not shown in general that they are indeed satisfied, and as before, a proof
not based on symmetry arguments would be valuable.
In the diagonal models $(A,A)$, the boundary conditions are in one--to--one
correspondence with the chiral primary fields through their labelling
by two nodes $(a,b)$ taken in $A_{p-1}$ and $A_{q-1}$. As before, the
boundary conditions $(a^*,b^*) = (p-a,q-b)$ and $(a,b)$ are to be identified.
Without loss of generality, one may thus assume that the first label
(the ``$r$--label'') is odd.
The boundary operator product coefficients are known explicitly from \cite{r},
where they were proved to be equal to coefficients of the crossing matrices
(in a suitable normalization)
\begin{equation}
C^{(\alpha\beta\gamma)\,k}_{ij} = F_{\beta,k}\left[\matrix{\alpha & \gamma \cr
i & j}\right].
\end{equation}
Since for instance, an odd boundary field $\phi^{\alpha\alpha}_i$ cannot occur in
its fusion with itself, the corresponding crossing coefficient must
vanish. The verification that it does is non--trivial only when the chiral
field $i$ indeed occurs in its own bulk fusion (namely $N_{ii}^i \neq 0$), when
the primary field $i$ indeed occurs in the diagonal boundary conditions
($n^i_{\alpha,\alpha} \neq 0$ for $\alpha$ invariant under $Z_2$), and when it
is an odd field ($\tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\alpha} = -1$). All three conditions
can be easily worked out, and yield
\begin{equation}
F_{\alpha,i}\left[\matrix{\alpha & \alpha \cr
i & i}\right] = 0
\label{f}
\end{equation}
for all $i=(r,s)$ such that $r,s$ are odd, $s=3 \bmod 4$, $r \leq (2p-1)/3$, $s
\leq (2q-1)/3$, and for all $\alpha=(a,q/2)$ such that $(r+1)/2 \leq a \leq p/2$.
The simplest example where such constraints arise is the tetracritical Ising model
$(A_4,A_5)$, in which (\ref{f}) implies (in terms of conformal weights)
\begin{equation}
F_{{1 \over 15},{1 \over 15}}\left[{\scriptsize \matrix{{1 \over 15} & {1 \over
15} \cr {1 \over 15} & {1 \over 15}}}\right] =
F_{{1 \over 15},{2 \over 3}}\left[{\scriptsize \matrix{{1 \over 15} & {1 \over 15}
\cr {2 \over 3} & {2 \over 3}}}\right] =
F_{{2 \over 3},{2 \over 3}}\left[{\scriptsize \matrix{{2 \over 3} & {2 \over 3}
\cr {2 \over 3} & {2 \over 3}}}\right] = 0.
\end{equation}
More conditions can be derived in a generic diagonal model.
To summarize, the matrices $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ displayed in (\ref{nigf}) and
(\ref{deltas}) yield but a particular solution to Cardy's equation. For a $Z_3$
symmetry, they form the only consistent solution,
\begin{equation}
n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta} = \tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta}, \qquad (g^3=e),
\end{equation}
whereas, in the case of a $Z_2$ symmetry, there are many more given by
\begin{equation}
n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta} = \epsilon_\alpha \epsilon_\beta \tilde
n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta}, \quad \epsilon_\alpha =
\pm 1 \qquad (g^2=e),
\label{nnn}
\end{equation}
for arbitrary signs. The effect of these signs is to reverse (or to maintain,
depending to the value of $\epsilon_\alpha \epsilon_\beta$) the parity of all the
fields that occur in the sector of boundary conditions $\alpha,\beta$.
The ambiguity in the normalization of the $Z_2$ charges that arises due to these
signs must be resolved on physical grounds. As the interpretation of the
boundary fields is lacking in the general non--unitary model, it is not clear to
the author what the correct requirement should be. In this context, the specific
choice $\epsilon_\alpha=+1$ for all $\alpha$ is a minimal and natural one, as it
extends nicely the corresponding formula for $g=e$, and retains much of the graph
theoretic description. It also has the distinctive feature of producing matrices
$\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ of constant sign, either totally positive or totally
negative\footnote{There is another solution in terms of matrices of constant
sign, which is obtained by substituting $-G^\sigma$ for $G^\sigma$ in the formula
(\ref{nigf}) giving $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$. The substitution has no effect when
$G^\sigma=A_1$, since the associated adjacency matrix is the number zero, while
in the other cases, it causes the matrices $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ to be multiplied by
$(-1)^{s+1}$. This sign can be seen to be in the line of the previous discussion,
because it is equal to $(-1)^{s+1} = \epsilon_\alpha \epsilon_\beta$ with
$\epsilon_\alpha = (-1)^{b+1}$ if $\alpha=(a,b)$. The existence of this solution
is a consequence of a non--trivial automorphism of the graph $G^\sigma$.}. However
in view of what follows, this may not be the correct choice.
In a unitary model, the ground state of every sector is expected to
be invariant under the symmetry group, on account of the Perron--Frobenius
theorem applied to the transfer matrix. This provides a well--defined criterion
to fix the normalization of the charges, and therefore the physical value of
the signs $\epsilon_\alpha$. We will use this criterion as a guide, in order to see
if a particular set of values $\epsilon_\alpha$ emerges from this point of view.
\section{Unitary models}
In this last section, we explore the possibility of fixing the value of the signs
$\epsilon_\alpha$ by using the criterion we have just mentioned: if the continuum
limit is smooth enough, it is expected that the consequences of the
Perron--Frobenius theorem on the finite--dimensional transfer matrix be maintained
in the corresponding conformal field theory. In particular, for all invariant
boundary conditions, the ground state of the Hamiltonian $H_{\alpha,\beta}$
(the primary field of lowest conformal dimension in ${\cal
H}_{\alpha,\beta}$) should be non--degenerate and (hence) invariant under the
symmetry group. In short, we will call this the Perron--Frobenius (PF)
criterion. As already said, it is automatically satisfied in the diagonal boundary
conditions.
Thus we look for a set of $\epsilon_\alpha$ such that the $Z_2$ charge assignment
meet the PF criterion. Incidentally, when the symmetry group is
$Z_3$, there is only one consistent charge assignment (see the previous section).
In that case, we will merely check whether the PF criterion is satisfied.
The outcome of this investigation is somewhat surprising. The unitary diagonal
models are the only ones where the PF criterion can be met, for a unique choice of
the $\epsilon_\alpha$'s. In all other unitary models, there is no way in which
it can be fulfilled, if one insists that it be valid in all sectors.
A physical interpretation of this will be proposed\footnote{I am indebted to
Gerard Watts for a clarifying discussion about this issue.}. Nonetheless, for
all those models but two, we will see that a unique set of $\epsilon_\alpha$'s is
singled out by demanding a minimal violation of the PF criterion.
We recall that the conformal weight of a primary field labelled by $i=(r,s)$ is
equal to
\begin{equation}
h_{r,s} = {(qr-ps)^2-(p-q)^2 \over 4pq}.
\end{equation}
Throughout this section, we will take $p$ odd and $q=p \pm 1$ even. Then the
smallest conformal weights correspond, in ascending order, to $i=(1,1), (2,2),
(3,3), \ldots$.
\subsection{The unitary series (A,A)}
The only boundary primary fields that occur in the diagonal models have their
$s$--label odd (see (\ref{aa})). Since the identity (1,1) does not appear in mixed
boundary conditions, the primary with the lowest weight that can possibly occur in
mixed boundary conditions corresponds to (3,3), and consequently, the off--diagonal
entries of
\begin{equation}
n^{(g) \, (3,3)}_{\alpha,\beta} = n^{(g) \, (3,3)}_{(a_1,{q \over 2}),(a_2,{q
\over 2})} = -\epsilon_{a_1}\,\epsilon_{a_2}\,U_2(T_{p-1 \over 2})_{a_1,a_2}
\end{equation}
must be positive. The off--diagonal matrix coefficients $U_2(T)_{a_1,a_2}$ equal 1
if $|a_1-a_2|=2$ or if $\{a_1,a_2\}=\{(p-3)/2,(p-1)/2\}$, and 0 otherwise (it
counts the number of paths of length 2 going from $a_1$ to $a_2$ on the graph
$T_{(p-1)/2}$). Thus one obtains the condition $\epsilon_{a_1}
\epsilon_{a_2}=-1$ for all these pairs. This fixes the vector $\epsilon_a$ in a
unique way (up to a global sign that does not matter) as
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_a = (\ldots,+1,+1,-1,-1,+1,+1,-1,-1,+1).
\label{epa}
\end{equation}
For these specific signs, one may then verify that in the remaining mixed
boundary sectors (those for which (3,3) does not occur), the field of lowest
weight has indeed a parity +1 (zero charge). To do that, one can first observe
that any mixed boundary sector has its field of lowest weight in $\{(r,s) \;:\;
3 \leq r=s \;{\rm odd} \leq p-2\}$. Next point is to note that
$U_{r-1}(T)_{a_1,a_2}$ is zero unless the nodes $a_1,a_2$ can be related by a
path of length $r-1$. If the two nodes cannot be connected by a shorter path, it
follows from (\ref{epa}) that $\epsilon_{a_1} \epsilon_{a_2} = (-1)^{(r-1)/2}$,
so that the numbers
\begin{equation}
n^{(g) \, (r,r)}_{(a_1,{q \over 2}),(a_2,{q \over 2})} =
\epsilon_{a_1} \epsilon_{a_2} (-1)^{(r-1)/2} U_{r-1}(T)_{a_1,a_2}
\end{equation}
are positive (or zero). That $a_1$ and $a_2$ can be connected by a shorter path
means that the field $(r,r)$ is not the primary with the lowest weight in that
sector, and we are back to the first case.
Since the PF criterion can be satisfied in all sectors for a unique set of
$\epsilon_\alpha$'s, it is tempting to conjecture that these are the correct
physical values. The charge content in the various sectors of the unitary diagonal
models would then be given by
\begin{equation}
n^{(g) \, i}_{(a_1,{q \over 2}),(a_2,{q \over 2})} = \epsilon_{a_1} \,
\epsilon_{a_2} \, \tilde n^{(g) \, i}_{(a_1,{q \over 2}),(a_2,{q \over 2})},
\end{equation}
with the signs (\ref{epa}), and the $\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ as in (\ref{aa}).
\subsection{The unitary series (A,D)}
The same calculations can be carried out for the unitary models of the $(A,D)$
series, with however different results. To illustrate it most clearly, we will
start with the simplest case, namely $(A_4,D_4)$, corresponding to the
critical 3--Potts model ($p=5$, $q=6$).
A set of $Z_2$--symmetric boundary conditions is provided\footnote{The model has
eight conformally invariant boundary conditions which are invariant under a $Z_2$,
but not under the same $Z_2$. One finds three groups of four boundary conditions
that are simultaneously invariant under the same $Z_2$. They clearly correspond
to the three conjugate $Z_2$ subgroups of $S_3$, the automorphism group of
$D_4$.} by the so--called A, BC, Free and New \cite{aos}. They correspond
respectively to the nodes (1,1), (2,1), (1,2) and (2,2). (Free and New, being
fully invariant under $S_3$, must correspond to $b=2$, which is the only node of
$D_4$ invariant under $S_3$.) Together they define 10 different sectors.
It is not difficult to find the field with lowest weight in each of these
sectors, and then compute the parity they are assigned by the matrices
$\tilde n^{(g)\,i}$ computed in Section \ref{sec:expl}. Writing these in
a matrix $\tilde M$, one obtains (indices are A, BC, Free, New)
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde M_{\alpha,\beta} &=& \Big(\tilde n^{(g)\,imin}_{\alpha,\beta} \;:\; \min_{i
\in {\cal H}_{\alpha,\beta}} h_i = h_{imin}\Big)_{\alpha,\beta} \nonumber\\
&=& {\footnotesize \pmatrix{+1 & -1 & +1 & -1 \cr -1 & +1 & -1 & -1 \cr
+1 & -1 & +1 & 0 \cr -1 & -1 & 0 & +1}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The zeros are due to the partition function (superscripts are the conformal
weights)
\begin{equation}
Z_{\rm Free,New} = 2\,\chi_{3,3}^{1/15} + \chi_{3,5}^{2/5} + \chi_{3,1}^{7/5},
\end{equation}
which shows that the ground state in that sector is doubly degenerate, the two
states having opposite parities.
The above matrix makes clear that the charge assignment implied by $\tilde
n^{(g)\,i}$ does not satisfy the PF criterion in all sectors, either because the
ground state is not invariant, or because it is degenerate. One may try to
find values for $\epsilon_\alpha$ that render the non--degenerate ground states
invariant, but one easily sees that it is not possible: no values for
$\epsilon_\alpha$ can be found so that $\tilde M_{\alpha,\beta} \geq 0$ for all
$\alpha,\beta$.
One can relax our demands by looking for a set of $\epsilon_\alpha$ which minimizes
the number of sectors that violate the PF criterion. One then finds that the
minimal number of such sectors, which we call non--PF, is equal to
\begin{equation}
N_{\rm non-PF} = 2.
\end{equation}
This number is realized for $\epsilon_\alpha = (+1,-1,+1,-1) = (+1,-1)_a \otimes
(1,1)_b$, the two non--PF sectors being BC,New and Free,New. Indeed for these
$\epsilon_\alpha$, one obtains
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_\alpha \epsilon_\beta \tilde M_{\alpha,\beta} =
{\footnotesize \pmatrix{+1 & +1 & +1 & +1 \cr +1 & +1 & +1 & -1 \cr
+1 & +1 & +1 & 0 \cr +1 & -1 & 0 & +1}}.
\end{equation}
Let us also notice that if one excludes just one boundary condition, namely
``New'', the expected consequences of the PF theorem are indeed verified. Thus in
this case, the minimal number of boundary conditions that have to be excluded for
this to be true is equal to 1.
Finally one may note that $\epsilon_\alpha = (+1,-1,+1,+1)$ share the same
properties, the two non--PF sectors being now A,New and Free,New.
In any case, one must conclude that the transfer matrix, in certain sectors of
boundary conditions, does not satisfy the conditions of the PF theorem. There can
be only two reasons for that: either the transfer matrix is not
irreducible\footnote{The unicity of the largest eigenvalue is guaranteed only for
non--negative primitive matrices \cite{ms}. Under mild assumptions on the transfer
matrix, its irreducibility is sufficient.}, or else it contains negative entries,
implying that some of the boundary Boltzmann weights are negative (or both).
That the first condition fails is unlikely because the periodic transfer matrix is
irreducible and because the boundary conditions are undecomposable. So one should
favour the second alternative, which points to the unphysical nature of some of the
boundary conditions, their classical description requiring negative Boltzmann
weights. We note that a boundary condition $\alpha$ which is described by negative
Boltzmann weights does not necessarily lead to unphysical (negative, non--PF)
partition functions. Whether or not this is the case depends on which other
boundary condition is associated with $\alpha$.
The appearance of negative classical boundary Boltzmann weights to describe the
New boundary condition in the critical 3--Potts model has been discussed in
\cite{aos}, and is confirmed by the explicit calculation of the critical boundary
weights \cite{p}.
As we shall see, what is true in the 3--Potts model is true in all unitary
models of the $(A,D)$ series. No values for the $\epsilon_\alpha$'s exist which
make all sectors to satisfy the PF criterion, but a suitable choice, unique,
contrary to the above case, of $\epsilon_\alpha$ minimizes the number of sectors
which do not satisfy it. As above we will take the point of view that these
features are the signal that a certain number of boundary conditions are
unphysical, because they require negative Boltzmann weights for their classical
description.
We have not carried out the analysis of the whole series, but instead we have
investigated the first eight models, up to $p=13$ and $q=12$, with the following
results.
In each of these models, we have determined the minimal number $N_{\rm unphys}$ of
boundary conditions that must be disregarded in order to satisfy the PF criterion
in all the sectors involving the remaining ones. This uniquely singles out a set of
boundary conditions, which naturally qualifies as the set of unphysical boundary
conditions. This also determines unique values of the $\epsilon_\alpha$ for the
physical ones. The values of $\epsilon_\alpha$ for the unphysical $\alpha$ are
then fixed (uniquely, except in the 3--Potts model) by requiring a minimal number
of non--PF sectors (which necessarily correspond to one or two unphysical boundary
conditions). That minimal number is denoted by $N_{\rm non-PF}$. The results are as
follows.
In the model $(A_{p-1},D_{q/2+1})$ (we have looked at the eight models
corresponding to $6 \leq q \leq 12$), the number $N_{\rm unphys}(p,q)$ only depends
on the rank of the $D$ factor. It increases rather quickly since it is equal to 1,
3, 6 and 10 for the two models involving the algebra $D_4$, $D_5$, $D_6$ and $D_7$
respectively. We found that the unphysical boundary conditions form the set (the
labelling of the nodes is as in the figure of Section \ref{sec:sym})
\begin{equation}
\{\alpha = (a,b) \in T_{p-1 \over 2} \times A_{{q \over 2}-1} \;:\; a+b \geq
{\textstyle {p+3 \over 2}}\}.
\label{excl}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the signs which make the number of non--PF sectors minimal are unique and
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_\alpha &=& (+1,-1,+1,-1,\ldots)_a \otimes (1,1,1,\ldots)_b \nonumber\\
&=& (-1)^{a+1}, \qquad \alpha=(a,b).
\label{epd}
\end{eqnarray}
As pointed out above, in the model $(A_4,D_4)$, there is another solution
$\epsilon_\alpha = (+1,-1,+1,+1)$, which however appears to contradict the duality
relations (see below).
We have determined $N_{\rm non-PF}$ by mere counting, and found that it
equals 2, 3, 11, 15, 36, 46, 89, 109 for the first eight models, ordered as
$(A_4,D_4)$, $(A_6,D_4)$, $(A_6,D_5)$, ... (By symmetry, the sectors
$(\alpha,\beta)$ and $(\beta,\alpha)$ are identical and count for one.)
These results strongly suggest the general pattern in which the number of boundary
conditions in (\ref{excl}) equals a binomial coefficient
\begin{equation}
N_{\rm unphys}(A,D_{{q \over 2}+1}) = {{q \over 2}-1 \choose 2}.
\end{equation}
This is a large number since essentially half the invariant boundary conditions
would have to be discarded as classically unphysical. A bit more of numerology
also shows that the number of non--PF sectors fits the simple formula
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{\rm non-PF}(A_{q\mp 1-1},D_{{q \over 2}+1}) &=& \nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.5cm} \big\{({\textstyle {q-2 \over 4}})^4\big\} +
{\textstyle {q(q-2)(q \mp 2)(q-4) \over 192}},
\label{unphys}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\{x\}$ is the integer closest to $x$. The two numbers in the r.h.s. of the
previous equation have separately a well--defined meaning: the first one is the
number of sectors where the ground state is non--degenerate but odd under the
$Z_2$ symmetry, while the second one gives the number of sectors where the ground
state is doubly degenerate.
The reader may wish to check the above assertions in a less simple instance than
the Potts model. A good example is to consider the $(A_6,D_5)$ model, for which one
computes (in the tensor product basis)
\begin{equation}
\tilde M_{\alpha,\beta} =
{\footnotesize \pmatrix{
+1 & -1 & +1 & +1 & -1 & +1 & +1 & -1 & +1 \cr
-1 & +1 & -1 & -1 & +1 & -1 & -1 & +1 & +1 \cr
+1 & -1 & +1 & +1 & -1 & -1 & +1 & +1 & +1 \cr
+1 & -1 & +1 & +1 & -1 & +1 & +1 & -1 & 0 \cr
-1 & +1 & -1 & -1 & +1 & +1 & -1 & 0 & -1 \cr
+1 & -1 & -1 & +1 & +1 & +1 & 0 & -1 & -1 \cr
+1 & -1 & +1 & +1 & -1 & 0 & +1 & 0 & 0 \cr
-1 & +1 & +1 & -1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & +1 & 0 \cr
+1 & +1 & +1 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & +1}}.
\end{equation}
The values of $\epsilon_\alpha$ mentioned in (\ref{epd}) are nothing but the first
line of $\tilde M_{\alpha,\beta}$, and the boundary conditions to discard label
the rows and columns 6, 8 and 9, which correspond, in terms of the fixed point
graph $T_3 \times A_3$, to the pairs of nodes $(a,b) = (3,2),(2,3)$ and $(3,3)$,
as announced in (\ref{excl}). There are 6 zeros in the upper triangular part of
$\tilde M_{\alpha,\beta}$, which is the value of the second summand of
(\ref{unphys}).
All this leads to the reasonable guess that (\ref{epd}) might give the
correct physical values of the $\epsilon_\alpha$'s. Inserted in (\ref{nnn}), it not
only determines the parities of all primaries in the sectors where the PF criterion
is satisfied, but it also points to the boundary conditions that can have a
problematic lattice interpretation. These conjectural statements must be confirmed
or dismissed by the explicit calculation of the boundary Boltzmann weights. The
results obtained so far seem to give some support to our conjecture \cite{betal}.
Assuming this conjecture, it is not difficult to give an explicit formula for the
parities. From (\ref{nigf}), (\ref{deltas}) and (\ref{epd}), they are determined
from
\begin{eqnarray}
n^{(g)\,i}_{(a_1,b_1),(a_2,b_2)} &=& (-1)^{a_1+a_2+r+1} \times \nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-7mm} U_{r-1}(T_{(p-1) \over 2})_{a_1,a_2} \, U_{s-1}(A_{{q \over
2}-1})_{b_1,b_2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The matrices $U_{r-1}(T_{(p-1)/2})$ are all positive, unlike
the $U_{s-1}(A_{q/2-1})$, which are positive for $s<q/2$, negative for
$s>q/2$, and identically zero for $s=q/2$, on account of $U_{q-s-1}(A_{q/2-1}) =
- U_{s-1}(A_{q/2-1})$.
Putting all these observations together, one can conclude that the paired fields
have opposite $Z_2$ parities within each pair (as already pointed out), and that the
parity of an unpaired field in the sector of boundary conditions $\alpha,\beta$ is
equal to
\begin{equation}
g(\phi_i^{\alpha\beta}) = \cases{
(-1)^{a_1+a_2+r+1} \, \phi_i^{\alpha\beta} & if $s<q/2$, \cr
\noalign{\smallskip}
(-1)^{a_1+a_2+r} \, \phi_i^{\alpha\beta} & if $s>q/2$.}
\end{equation}
In the critical 3--Potts model for instance, one finds the following frustrated
partition functions (in terms of the conformal weights)
\begin{eqnarray}
&& Z^g_{\rm A,A} = \chi_{0} - \chi_{3}, \\
&& Z^g_{\rm A,BC} = \chi_{2/5} - \chi_{7/5}, \\
&& Z^g_{\rm A,Free} = \chi_{1/8} - \chi_{13/8}, \\
&& Z^g_{\rm BC,BC} = \chi_{0} - \chi_{3} - \chi_{2/5} + \chi_{7/5}, \\
&& Z^g_{\rm BC,Free} = \chi_{1/40} - \chi_{21/40},\\
&& Z^g_{\rm Free,Free} = \chi_{0} - \chi_{3} + \chi_{2/3} - \chi_{2/3^+},\\
&& Z^g_{\rm A,New} = \chi_{1/40} - \chi_{21/40}, \label{anew} \\
&& Z^g_{\rm New,New} = \chi_{0} - \chi_{3} - \chi_{2/5} + \chi_{7/5} \nonumber\\
&& \hspace{1.5cm} + \chi_{2/3} - \chi_{2/3^+} + \chi_{1/15} - \chi_{1/15^+}.
\end{eqnarray}
These functions are computed using the $\epsilon_\alpha$'s given in (\ref{epd}),
and appear to be consistent with the duality of the model \cite{aos}. For
instance, the equality
\begin{equation}
Z_{\rm BC,Free} = Z_{\rm A,New}
\label{dual}
\end{equation}
is maintained for the frustrated partition functions, while
\begin{equation}
Z_{\rm Free,Free} = Z_{\rm A,A} + Z_{\rm A,B} + Z_{\rm A,C}
\end{equation}
becomes $Z^g_{\rm Free,Free} = Z^g_{\rm A,A}$ since $Z^g_{\rm A,B} = Z^g_{\rm A,C}
= 0$.
The use of the other solution $\epsilon_\alpha = (+1,-1,+1,+1)$ has the effect of
multiplying by $-1$ the partition functions of all sectors with one ``New'',
so that $Z^g_{\rm A,New}$ would be minus the expression in (\ref{anew}),
contradicting the duality relation (\ref{dual}).
There is a $Z_3$ symmetry in two models only, namely the critical and tricritical
3--Potts models $(A_4,D_4)$ and $(A_6,D_4)$. They possess respectively 2 (``Free''
and ``New'') and 3 invariant boundary conditions, namely $\alpha=(a,2)$ for $a$ a
node of
$T_2$ and $T_3$. The relevant $\tilde M$ matrices are equal to
\begin{equation}
\tilde M_{\alpha,\beta} = \footnotesize{\pmatrix{+1 & -1 \cr -1 & +1}}
\quad {\rm and} \quad
\footnotesize{\pmatrix{+1 & +1 & -1 \cr +1 & +1 & -1 \cr -1 & -1 & +1}},
\end{equation}
where a $-1$ sign indicates that the corresponding sector has two degenerate ground
states, of opposite and non--zero charge (none of them is invariant under the
$Z_3$).
In the first case (the $(A_4,D_4)$ model), it is the second boundary condition
$(2,2)$ (i.e. ``New'') that appears to be unphysical, while in the second case, it
is the third boundary condition $(3,2)$. This should not be surprising since they
are precisely the boundary conditions which were unphysical from the $Z_2$ point
of view: from (\ref{excl}), $\alpha=(a,2)$ was to be discarded if $a+2 \geq
(p+3)/2$, that is, if $a=(p-1)/2$. Therefore, the boundary conditions which were
causing problems for the $Z_2$ charges also cause problems for the $Z_3$ charges.
\subsection{The unitary models (A,E$_{\bf 6}$)}
We will content ourselves with making a few comments on the two unitary models
$(A_{10},E_6)$ and $(A_{12},E_6)$ ($p=11$ or 13, and $q=12$).
As we have said above, the models involving the $E_6$ algebra have the peculiarity
of possessing primary fields that occur with multiplicity 1, 2 and 3. It turns out
that the same is true of the ground state in various sectors. Let us examine in
some detail the simplest model $(A_{10},E_6)$.
That model possesses 10 invariant boundary conditions, labelled as $\alpha=(a,b)$
with $a=1,2,\ldots,5$ a node of $T_5$, and $b=3,6$ a node of the $A_2$ subgraph of
$E_6$, fixed by its non--trivial automorphism. One can compute as before the matrix
$\tilde M_{\alpha,\beta}$ which collects those entries of
$\tilde n^{(g)\,i}_{\alpha,\beta}$ for which $i$ is the lowest weight primary in
the sector $\alpha,\beta$. The result is
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \tilde M_{\alpha,\beta} = \nonumber\\
&& {\footnotesize \pmatrix{
+1 & 0 & 0 & +1^* & -1^* & +1 & -1 & -1 & +1 & 0 \cr
0 & +1 & +1^* & 0 & -1^* & -1 & -1 & -1 & 0 & +1 \cr
0 & +1^* & +1 & -1^* & 0 & -1 & -1 & 0 & -1 & +1 \cr
+1^* & 0 & -1^* & +1 & 0 & +1 & 0 & -1 & +1 & -1 \cr
-1^* & -1^* & 0 & 0 & +1 & 0 & +1 & +1 & -1 & -1 \cr
+1 & -1 & -1 & +1 & 0 & +1 & -1 & -1 & +1 & -1 \cr
-1 & -1 & -1 & 0 & +1 & -1 & +1 & +1 & -1 & -1 \cr
-1 & -1 & 0 & -1 & +1 & -1 & +1 & +1 & -1 & -1 \cr
+1 & 0 & -1 & +1 & -1 & +1 & -1 & -1 & +1 & -1 \cr
0 & +1 & +1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & +1}}, \nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
where the stars mean that the ground state in the corresponding sector is three
times degenerate, the number $\pm 1$ being the sum of the three parities. As
before, a zero indicates that there are two degenerate ground states with opposite
parity.
We can repeat what we did for the $(A,D)$ series, and look for a set of
$\epsilon_\alpha$ which minimizes the violation of the PF criterion.
By varying the $\epsilon_\alpha$, one finds that the minimal number of
non--PF sectors is equal to 21, and that the non--PF sectors have at least one
boundary condition in the set
\begin{equation}
\{(2,3), (3,3), (4,3), (5,3), (5,6)\}
\end{equation}
in terms of the nodes of $T_5 \times A_2$ (they correspond to the rows and columns
2, 3, 4, 5, 10). So these five boundary conditions can presumably be called
unphysical in the sense of the previous subsection. Hence
\begin{equation}
N_{\rm unphys}(A_{10},E_6) = 5, \quad N_{\rm non-PF}(A_{10},E_6) = 21.
\end{equation}
There are four solutions for the $\epsilon_\alpha$'s for which these values can be
realized. Among them, the most symmetrical one is $\epsilon_\alpha =
(+1,-1,-1,+1,-1) \otimes (1,1)$.
The other model $(A_{12},E_6)$ is similar. One finds
\begin{equation}
N_{\rm unphys}(A_{12},E_6) = 5, \quad N_{\rm non-PF}(A_{12},E_6) = 27.
\end{equation}
The presumably unphysical boundary conditions correspond to the nodes (3,3), (4,3),
(5,3), (6,3), (6,6) of $T_6 \times A_2$. The signs for which these numbers are
reached are unique and given by $\epsilon_\alpha = (+1,-1,+1,+1,-1,+1) \otimes
(1,1)$.
\acknowledgments
It is a pleasure to thank Jean-Bernard Zuber for an encouraging and stimulating
exchange, and for reading the manuscript. I also wish to thank Paul Pearce who has
informed me of the preliminary results that he and his collaborators have obtained
on boundary Boltzmann weights, Ingo Runkel for pointing out misprints in the draft,
and Gerard Watts for a very fruitful discussion.
|
\section{Introduction}
\vspace{-13.cm}
\hfill
{\Large STAR Note SN388}
\vspace{13.cm}
The study of collective flow in nuclear collisions at high energies
has been attracting increasing attention from
experimentalists~\cite{H-G,olli98}. This is partly because recent
progress has been made in the development of new techniques suitable
for flow studies at high
energies~\cite{olli92,lvzh,ollimeth,olli98,posk98,meth}. Instead of
studying $\mpx$, in these new methods a Fourier expansion of the
azimuthal distribution of particles is used in which the first
harmonic coefficient, $v_1$, quantifies the directed flow and the
second harmonic coefficient, $v_2$, quantifies the elliptic flow. In
some cases $A1$ and $A2$ were reported, which in modern terminology,
are twice the square of the sub-event resolution. Using these new
techniques anisotropic flow has now been observed for heavy symmetric
systems at both the AGS and SPS.
At the AGS the E877 Collaboration pioneered the use of the Fourier
expansion method to measure $v_1$ and $v_2$. They studied these
quantities (as well as $v_4$) from a calorimeter as a function of
centrality in different pseudorapidity windows~\cite{l877flow1}. Then
they studied nucleons as well as pions as a function of pseudorapidity
for different centralities~\cite{l877flow3}. Using their spectrometer
to identify particles while still obtaining the event plane from the
calorimeter, they measured $v_1$ and $v_2$ as a function of $p_t$ for
different rapidities and centralities~\cite{l877flow2}. They also
reported $\mpx$ as a function of rapidity~\cite{l877flow2}. In their
latest papers they extended this study to light
nuclei~\cite{volo98,l877flow4}. The E802 Collaboration studied $\mpx$
for light nuclei in the target rapidity region using a forward
hodoscope to determine the event plane~\cite{ahle98}.
At the SPS NA49 first observed elliptic flow in a calorimeter study
which reported $A2$ as a function of centrality~\cite{lna49}. WA98
reported $A1$ as a function of centrality for protons and $\pi^+$ in
the target rapidity region~\cite{lwa98,wa9898}. They also studied
$\mpx$ in the target rapidity region~\cite{wa9898}. NA45 used silicon
drift detectors to study $v_1$ and $v_2$ as a function of
pseudorapidity~\cite{lna45}. NA49 has presented a differential study
of $v_1$ and $v_2$ as a function of $p_t$ and $y$~\cite{posk98} and
has also started to study the centrality
dependence~\cite{posk_annu99}.
Also, the importance of flow for other measurements has just begun to
be studied. For two particle correlations relative to the event plane
the mathematical scheme has been worked
out~\cite{lvc,wied97,heisel2,heisel}. Some first results have been
given by WA98~\cite{lwa98}. Also, for non-identical particles the
correlation relative to the event plane has been
discussed~\cite{volo97}.
\section{Physics Motivation}
Anisotropic flow, in particular elliptic flow, in spite of the
relatively small absolute value of the effect, contains very rich
physics. In general words, it is very sensitive to the equation of
state which governs the evolution of the system created in the nuclear
collision. Being such, anisotropic flow provides important
information on the state of matter under the extreme conditions of the
nuclear collision. The anticipated phase transition to QGP should
have a dramatic effect on elliptic flow due to the softening of the
equation of state.
First it was pointed out in the pioneering work of
Ollitrault\cite{olli92}, who suggested elliptic anisotropy as a
possible signature of transverse collective flow. Within the
hydro-dynamical model Ollitrault analyzed the role of different
equations of state and phase transitions on the final anisotropy.
Hung and Shuryak~\cite{lshur} suggested scanning with beam energy in
order to look for the QCD phase transition. Using their idea of the
softest point in the equation of state combined with hydro-dynamical
calculations, Rischke~\cite{risc96} predicted a dramatic drop in the
elliptic flow signal at the corresponding beam energies (in the
original calculations this was at AGS energies). Sorge has
shown\cite{lsorge} that the elliptic flow is very sensitive to the
pressure at maximum compression, which is the most interesting time in
the system evolution. Recent studies~\cite{zhang99} within the parton
cascade model yield similar conclusions providing also the relation
between the strength of the elliptic flow and parton-parton cross
sections. Recently, Sorge also tried~\cite{sorge98} to combine the
early system evolution in accordance to a QGP equation of state with a
later hadron cascade. He looked at the centrality dependence of the
elliptic flow in order to detect QGP production. Summarizing this
part, we would conclude that the effect of QGP should be seen in the
anisotropic flow dependence on the energy of the colliding nuclei, or
in the dependence on the centrality of the collision. If the
situation would be such that a QGP is produced only in a small
fraction of the collisions than fluctuations in flow would be one of
the best observables for this effect.
The formation of DCC in nuclear collisions could also result in an
event anisotropy. It could be due to the anisotropic shape of the DCC
domains~\cite{wang98} or just to local fluctuations in the charged
multiplicity, which should result in ``orthogonal'' flow in charged
and neutral sectors~\cite{nayak}.
The very magnitude of anisotropic flow is sensitive to the degree of
equilibration in the system. Note that at present there is no
calculation based on the hydro-dynamical picture which accounts for
the experimentally observed values of the effect. This could have its
origin in the obvious difficulties of hydrodynamic model calculations,
but it could also indicate a non-applicability of the picture to
nuclear collisions. The cascade models such as RQMD describe the data
much better. From this point of view the analysis of elliptic flow in
the collision-less and hydrodynamic limits performed in~\cite{heisel}
is very interesting. The HBT interferometry performed relative to the
event plane~\cite{lvc,wied97,heisel2,heisel,volo_ann98_hbt} becomes
also extremely important at this point. Does the system really expand
in the reaction plane as prescribed by hydrodynamics? Simultaneous
measurements of the anisotropic flow and the two-particle, identical
as well as non identical~\cite{volo97}, correlations in principle
should answer this question.
We must also mention the importance of anisotropic flow measurements
to the vast variety of other measurements, which from first look have
nothing to do with anisotropic flow. Let us consider high $p_t$
particle production. It could be that the production mechanism (hard
parton scattering) is very insensitive to the in-plane expansion, but
that the rescattering of high $p_t$ partons is different in the
different directions of particle emission due to the anisotropic
geometry of the collision zone. This would lead to anisotropy in high
$p_t$ particle production and gives another opportunity to study how
it develops~\cite{snell_annu99,volo_ww99}.
Another example is HBT measurements averaged over all orientations of
particle emission. One would think that this does not require
reaction plane measurements, but this is not really true. The mixed
pair distribution usually used in the correlation function calculation
can strongly depend on the relative orientation of the reaction plane
of the events used to create the mixed pair. Therefore one should have
this information even in the case where the dependence of the HBT
parameters on the reaction plane is not studied.
\section{Technical Requirements}
The study of azimuthal anisotropy of unidentified charged hadrons
needs the momenta of the particles but does not have any unusual
requirements for calibrations, momentum resolution, acceptance,
efficiency, two-track resolution, or two-track efficiency. However,
for future analyses it would be good to have particle identification.
\section{Directed and Elliptic Flow at RHIC}
The anisotropy in the azimuthal distribution of particles is often
characterized by $v_1$, $v_2$ and called directed and elliptic flow
respectively. This anisotropy, especially $v_2$, plays an important
role in high energy nuclear collisions and is expected to be even more
important at RHIC energies~\cite{lsorge}. The azimuthal distribution
of particles is described by a Fourier expansion~\cite{lvzh}
\begin{equation}
E\frac{{\mathrm d}^3N}{{\mathrm d}^3p} =
\frac{1}{2\pi}
\frac{{\mathrm d}^2N}{p_t{\mathrm d}p_t{\mathrm d}y} \left(
1+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
2 v_n \cos [n(\phi-\Psi_r)]\right),
\end{equation}
where $\Psi_r$ is the true reaction plane angle. The reaction
plane is defined by the beam direction and the impact parameter vector
${\bf b}$. In a given rapidity ($y$) and $p_t$ interval the
coefficients are determined by
\begin{equation}
v_{n} = \langle \cos [n(\phi-\Psi_r)] \rangle.
\end{equation}
Similarly this Fourier expansion can be done in coordinate space,
where for a given rapidity and $p_t$ interval the coefficients are
determined by
\begin{equation}
r_{n} = \langle \cos [n(\arctan (\frac{y}{x})-\Psi_r)] \rangle
\end{equation}
where $x,y$ are the particle space coordinates at freeze-out. Of
course, these equations only apply to simulations where one knows
$\Psi_r$.
Comparing the anisotropy coefficients in momentum space ($v_n$) with
the anisotropy coefficients in coordinate space ($r_n$) as a function
of $p_t$ helps us to understand the space-time evolution of
nucleus-nucleus collisions~\cite{lvc,nxu_vspace}. To study this
space-time evolution at RHIC, $40\;000$ Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt
s$~=~200~$A$GeV have been analyzed using the RQMD v2.4 model.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\mbox{
\mfigure[
{\it Anisotropy coefficients for nucleons and charged pions in RQMD
for collisions in the impact parameter range of 5 $\leq b \leq$ 10
fm.} ] {\epsfig{figure=vxrx_all_c.eps,width=.49\textwidth}
\label{vxrx_rqmd}
}
\mfigure[
{\it Anisotropy coefficients for nucleons and charged pions in HIJING
for collisions in the impact parameter range of 5 $\leq b \leq$ 10
fm.} ] {\epsfig{figure=vx_all_hijing.eps,width=.49\textwidth}
\label{vx_all_hijing}
}
}
\end{figure}
Figs.~\ref{vxrx_rqmd}a-d show the first harmonic both in momentum and
coordinate space for nucleons and pions. For nucleons at mid-rapidity
note the similarity in shape of $v_1$ versus $y$ and r$_1$ versus $y$.
Here (Fig. 1a) both the slopes of $v_1$ versus $y$ and r$_1$ versus
$y$ show a reversal of sign. This finds an explanation in a picture
with strong (positive) space-momentum correlations, taking into
account the correlation between nucleon stopping and the original
position of the nucleons in the transverse plane~\cite{snell2_annu99}.
For pions, the rapidity dependence of $v_1$ is predominantly governed
by rescattering on comoving nucleons. Figs.~\ref{vxrx_rqmd}e-h show
$v_2$ for nucleons and pions. For both nucleons and pions $v_2$ is
positive and is larger for particles with $p_t \ge 1.5$ GeV. Particles
acquire a large $p_t$ when they are produced by a hard collision
(which should not produce an event anisotropy) or when they have a
large number of soft collisions (rescattering). The latter would
explain the increase in $v_2$ and it explains why r$_2$ goes from
negative for nucleons integrated over all $p_t$ to positive for
nucleons with large $p_t$.
Collective flow and the coefficients $v_1$ and $v_2$ are usually
associated with soft processes. However, the coefficients describe the
event anisotropy and are not limited to only soft physics. At RHIC
energies hard processes become important. They happen early in the
reaction and thus can be used to probe the early stage of the
evolution of a dense system. During this time a quark-gluon plasma
(QGP) could exist. Associated with hard processes are jets. However,
when the transverse energy of the jets becomes smaller it becomes
increasingly difficult to resolve them from the ``soft''
particles. These jets with $E_T <$ 5 GeV are usually refered to as
mini-jets. At RHIC energies it has been estimated that 50\% of the
transverse energy is produced by mini-jets~\cite{jets}.
Medium induced radiative energy loss of high $p_t$ partons (jet
quenching) could be very different in a hadronic medium and a partonic
medium. Recently it was shown that this energy loss per unit
distance, $dE/dx$, grows linearly with the total length of the
medium~\cite{baieretall}. For non central collisions the hot and
dense overlap region has an almond shape. This implies different path
lengths and therefore different energy loss for particles moving in
the in-plane versus the out-plane direction. To study this anisotropy
with respect to the reaction plane~\cite{snell_annu99}, $100\;000$
Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt s$~=~200~$A$GeV have been generated using
HIJING~\cite{hijing} v1.35.
Figs.~\ref{vx_all_hijing}a-d show $v_1$ and $v_2$ for nucleons and
charged pions. The coefficient $v_1$ shows a small negative slope
around mid-rapidity for both nucleons and pions and this becomes more
pronounced for particles with $p_t \ge 1.5$ GeV. The coefficient
$v_2$ is slightly negative over the whole rapidity range for both
charged pions and nucleons. For particles with $p_t \ge 1.5$ GeV,
$v_2$ becomes more negative especially at forward and backward
rapidity. Figs.~\ref{vx_all_hijing}e-f show that without jet
quenching the anisotropy coefficients become zero. This indicates that
interactions among particles, either quenching or rescattering, are
important for producing the anisotropy.
\section{Event Plane Resolutions}
Within event generators the true reaction plane angle $\Psi_r$ is
known. This is not the case experimentally and the reaction plane has
to be estimated from the data. This is done using the anisotropy in
the azimuthal distribution of particles itself. The estimated
reaction plane angle for the $n^{th}$ harmonic is called $\Psi_n$.
The magnitude of the anisotropy and the finite number of particles
available to determine this event plane leads to a finite resolution.
Therefore, the measured $v_n^{obs}$ coefficients with respect
to the event plane have to be corrected for this event plane
resolution
\begin{equation}
v_n = \frac{v_{n}^{obs}}{\langle \cos [n(\Psi_n-\Psi_r)] \rangle} \;.
\label{vn}
\end{equation}
However, eq.~\ref{vn} uses the true reaction plane which is not
known experimentally. Following Ref.~\cite{meth}, if one constructs
the event plane from two random subevents one can relate the
resolution of the subevents to the full event plane resolution,
\begin{equation}
\langle \cos [n(\Psi_{n}-\Psi_r)] \rangle =
C \times \sqrt{\langle \cos [n(\Psi_{n}^{a}-\Psi_{n}^{b})] \rangle },
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a correction~\cite{meth} for the difference in subevent
multiplicity compared to the full event and $\Psi_{n}^{a},
\Psi_{n}^{b}$ are the angles of the event planes determined in the
subevents.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\mbox{
\mfigure[
{\it RQMD v2.4 prediction for $v_2$ using $\pi^+ +\pi^-$ within
-1.5~$\leq y \leq$~1.5. The multiplicity and event plane resolution
are also shown.}
]
{
\epsfig{figure=resolution_v2_pions_tpc.eps,width=.68\textwidth}
\label{restpc}
}
}
\end{figure}
To calculate how well the event plane can be determined in STAR, we
considered the TPC (-1.5~$\leq y \leq$~1.5) and the FTPCs (2.5~$\leq
|y| \leq$~4.). For this the RQMD v2.4 model predictions for Au+Au at
$\sqrt s$~=~200~$A$GeV have been used. In Fig.~\ref{restpc}a, $v_2$
for charged pions integrated over the TPC rapidity region is shown
versus the impact parameter $b$. Fig.~\ref{restpc}b shows the
corresponding multiplicity as a function of $b$. These quantities
lead to a resolution for $v_2$, calculated using the true reaction
plane, as shown in Fig.~\ref{restpc}c. The resolution for $v_2$ which
can be obtained in the STAR TPC using subevents is shown in
Fig.~\ref{restpc}d. For $v_2$ charged pions and protons both
contribute positively and therefore do not need to be
identified. However, the multiplicity of protons at mid-rapidity is
small compared to that of pions and, therefore, including protons does
not significantly change the resolution.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\mbox{
\mfigure[
{\it RQMD v2.4 prediction for elliptic flow using $\pi^+, \pi^-$ and
protons within 2.5~$\leq |y| \leq$~4.0.} ] {
\epsfig{figure=resolution_v2_all_ftpc.eps,width=.48\textwidth}
\label{resv2ftpc}
}
\mfigure[
{\it RQMD v2.4 prediction for directed flow using $\pi^+, \pi^-$ and
protons within 2.5~$\leq |y| \leq$~4.0.} ] {
\epsfig{figure=resolution_v1_all_ftpc_s.eps,width=.48\textwidth}
\label{resv1ftpc}
}
}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{resv2ftpc}a, $v_2$ integrated over the FTPC rapidity
region is shown versus the impact parameter $b$. For the FTPCs
the $\pi^+, \pi^-$ and protons are combined. It was shown in
Fig.~\ref{vxrx_rqmd}e that $v_2$ is relatively flat as a function of
rapidity and its magnitude is therefore comparable in the FTPC and TPC
regions. Fig.~\ref{resv2ftpc}b shows the corresponding multiplicity
as a function of $b$ for the combined FTPCs. These quantities lead to
a resolution for $v_2$, calculated using the true reaction plane,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{resv2ftpc}c. The resolution for $v_2$ which can
be obtained in the STAR FTPCs using subevents is shown in
Fig.~\ref{resv2ftpc}d. If only one FTPC would be used this resolution
would be approximately $\sqrt 2$ smaller.
Using $v_2$ the event plane can be determined, however the sign of
$v_2$ is not determined relative to ${\bf b}$. This sign could be
determined from $v_2$ relative to $\Psi_1$. Fig.~\ref{vxrx_rqmd}c
shows that around mid rapidity $v_1$ is maximally 0.5\% which makes
$\Psi_1$ extremely hard to measure. From Fig.~\ref{vxrx_rqmd}a
and~\ref{vxrx_rqmd}c it is clear that the best region to measure $v_1$
is at forward rapidity. Fig.~\ref{resv1ftpc}a shows $v_1$ integrated
over the FTPC rapidity region, versus $b$. As for $v_2$, the $\pi^+,
\pi^-$ and protons are combined. This decreases the magnitude of $v_1$
because their signs are opposite but the FTPCs are not able to
separate these particles. At large $b$ the magnitude of $v_1$ becomes
$\approx$ 1\% and, although this is already hard to measure, also the
multiplicity decreases rapidly at large $b$. This leads to negligible
resolution for $v_1$ at all values of $b$, which is shown in
Fig.~\ref{resv1ftpc}c.
\section{Conclusion}
We have investigated the feasibility of reconstructing the event
plane. Both Fig.~\ref{restpc} and Fig.~\ref{resv2ftpc} show that it
is possible to determine the second harmonic event plane and calculate
$v_2$ within STAR, assuming the RQMD predictions (multiplicity
distribution, magnitude of $v_2$) are correct. For $v_2$ both the TPC
or the FTPCs can be used. This would initially provide a cross check
and later combining both detectors would increase the resolution. For
this study we only need the momenta of the charged hadrons and thus
anisotropic flow could be one of the first results from STAR. For
future analyses it would be good to have particle identification.
Because it is important to study the dependence of $v_2$ as a function
of $b$~\cite{sorge98} we would like to have 10 centrality bins,
which would be possible with $1\;000\;000$ minimum bias events.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank the other members of the STAR LBNL Soft Hadron
Group and in particular the group leader Nu Xu for help with this
work.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec-Intro}
There are more than 150 different objects enumerated by Catalan numbers;
\cite{EC2} contains an extensive list of such combinatorial objects and
their properties. Two
of the most carefully studied ones are noncrossing partitions and
permutations avoiding a 3-letter pattern.
A partition $\pi$ of the set $[n] \colon =\{1,2,\cdots, n\}$, having blocks
$\beta_1,\beta_2,\cdots ,\beta_k$, is called {\em noncrossing}
if there are no four elements $1 \leq a<b<c<d \leq n$ so
that $a,c\in \beta_i$ and $b,d \in \beta_j$
for some distinct blocks $\beta_i$ and $\beta_j$.
The set of noncrossing partitions of $[n]$ constitutes a lattice under the
refinement order (where $\pi < \nu$ if each block of $\nu$ is a union of
blocks of $\pi$). An investigation of structural and enumerative
properties of this lattice was initiated by Kreweras \cite{kreweras},
and continued by several authors, e.g., \cite{Ed1}, \cite{Ed2},
\cite{EdSi}, \cite{Montenegro}, \cite{NicaSpei}, \cite{SiU},
\cite{St-NCact}.
We denote the lattice of noncrossing partitions of
$[n]$ as $NC^A_n$, since it is a subposet (indeed, a sub-meet-semilattice)
of the intersection lattice associated with the type-A hyperplane
arrangement in ${\bf R}^n$ (which consists of the hyperplanes with equations
$x_i = x_j$, for $1 \leq i < j \leq n$).
For our purposes, recall from \cite{kreweras}
that the poset $NC^A_n$ is ranked with rank
function ${\rm rk}(\pi) = n - {\rm bk}(\pi)$ (where ${\rm bk}(\pi)$
denotes the number of blocks of the partition $\pi$), rank-symmetric and
rank-unimodal with rank sizes given by the Narayana numbers
$\left( {1 \over n} {n \choose k} {n \choose {k+1}} \right)_{0 \leq k <n}$.
Furthermore, it is
self-dual (see \cite{kreweras}, \cite{SiU}) and has the strong
Sperner property (see \cite{SiU}; that is, for every $k$, the maximum
cardinality of the union of $k$ antichains is the sum of the $k$ largest
rank-sizes).
A permutation
$\sigma = \sigma_1 \sigma_2 \cdots \sigma_n$ of $[n]$, or, in what follows,
an $n$-permutation, is called {\em 132-avoiding}
if there are no three positions $1 \leq a<b<c \leq n$ so that
$\sigma_a < \sigma_c < \sigma_b$.
Classes of restricted permutations avoiding other patterns are defined
similarly. Such classes of permutations arise naturally in theoretical
computer science in connection with sorting problems (e.g., \cite{Knuth},
\cite{Tarjan}), as well as in the context of combinatorics related to
geometry (e.g., the theory of Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials \cite{Brenti-KL}
and Schubert varieties \cite{Billey}).
The investigation of classes of pattern-avoiding
permutations from an enumerative and algorithmic point of view includes
\cite{Barc}, \cite{Bona}, \cite{ChowWest}, \cite{DuGiWe},
\cite{NoonanZeil}, \cite{schmidt}, \cite{West},
to name a few.
In Section \ref{sec-A} of
this paper we introduce the partially ordered set $P^A_n$
whose elements are the 132-avoiding $n$-permutations, ordered by
$\sigma < \rho$ if ${\rm Des}(\sigma) \subset {\rm Des}(\rho)$,
where ${\rm Des}$ denotes the descent set of a permutation.
One can think of $P^A_n$ as a Boolean algebra of rank ${n-1}$ in which
each element $S$ is replicated as many times as there are 132-avoiding
permutations with $S$ as the descent set.
We show that this poset of restricted permutations is an extension
of the lattice of noncrossing partitions $NC^A_n$ by exhibiting a natural
order-preserving bijection from the dual order $(NC^A_n)^*$ to the poset
$P^A_n$.
This yields the fact that $P^A_n$ has the
same rank-generating function as $NC^A_n$ (implicit in \cite{Si-ncstats},
where the joint distribution of the descent and major index statistics on
132-avoiding permutations is shown to agree with the joint distribution of
the block and {\rm rb} statistic on noncrossing partitions).
It then follows that
$P^A_n$ is rank-unimodal, rank-symmetric and strongly Sperner.
We also prove that $P^A_n$ is itself a self-dual poset.
We also present type-B analogues of these results. These constitute Section
\ref{sec-B} of the paper.
The notion of a type-B noncrossing partition of $[n]$ is that
first considered by Montenegro \cite{Montenegro},
systematically studied by Reiner \cite{Reiner-NCB},
and further investigated by Hersh \cite{Hersh-NC}.
These authors show that the type-B noncrossing partitions of $[n]$ form a
lattice, $NC^B_n$, which shares
naturally a variety of properties of $NC^A_n$. In particular, $NC^B_n$
is a rank-unimodal, self-dual, strongly Sperner poset.
We define a poset $P^B_n$ into which $NC^B_n$ can be
embedded via an order-preserving bijection, with properties analogous to
those obtained for type-A. The parallel between the type-A and type-B cases
includes the fact that the poset $P^B_n$ is defined in terms of
pattern-avoiding elements of the hyperoctahedral group (or signed
permutations), ordered by
containment of the descent set. The relevant pattern restriction
is the simultaneous avoidance of the patterns $21$ and
${\overline{2}}\ {\overline{1}}$.
This class of restricted signed permutations
was considered in \cite{Si-Bstats}, where B-analogues are proposed for
type-A results in \cite{Si-ncstats}
concerning combinatorial statistics for noncrossing partitions and
restricted permutations.
In brief, a class of partitions and one of permutations are equinumerous,
and further, the count of the partitions by number of blocks agrees with the
count of permutations by number of descents. A similar situation arises
for certain type-B analogues of these objects. Our results show that these
enumerative relations are manifestations of structural relations between
partial orders which can be defined naturally on the objects under
consideration. We also discuss posets $Q^A_n$ and $Q^B_n$ of restricted
permutations and signed permutations ordered by containment of their sets of
excedences.
The final section of the paper consists of remarks and problems for further
investigation.
\section{The type-A case}\label{sec-A}
\subsection{A bijection and its properties}
It is not difficult to find a bijection from the set of noncrossing partitions
of $[n]$ onto that of 132-avoiding $n$-permutations. Here we
exhibit and analyze the structure of such a bijection, $f$, which will serve as
the main tool in proving the results of this section.
To avoid confusion, integers
belonging to a partition will be called {\em elements}, while integers
belonging to a permutation will be called {\em entries}. An $n$-permutation
will always be written in the one-line notation, $p=p_1p_2\cdots p_n$,
with $p_i = p(i)$ denoting its $i$th entry.
Let $\pi \in NC^A_n$. We construct the 132-avoiding
permutation $p=f(\pi)$ corresponding to it as follows.
Let $k$ be the largest element of $\pi$ which is in
the same block of $\pi$ as 1. Put the entry $n$ of $p$ in the $k$th
position, i.e., set $p_k=n$. As $p$ is to be 132-avoiding,
this implies that the entries larger
than $n-k$ are on the left of $n$ in $p$,
and the entries smaller than or equal to $n-k$ are on the right of $n$.
Delete $k$ from $\pi$ and
apply this procedure recursively, with obvious minor adjustments,
to the restrictions of $\pi$
to the sets $\{ 1, \dots, k-1 \}$ and $\{ k+1, \dots , n \}$, which are also
noncrossing partitions.
Namely, if $j$ is the largest element in the same block as $k+1$,
we set $p_{j} = n-k$, so that the restriction $\pi_1$ of
$\pi$ to $\{k+1,k+2,\dots ,n\}$ yields a 132-avoiding permutation
of $\{1,2,\dots, n-k\}$ placed on the right of $n$ in $p = f(\pi)$.
Similarly, if in the restriction $\pi_2$ of $\pi$ to the set
$\{ 1, 2, \dots, k-1 \}$ the largest element in the same block as 1 is equal
to $j$, we set $p_j = n-1$. Thus, recursively, $\pi_2$
yields a 132-avoiding permutation which we realize
on the set $\{ n-k+1, n-k+2, \dots, n-1 \}$ and we place it to the left of
$n$ in $p = f(\pi)$.
In other words, with a slight abuse of notation, $f(\pi)$
is the concatenation of $f(\pi_2)$, $n$, and $f(\pi_1)$, where $f(\pi_2)$
permutes
the set $\{n-k+1,n-k+2,\cdots ,n-1\}$ and $f(\pi_1)$ permutes the set $[n-k]$.
To see that this is a bijection note that we can recover the maximum of
the block containing the element 1 from the position of the entry $n$ in $p$,
and then proceed recursively.
\begin{example} {\em If $\pi=(\{1,4,6\}, \{2,3\}, \{5\}, \{7,8\})$, then
$f(\pi)=64573812$. }\end{example}
\begin{example} {\em If $p=(\{1,2,\cdots ,n\})$, then
$f(p)=12\cdots n $. }\end{example}
\begin{example} {\em If $p=(\{1\},\{2\},\cdots ,\{n\})$, then
$f(p)=n\cdots 21 $. }\end{example}
The following definition is widely used in the literature.
\begin{definition}
Let $p=p_1p_2\cdots p_n$ be an $n$-permutation. We say that $i \in [n-1]$
is a {\em descent} of $p$ if $p_i>p_{i+1}$. The set of all descents of $p$
is called the {\em descent set} of $p$ and is denoted ${\rm Des}(p)$.
\end{definition}
Now we are in a position to define the poset $P^A_n$ of 132-avoiding
permutations we want to study.
\begin{definition}
Let $p$ and $q$ be two 132-avoiding $n$-permutations.
We say that $p<q$ in $P^A_n$ if
${\rm Des}(p)\subset {\rm Des}(q)$.
\end{definition}
Clearly, $P^A_n$ is a poset as inclusion is transitive.
The Hasse diagram of $P^A_4$ is shown in Figure 1.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=poset4.eps}
\caption{The Hasse diagram of $P^A_4$ }
\label{hasse}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{observation}\label{obs-lrminA}
In a 132-avoiding permutation, $i$
is a descent if and only if $p_{i+1}$ is smaller
than every entry on its left. Such an element is called a {\em left-to-right
minimum}. So $p<q$ in $P^A_n$
if and only if the set of positions of left-to-right minima in $p$
is a proper subset of the set of positions of left-to-right minima in $q$.
\end{observation}
The following proposition describes the relation between the blocks of
$\pi \in NC^A_n$ and the descent set of the 132-avoiding permutation $f(\pi)$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop-block}
The bijection $f$ has the following property: Let $i \ge 1$. Then
$i\in {\rm Des}(f(\pi))$ if and only if $i+1$ is the smallest element of
its block in $\pi \in NC^A_n$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For $n=1$ and $n=2$ the statement is clearly true and we use induction on
$n$. Suppose
we know the statement for all positive integers smaller than $n$.
Then we distinguish two cases:
\begin{enumerate} \item If 1 and $n$ are in the same block of $\pi$, then the
construction of $f(\pi)$ starts by putting the entry $n$ in the
last slot of $f(\pi)$, then deleting the element $n$ from $\pi$. This does not
alter either the set of minimum elements of the blocks nor the set of
descents. Therefore, this case reduces to the general case for $n-1$,
and is settled by the inductive hypothesis.
\item If the largest element $k$ of the block containing 1 is smaller than
$n$, then as we have seen above, $f(\pi)$ is the concatenation of
$f(\pi_2), n, f(\pi_1)$, and $f(\pi_1)$ is not empty.
Clearly, by the definition of $f(\pi)$,
$k \in {\rm Des}(f(\pi))$ and the element
$k+1$ is the minimum of its block. From this and the inductive hypothesis
applied to $f(\pi_1)$ and $f(\pi_2)$, the proof follows.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Properties of $P^A_n$}
Proposition \ref{prop-block} implies that $P^A_n$ is isomorphic to the order
on
noncrossing partitions in which $\pi<\pi'$ if the set of minima of the
blocks of $\pi'$ is contained in the set of minima of the blocks of $\pi$.
This yields the first result of this section.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm-embPA}
The lattice of noncrossing partitions $NC^A_n$ is a subposet of $P^A_n$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We show that our bijection $f$ is an order-reversing map
$NC^A_n \to P^A_n$. The conclusion then follows from the self-duality of
the lattice of noncrossing partitions.
Suppose $\pi < \tau$ in $NC^A_n$.
This means $\pi$ is a finer partition than $\tau$, so every element which is
the minimum of its block in $\tau$ is also the minimum of its block in
$\pi$. By Proposition
\ref{prop-block} this implies ${\rm Des}(f(\tau))\subset {\rm Des}(f(\pi))$,
so $f(\pi) > f(\tau)$ in $P^A_n$.
\end{proof}
Clearly,
$P^A_n$ is a ranked poset (with rank function
${\rm rk}_{P^A_n}(p) = \# {\rm Des}(p)$), and we have
${\rm rk}_{NC^A_n}(\pi) = n-1- {\rm rk}_{P^A_n}(f(\pi))$.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor-symA}
The poset $P^A_n$ is rank-symmetric, rank-unimodal and strongly Sperner,
and its rank generating function is equal to that of $NC^A_n$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The properties of the rank sizes of $P^A_n$
are immediate consequences of Proposition \ref{prop-block}
and the corresponding properties known to hold for $NC^A_n$.
Moreover, every antichain of $P^A_n$ is, via the bijection $f$,
an antichain of $NC^A_n$, and the strong Sperner property of $P^A_n$ follows
from the strong Sperner property of $NC^A_n$.
\end{proof}
We now turn to showing that $P^A_n$ is self-dual, based on the next lemma.
For $S \subseteq [n-1]$, let $Perm_n(S)$ denote the
number of 132-avoiding $n$-permutations with descent set $S$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-rev-compl}
Let $S$ be any subset of $[n-1]$ and let $\alpha (S)$ denote
its ``reverse complement,'' that is,
$i\in \alpha(S) \Longleftrightarrow n-i \notin S$.
Then $Perm_n(S)=Perm_n(\alpha(S))$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We use induction on $n$. For $n=1,2,3$ the statement is true.
Now suppose we know it for all positive integers smaller than $n$.
Denote by $t$ the smallest element of $S$, and let $p$ be a 132-avoiding
$n$-permutation whose descent set is $S$.
\begin{enumerate} \item Suppose that $t>1$.
Then we have $p_1<p_2<\cdots <p_t$ and,
because $p$ avoids the pattern 132, the values of
$p_1,p_2,\dots,p_t$ are {\em consecutive} integers.
So, for given values of $p_1$ and $t$,
we have only one choice for $p_2,p_3,\dots ,p_t$. This implies
\begin{equation} \label{1a}
Perm_n(S)=Perm_{n-(t-1)}(S-(t-1)),\end{equation}
where $S-(t-1)$ is the set obtained from
$S$ by subtracting $t-1$ from each of its elements.
On the other hand, we have $n-t+1,n-t+2,\cdots ,n-1 \in \alpha(S)$,
meaning that in any permutation $q$ counted by $Perm_n(\alpha(S))$ the chain
of inequalities $q_{n-t+1}>q_{n-t+2}>\cdots >q_n$ holds.
To avoid forming a 132-pattern in $q$, we must have
$(q_{n-t+2},\dots ,q_n)=(t-1,t-2,\dots 1)$.
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{1b}
Perm_n(\alpha(S))=Perm_{n-(t-1)}(\alpha(S)|n-(t-1))
\end{equation}
where $\alpha(S)|n-(t-1)$ denotes the set obtained from $\alpha(S)$
by removing its last $t-1$ elements. Clearly,
$Perm_{n-(t-1)}(S-(t-1))=Perm_{n-(t-1)}(\alpha(S)|n-(t-1))$
by the induction hypothesis, so equations (\ref{1a}) and (\ref{1b}) imply
$Perm_n(S)=Perm_n(\alpha(S))$.
\item If $t=1$, but $S\neq [n-1]$,
then let $u$ be the smallest index which is {\em not}
in $S$. Then again, to avoid forming a 132-pattern,
the value of $p_u$ must be the smallest positive integer $a$ which
is larger than $p_{u-1}$ and is not equal to any $p_i$ for $i\leq u-1$.
So again, we have only one choice for $p_u$.
On the other hand, the largest index in $\alpha(S)$ will be $n-u$. Therefore,
in permutations $q$ counted by $Perm_n(\alpha(S))$,
we must have $q_{n-u}=1$ as Observation 1 implies that $q_{n-u}$ must be
the rightmost left-to-right minimum in such permutations,
and that is always the entry 1.
In order to use this information to reduce our permutations in size, we define
$S'\subset [n-2]$ as follows: $i\in S'$ if and only if either $i<u$ and then,
by the definition of $u$,
$i\in S$, or $i>u$ and $i+1\in S$. In other words, we decrease elements
larger than $u$ by 1; intuitively, we remove $u$ from $[n-1]$, and translate
the interval on its right one notch to the left. If we now take $\alpha(S')$,
that
will consist of entries $j$ so that $j<n-u$ and
$(n-1)-(j-1)=n-j\notin S$. So in other words, we simply
remove $n-u$ from $[n-1]$ (there has been nothing on the right of $n-u$ in
$\alpha(S)$ to translate). Note that
the size of $\alpha(S)$ decreases with this operation as $n-u\in \alpha(S)$.
As we have seen in the previous paragraph, we had only one choice for $p_u$
and $p_{n-u}$, so removing them this way does not change the number of
permutations with a given descent set. Thus we have
$Perm_n(S)=Perm_{n-1}(S')$, and also $Perm_n(\alpha(S))=
Perm_{n-1}(\alpha(S'))$. By induction hypothesis, the right hand sides of
thes two equations agree, and therefore the left hand sides must agree, too.
\begin{example} {\em If $n=8$ and $S=\{1,6\}$, and so $\alpha(S)=
\{1,3,4,5,6\}$, then $u=2$, $n-u=6$, and indeed, $S'=\{1,5\}$ and $\alpha(S')=
\{1,3,4,5\}$. }
\end{example}
\item Finally, if $S=[n-1]$, then the statement is trivially true as
$Perm_n(S)=Perm_n(\alpha(S))=1.$
\end{enumerate}
So we have seen that $Perm_n(S)=Perm_n(\alpha(S))$ in all cases.
\end{proof}
It is now easy to verify that the reverse complementation of the
descent set can be used to construct an anti-automorphism of $P^A_n$.
\begin{theorem} The poset $P^A_n$ is self-dual.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that, in $P^A_n$,
permutations which have the same descent set will
cover the same elements and they will be covered by the same elements.
The permutations with a prescribed descent set $S$
form an orbit of $Aut(P^A_n)$ and they can be
permuted among themselves arbitrarily by elements of $Aut(P^A_n)$.
On the other hand, Lemma \ref{lemma-rev-compl} shows that the orbits
corresponding to $S \subseteq [n-1]$ and to its reverse-complement
$\alpha(S)$ are equinumerous. Hence, a map $P^A_n \to P^A_n$ which
establishes a bijection between
$\{ p \in P^A_n \ \colon \ {\rm Des}(p) = S \}$
and $\{ q \in P^A_n \ \colon \ {\rm Des}(q) = \alpha(S) \}$ for each $S
\subseteq [n-1]$ provides an order-reversing bijection on $P^A_n$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A poset derived from excedences}\label{subsec-excA}
It is shown in \cite{Si-ncstats} that the joint distribution
of the excedence and Denert statistics on 321-avoiding permutations agrees
with the joint distribution of the block and ${\rm rb}$ statistics on
noncrossing partitions. This suggests the definition of the poset
$Q^A_n$ consisting of the 321-avoiding $n$-permutations ordered by
containment of the set of excedences, and invites the question of how
$Q^A_n$ compares with the poset $P^A_n$.
A permutation $\sigma$ has an {\em excedence} at $i$ if $\sigma(i) > i$.
For example, the {\em excedence set} of $\sigma = 3 2 5 1 4$ is
${\rm Exc}(\sigma) = \{ 1, 3 \}$. Let ${\rm exc}(\sigma)$ denote the number
of excedences of $\sigma$.
Following \cite{Si-ncstats},
there is a bijection $\theta$ from $NC^A_n $ to 321-avoiding $n$-permutations
such that ${\rm exc}(\theta(\pi)) = {\rm bk}( \pi ) - 1$.
Namely, if the set of minima of the blocks of $\pi \in NC^A_n$,
omitting the block containing 1, is
$\{ f_2 < \cdots < f_k \}$ and the set of maxima of the blocks,
again, omitting the block containing 1, is
$\{ l_2 < \cdots < l_k \}$, then let $\theta(\pi)$ be the permutation
whose value at $f_i - 1$ is $l_{i} $ for $i = 2, 3, \dots, k$, and
whose other values constitute an increasing subsequence in the remaining
positions. For instance, if $\pi = \{ 1, 5, 7 \} \{ 2 \} \{ 3, 4 \}
\{ 6 \} \{ 8, 10 \} \{ 9 \} \in NC^A_{10}$, then we have
$( f_2, \dots, f_6) = ( 2, 3, 6, 8, 9)$ and
$( l_2, \dots, l_6) = (2, 4, 6, 9, 10)$, and we obtain
$\theta(\pi) = 2\ 4\ 1\ 3\ 6\ 5\ 9\ 10\ 7\ 8$.
Recall from \cite{Si-ncstats} that the set of excedences of $\theta(\pi)$ is
precisely $\{ f_2 -1, f_3 -1, \dots, f_k -1 \}$. Similarly to the case of
descents discussed for 132-avoiding permutations, a covering relation
$\pi < \pi'$ in $NC^A_n$ corresponds to the deletion of an excedence:
${\rm Exc}(\theta(\pi')) = {\rm Exc}(\theta(\pi)) - \{ i \}$, for
a suitable $i \in {\rm Exc}(\theta(\pi))$. Hence, taking advantage
of the self-duality of $NC^A_n$, one can establish directly that
the poset $Q^A_n$ enjoys the same properties as $P^A_n$:
There is an embedding of $NC^A_n$ into the poset $Q^A_n$ of 321-avoiding
$n$-permutations ordered by containment of the set of excedences;
the embedding is rank-preserving and $Q^A_n$ is a strongly Sperner poset.
The fact that the posets $P^A_n$ and $Q^A_n$ have strongly similar
properties is not accidental.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop-isoA} The posets $P^A_n$ and $Q^A_n$ are
isomorphic.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For each $S \subseteq [n-1]$, let $E^{321}_n(S)$ be the set of 321-avoiding
$n$-permutations with excedence set $S\subseteq [n-1]$.
Let also $D^{132}_n(\alpha(S))$ be the set of 132-avoiding $n$-permutations
with descent set equal to $\alpha(S)$, the reverse-complement of $S$.
Thus, in the notation of the previous subsection,
the cardinality of $D^{132}_n(\alpha(S))$ is $Perm_n(\alpha(S))$.
We construct a bijection $s \colon E^{321}_n(S) \to D^{132}_n(\alpha(S))$
(illustrated by example \ref{eg-sbij}).
If $p\in E^{321}_n(S)$, then, as seen earlier in the definition of $\theta$,
the entries $p_j$ with $j\notin S$ form an increasing subsequence.
This, and the definition of excedence imply
that $p_j$ is a {\em right-to-left minimum} (that is, smaller than all entries
on its right) if and only if $j\notin {\rm Exc}(p)=S$.
Now let $p'= p_n p_{n-1} \cdots p_1$ be the reverse of $p$.
Then $p'$ is a 123-avoiding permutation
having a left-to-right minimum at position $i\leq n$ exactly if
$n+1-i \notin S$.
There is exactly one 132-avoiding permutation $p''$ which has this
same set of left-to-right minima at these same positions \cite{schmidt}.
Namely, $p''$ is obtained by keeping the left-to-right minima of $p'$ fixed,
and successively placing in the remaining positions, from left to
right, the smallest available element which does not alter the
left-to-right minima.
We set $s(p)=p''$. Observation 1 then tells us that $i\in {\rm Des} (p'')$
if and only
if $n-i\notin S$, in other words, when $i\in \alpha(S)$,
and so $p''$ belongs indeed to $D^{132}_n(\alpha(S))$.
It is easy to see that $s$ is invertible. Clearly, $p'$
can be recovered from $p''$ as the only 123-avoiding permutation with the
same values and positions of its left-to-right minima as $p''$. (All
entries which are not left-to-right minima are to be written in decreasing
order). Then $p$ can be recovered as the reverse of $p'$.
The bijections $s \colon E^{321}_n(S) \to D^{132}_n(\alpha(S))$
for all the choices of $S \subseteq [n-1]$ produce an order-reversing
bijection from $Q^A_n$ to $P^A_n$.
But $P^A_n$ is self-dual, so the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}\label{eg-sbij}
{\em Take $p=2\ 4\ 1\ 6\ 3\ 5\ 9\ 10\ 7\ 8 \in
E^{321}_{10}(S)$ for $S= \{ 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 \}$. Then its reversal
$p'=8\ 7\ 10\ 9\ 5\ 3\ 6\ 1\ 4\ 2$ has left-to-right minima
8, 7, 5, 3, 1 in positions 1, 2, 5, 6, 8. We obtain
$s(p) = p''= 8\ 7\ 9\ 10\ 5\ 3\ 4\ 1\ 2\ 6$, a permutation in
$D^{132}_{10}( \{ 1, 4, 5, 7 \})$.
}
\end{example}
\section{The type-B case}\label{sec-B}
\subsection{The type-B noncrossing partitions}\label{subsec-NCB}
The hyperplane arrangement of the root system of type $B_n$ consists of the
hyperplanes with equations $x_i = \pm x_j$ for $1 \leq i < j \leq n$ and the
coordinate hyperplanes $x_i = 0$, for $1 \leq i \leq n$.
The subspaces of ${\bf R}^n$ arising as intersections of hyperplanes from
among these can be encoded by partitions of $\{ 1, 2, \dots, n ,
{\overline{1}}, {\overline{2}}, \dots, {\overline{n}} \}$ satisfying the
following properties: i) if $\{ a_1, \dots, a_k \}$ is a block, then
$\{ {\overline{a_1}}, \dots , {\overline{a_k}} \}$ is also a block, where
the bar operation is an involution; and ii) there is at most one block,
called {\em the zero-block},
which is invariant under the bar operation. The collection of such
partitions are the {\em type-B partitions of $[n]$}. If $1, 2, \dots, n,
{\overline{1}}, {\overline{2}}, \dots, {\overline{n}}$ are placed around a
circle, clockwise in this order, and if cyclically successive elements of the
same block are joined by chords drawn inside the circle, then, following
\cite{Reiner-NCB},
the class of {\em type-B noncrossing partitions}, denoted $NC^B_n$, is the
class of type-B partitions of $[n]$ which admit a circular diagram with no
crossing chords. Alternatively, a type-B partition is noncrossing if there
are no four elements $a, b, c, d$ in clockwise order around the circle, so
that $a,c$ lie in one block and $b,d$ lie in another block of the partition.
The total number of type-B noncrossing partitions of $[n]$ is
${ {2n} \choose n}$ (see \cite{Reiner-NCB}).
As in the case of type A, the refinement order on type-B partitions yields a
geometric lattice (in fact, isomorphic to a Dowling lattice with an order-2
group), and the noncrossing partitions constitute a sub-meet-semilattice as
well as a lattice in its own right. As a poset under the refinement order,
$NC^B_n$ is ranked, with
${\rm rk}(\pi) = n - \# ($ of pairs of non-zero blocks $)$.
For example, $\pi = \{ 1, {\overline{3}}, {\overline{5}} \},
\{ {\overline{1}}, 3, 5 \}, \{ 4 \}, \{ {\overline{4}} \},
\{ 2, {\overline{2}} \}$ is an element of $NC^B_5$ having 2 pairs of
non-zero blocks and its rank is equal to 3.
The rank-sizes in $NC^B_n$ are given by $\left( {n \choose k}^2
\right)_{0 \leq k \leq n}$ (see \cite{Reiner-NCB}).
The numerous properties of $NC^A_n$
which also hold for $NC^B_n$ (as shown in \cite{Reiner-NCB},
\cite{Hersh-NC}), establish the latter as a natural B-analogue.
In particular, $NC^B_n$ is a self-dual, rank-unimodal, strongly Sperner poset,
analogously to the properties of $NC^A_n$ of concern in Section \ref{sec-A}.
We now turn to a type-B counterpart of the restricted permutations
considered in the preceding section.
\subsection{A class of pattern-avoiding signed
permutations}\label{subsec-Brestr}
We will view the elements of the hyperoctahedral group $B_n$ as signed
permutations written as words of
the form $b = b_1 b_2 \dots b_n$ in which each of the symbols $1, 2, \dots,
n$ appears, and may or may not be barred. Thus, the cardinality of $B_n$ is
$n! 2^n$.
To find a B-analogue of the poset $P^A_n$, we need a subset of $B_n$ whose
cardinality is $\# NC^B_n = { {2n} \choose n }$, which is characterized via
pattern-avoidance, and over which the distribution of the descent statistic
agrees with the distribution across ranks of the type-B noncrossing partitions
of $[n]$. Such a class of signed permutations is
$B_n(12, {\overline{2}}\ {\overline{1}})$ which appears in
\cite{Si-Bstats}. We include its description for the reader's convenience.
Consider the elements of $B_n$ which avoid simultaneously the patterns $21$
and ${\overline{2}}\ {\overline{1}}$. That is, the set of elements $b = b_1
b_2 \cdots b_n \in B_n$ such that there are no indices
$1 \leq i < j \leq n$ for which i) either both $b_i, b_j$ are barred, or
neither is barred, and ii) $|b_i| > |b_j|$ (the absolute value of a symbol
means $|a| = a$ if $a$ is not barred, and $|a| = {\overline{a}}$ if $a$ is
barred; effectively, the absolute value removes the bar from a barred
symbol).
The following is immediate: a $(21, {\overline{2}}\
{\overline{1}})$-avoiding permutation in $B_n$ is a shuffle of an
increasingly ordered subset $L$ of $[n]$ whose elements we then bar, with its
increasingly ordered complement in $[n]$. For example,
$b = {\overline{ 2}} 1 3 {\overline{5}} 4 {\overline{ 6}} 7$
is one of
${7 \choose 3}$ elements of $B_7(21, {\overline{2}}\ {\overline{1}})$
associated with the subset $L = \{ 2, 5, 6 \} \subseteq [7]$.
Obviously, summing over the choices of $L$ of cardinality ranging from zero
to $n$ and over the shuffles, it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq-Brestr-card}
\# B_n(21, {\overline{2}}\ {\overline{1}}) = \sum_{k=0}^n
{ {n \choose k}^2 } = { {2n} \choose n} = \# NC^B_n,
\end{equation}
as desired.
Furthermore, the distribution of descents over
$B_n(21, {\overline{2}}\ {\overline{1}})$ is as desired.
We say that $b = b_1 b_2 \dots b_n \in B_n$
has a {\em descent} at $i$, for $1 \leq i \leq n-1$, if $b_i > b_{i+1}$ with
respect to the total ordering
$1 < 2 < \cdots < n < {\overline{n}} < \cdots < {\overline{2}} <
{\overline{1}}$, and that it has a descent at $n$ if $b_n$ is barred.
As usual, the {\em descent set} of $b$, denoted ${\rm Des}(b)$, is the set
of all $i \in [n]$ such that $b$ has a descent at $i$.
For example, for
$b = {\overline{ 2}} 1 {\overline{3}} {\overline{5}} 4 7 {\overline{ 6}}$
we have
${\rm Des}(b) = \{ 1, 3, 4, 7 \}$.
It is then transparent that if
$b \in B_n(21, {\overline{2}}\ {\overline{1}})$, then its descent set is
precisely the set of positions occupied by barred symbols.
In conclusion,
\begin{observation}\label{obs-bij-B2121}
For an element $b$ of the hyperoctahedral group $B_n$, let
$L(b)$ denote the set of symbols which are barred in $b$, and
${\rm Des}(b)$ denote the descent set of $b$.
Then the map $b \mapsto (L(b), {\rm Des}(b))$ gives a bijection between
the class of restricted signed permutations $B_n(21, {\overline{2}}\
{\overline{1}})$ and ordered pairs of subsets of $[n]$ of equal cardinality.
\end{observation}
\subsection{The poset $P^B_n$}\label{subsec-PBn}
As the B-analogue of the poset of 132-avoiding permutations $P^A_n$ of the
preceding section, we consider the poset $P^B_n$ consisting of
the $(21, {\overline{2}}\ {\overline{1}})$-avoiding elements of the
hyperoctahedral group $B_n$, with the order relation given by
$b < b'$ if and only if ${\rm Des}(b) \subset {\rm Des}(b')$.
Based on the preceding discussion and an encoding of type-B noncrossing
partitions appearing in \cite{Reiner-NCB}, one readily obtains the
properties of $P^B_n$ which parallel those of $P^A_n$.
\begin{theorem}
The poset $P^B_n$ of $(12,{\overline{2}}\ {\overline{1}})$-avoiding elements
of the hyperoctahedral group $B_n$, ordered by containment of the descent
set, is an extension of the refinement order on the type-B noncrossing
partition lattice $NC^B_n$. The poset $P^B_n$ has the same
rank-generating-function as $NC^B_n$, therefore it is rank-symmetric and
rank-unimodal, and it is a self-dual and strongly Sperner poset.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It is immediate from its definition and Observation \ref{obs-bij-B2121} that
$P^B_n$ is a ranked poset (namely, ${\rm rk}(b) = \# {\rm Des}(b)$)
and has rank-sizes given by
$\left( {n \choose k}^2 \right)_{0 \leq k \leq n}$, equal to the rank-sizes
in $NC^B_n$.
Also, $P^B_n$ is a self-dual poset:
clearly, if $b'$ is the $(21, {\overline{2}}\ {\overline{1}})$-avoiding
signed permutation which corresponds to the pair
$( [n] - L(b), [n] - {\rm Des}(b) )$, then the mapping $b \leftrightarrow b'$
is an order-reversing involution on $P^B_n$.
Toward checking that
there is an order-preserving bijection from $NC^B_n$ to $P^B_n$, we
first recall a fact from \cite{Reiner-NCB}:
every partition $\pi \in NC^B_n$
can be encoded by a pair $(L(\pi), R(\pi))$ of subsets of $[n]$ whose
cardinality is the number of pairs of non-zero blocks of $\pi$.
Informally, these sets consist of the Left and Right delimiters of non-zero
blocks when the elements are read in clockwise order (in the circular
diagram of $\pi$). More precisely,
if $n=0$ or if $\pi$ has only a zero-block, we set $L=R=\emptyset$.
Otherwise,
$\pi \in NC^B_n$ has some non-zero block consisting of cyclically
consecutive elements in its diagram. If such a block consists of
$j_1, j_2, \dots, j_k$ in clockwise order, then $|j_1|$ belongs to $L(\pi)$
and $|j_k|$ belongs to $R(\pi)$. By deleting this block and
its image under barring, a type-B noncrossing partition of
$[n-k]$ is obtained and the construction of the sets $L(\pi)$ and $R(\pi)$
is completed by repeating this process as long as non-zero blocks arise.
For instance, if $\pi =
\{ 1, {\overline{3}}, {\overline{5}} \},
\{ {\overline{1}}, 3, 5 \}, \{ 4 \}, \{ {\overline{4}} \},
\{ 2, {\overline{2}} \}$, then $L(\pi) = \{ 3, 4 \}$ and
$R(\pi) = \{ 1, 4 \}$.
Now suppose that $\pi < \pi'$ in $NC^B_n$, and that this is a covering relation
(i.e., ${\rm rk}(\pi') = {\rm rk}(\pi) + 1$).
Then there exist $l \in L(\pi)$ and $r \in R(\pi)$ such that
$L(\pi') = L(\pi) - \{ l \}$ and $R(\pi') = R(\pi) - \{ r \}$,
as a result of the merging of blocks entailed by the covering relation.
Thus it is clear that if $\pi \in NC^B_n$ is mapped to the signed
permutation $b \in P^B_n$ with the property that
$(L(b), {\rm Des}(b)) = (L(\pi), R(\pi))$, then one obtains an order-reversing
embedding of $NC^B_n$ into $P^B_n$. Combining this with the
self-duality of $P^B_n$ we obtain the desired embedding of $NC^B_n$ into
$P^B_n$.
Finally, the strong Sperner property of $P^B_n$ follows as in type A, from the
strong Sperner property of $NC^B_n$ (see \cite{Reiner-NCB}) and the
rank-preserving
embedding of $NC^B_n$ into $P^B_n$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A poset based on type-B excedences}\label{subsec-excB}
As in the type-A case, there is a self-dual poset
of $\# NC^B_n$ restricted signed permutations ordered by containment of
the set of
excedences. In fact, there is more than one definition of the excedence
statistic in the literature, in the case of the hyperoctahedral group.
We briefly mention two possibilities considered in \cite{Steing}.
Given a signed permutation $b$, let $k$ be the number of symbols which are
{\em not} barred in $b$.
We associate to $b$ an $(n+1)$-permutation $\sigma(b)$ by setting
$\sigma(b)_{n+1} = k+1$ and, for $1 \leq i \leq n$, letting
$\sigma(b)_i = j$ if $b_i$ is the $j$th smallest among the symbols
$b_1, b_2, \dots, b_n, n+1$ with respect to the linear ordering
$1 < 2 < \cdots < n < n+1 < {\overline{1}} < {\overline{2}} < \cdots <
{\overline{n}}$.
For example, if $b = 1\ {\overline{3}}\ 2\ 4\ 5\ {\overline{6}}\
{\overline{8}}\ 7$, then $\sigma(b) = 1\ 7\ 2\ 3\ 4\ 8\ 9\ 5\ 6$.
Now, the excedence set of $b$ is defined to be that of $\sigma(b)$.
It turns out \cite{Gal-pers} that for
$b \in B_n(21, {\overline{2}} \ {\overline{1}})$ this
definition makes the excedence set coincide with the descent set for each
$b$. Therefore, this leads to the poset $P^B_n$ again.
An alternative definition for excedences of ``indexed permutations'' appears
in \cite{Steing}. Specialized to the hyperoctahedral group it is the
following.
\begin{definition}\label{def-Bexc2}
If $b \in B_n$, its {\em excedence set} is the union of
the sets $S(b)$ and $F(b)$, where
$S(b)$ is the set of excedences computed in the symmetric group for the
permutation $|b_1| |b_2| \dots |b_n|$
obtained by removing all bars from the symbols in $b$,
and $F(b) = \{ i \ \colon \ b_i = {\overline{i}} \}$,
the set of barred fixed points of $b$.
\end{definition}
Thus, for
$b = 1\ {\overline{3}}\ 2\ 4\ 5\ {\overline{6}}\ {\overline{8}}\ 7$
we obtain excedences at
$\{ 2, 6, 7 \}$ by either of the two definitions.
But $b = {\overline{1}} 3 {\overline{2}}$ has excedences at $\{ 1, 3 \} $
by the first definition (based on $\sigma(b) = 3\ 1\ 4\ 2$),
and $\{ 1, 2 \}$ if the second definition is adopted.
For the remainder of this section, we work with the notion of
excedence as in Definition \ref{def-Bexc2}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop-QBn-sdual}
Let $Q^B_n$ denote the poset of
$(21, {\overline{2}}\ {\overline{1}})$-avoiding signed permutations in
$B_n$, ordered by containment of their excedence set.
The poset $Q^B_n$ is self-dual.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Let $b\in B_n$ and $b'$ be the reverse of $b$. Let
$b''$ be the ``barred complement'' of $b'$, that is,
$|b''_i| = n+1- |b'_i|$, and $b''_i$ is barred if and only if
$b'_i$ is not barred.
Then it is straightforward to verify that $i\in S(p'')\cup F(p'')$
if and only if $i\notin S(p)\cup F(p)$. Therefore, the reverse complement
operation reverses the inclusion of excedence sets for signed permutations.
(Thus, the entire hyperoctahedral group $B_n$ ordered by containment of the
excedence set is a self-dual poset.)
But, clearly, this involution preserves the $(21, {\overline{2}}\
{\overline{1}})$-avoidance property, and thus $Q^B_n$ is self-dual.
\end{proof}
By \cite{Steing}, the rank generating function of $Q^B_n$ is equal to that of
$P^B_n$. Therefore it is natural to ask whether the posets $P^B_n$
and $Q^B_n$ are isomorphic, just as their type-A counterparts are
(Proposition \ref{prop-isoA}). The answer in this case is negative.
Indeed, if $n=3$ it is straightforward to verify that all atoms of $P^B_3$
are covered by six elements, while the atom
${\overline{1}}\ 2\ 3$ of $Q^B_3$ is covered by seven elements
(namely, ${\overline{1}}\ {\overline{2}}\ 3,
{\overline{1}} \ 2 \ {\overline{3}},
{\overline{1}} \ 3 \ {\overline{2}},
2 \ 3 \ {\overline{1}},
{\overline{2}} \ {\overline{3}} \ 1,
2 \ {\overline{1}} \ {\overline{3}}$, and
${\overline{2}} \ 1 \ {\overline{3}}$).
\section{Remarks and questions for further investigation}\label{sec-Further}
\begin{enumerate}
\item{ {\em Is $NC^B_n$ a subposet of $Q^B_n$?}
We do not know whether the lattice of type-B noncrossing partitions
can be embedded in the poset $Q^B_n$ of
$(21, {\overline{2}}\ {\overline{1}})$-avoiding signed permutations ordered
by their excedence set of definition \ref{def-Bexc2}.
}
\item{ {\em Self-duality of $NC^A_n$ and $NC^B_n$
extending to self-duality for $P^A_n$ and $P^B_n$.}
We have seen that {\em each} of the posets $NC^A_n$ and $P^A_n$ is self-dual
and that $NC^A_n$ is a subposet of $P^A_n$. The same is true for the pair
$NC^B_n$, $P^B_n$. Both for type A and for type B one can exhibit an
order-reversing involution on the larger poset which restricts to an
order-reversing involution on the smaller one.
We first construct such an involution $g$ for $NC^A_n$
which will be similar, though not identical,
to the involution defined in \cite{SiU}.
Write the elements $1,2,\cdots ,n$ clockwise around a circle, and write
elements $1',2',\cdots ,n'$ interlaced in counterclockwise order,
so that $1'$ is between $1$ and $n$, $2'$ is between $n$ and $n-1$, and so
on, $i'$ is between $n+2-i$ and $n+1-i$. For $\pi \in NC^A_n$, join by
chords -- as usual -- cyclically successive (unprimed) elements
belonging to the same block of $\pi$. Then define $g(\pi)$ to be
the coarsest noncrossing partition on the elements $1',2',\cdots ,n'$ so
that the chords joining primed elements of the same block do
not intersect the chords of $\pi$. See Figure 2 for an example.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=duality.eps}
\caption{The partition $\pi=(\{1\},\{2,3,8\},\{4,5,7\},\{6\})$ and its image
$g(\pi)$}
\label{duality}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The map $g$ is certainly a bijection, and it is
order-reversing in $NC^A_n$ since merging two blocks of $\pi$ subdivides a
block of $g(\pi)$. We claim that $g$ is also order-reversing on $P^A_n$.
To see this,
observe that for any $i>1$, the element $i$ is the smallest in its block
in $\pi$ if and
only if the element $(n+2-i)'$ is {\em not} the smallest in its block in
$g(\pi)$.
Indeed, the definition of $g$ implies that exactly one of
$i$ and $(n+2-i)'$ can be connected to smaller elements by a chord.
Therefore, $g$ takes the set of block-minima (not equal to 1) of $\pi$
into its reverse complement in $[n+2]$, so $g$ is indeed order-reversing on
$P^A_n$.
In the type-$B$ case, one can obtain an analogous bijection $h$
in a similar way: take the circular
(clockwise) representation of $\pi$, then write the elements $1',2',\cdots,
n',\bar{1}',\bar{2}',\cdots ,\bar{n}'$ so that the primed numbers interlace
the unprimed, placing $1'$ between $1$ and $\bar{n}$ and continuing
counterclockwise. For $\pi \in NC^B_n$, define $h(\pi)$ as
above, that is, as the unique coarsest partition on the primed set
whose chords do not cross those of $\pi$.
Then $h$ is certainly an order-reversing bijection of
$NC^B_n$, and as above, it reverses the containment of the sets $L(\pi)$
and $R(\pi)$, so it does extend to an order-reversing bijection of $P^B_n$.
}
\item{ {\em The M\"obius function and order complexes of $P^A_n$ and
$P^B_n$.}
It is easy to write an expression for the number
$c_m(P^B_n )$ of chains ${\hat 0} < b^1 < b^2 < \cdots < b^m < {\hat 1}$
of length $m+1$ in $P^B_n$, for $m \ge 0$.
Of course, $c_0(P^B_n) = 1$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq-PBchains}
c_m(P^B_n) = \sum_{0 <k_1 <k_2 < \cdots < k_m < n}
{ { n \choose {k_1}} {n \choose {k_2}} \cdots {n \choose {k_m}}
{ {n!} \over { k_1! (k_2 - k_1)! \cdots (k_m - k_{m-1})! (n - k_m)! }}}
\end{equation}
since under the correspondence
$b^i \leftrightarrow (L(b^i), {\rm Des}(b^i))$
a chain in $P^B_n$ corresponds to an $m$-tuple of subsets $(L(b^i))$ and a
chain of subsets ${\rm Des}(b^1) \subset {\rm Des}(b^2) \subset \cdots
\subset {\rm Des}(b^m)$ of $[n]$, with $\# L(b^i) = \# {\rm Des}(b^i) =
k_i$.
In turn, this leads to an expression for the M\"obius function of $P^B_n$,
$\mu_{P^B_n}({\hat 0}, {\hat 1}) = \sum_{m \ge 0}{ (-1)^{m-1} c_m(P^B_n)}$.
These expressions can be regarded as partial success with the computation
of the zeta polynomial and the M\"obius function. It would be
interesting to elucidate further the question of these invariants for
$P^A_n$ and $P^B_n$, and to describe the order complexes of these posets.
}
\item{ {\em Other posets of combinatorial objects with similar properties.}
The behavior of noncrossing partitions and restricted permutations suggests
the following question: what other combinatorial objects
admit a natural partial order which is self-dual and possibly,
has other nice properties? A natural candidate is the class of {\em two-stack
sortable permutations} \cite{doron}. It is known \cite{schaeffer}
that there are as many of them with $k$ descents as with
$n-1-k$ descents. However, the poset obtained by the descent ordering is
not self-dual, even for $n=4$, so another ordering is needed.
Similarly, the type-D noncrossing partitions and the interpolating
BD-noncrossing partitions do not, in general, form self-dual posets when
ordered by refinement (see \cite{Reiner-NCB}). However, it may be
interesting to find corresponding classes of pattern-avoiding elements in
the Weyl group for type D, along with an order-preserving embedding
$NC^D_n \to P^D_n$ analogous to the type-A and B cases.}
\end{enumerate}
|
\section{Introduction}
In quantum field theory the structure of superselection sectors is
entirely encoded in the set of localized endomorphisms of the algebra
of local observables \cite{DHR3,H}. In the case of main physical
interest, viz.\ in four dimensional Minkowski space, the set of
(equivalence classes of) localized endomorphisms can be identified
with the representation category of a unique compact group, the
\emph{global gauge group} of the theory \cite{DR89,DR90}. This gauge
group acts on a larger field algebra containing besides the
observables charge carrying fields with normal commutation relations
which reach all superselection sectors from the vacuum
\cite{DR89a,DR90}.
Gauge group and field algebra
are intrinsically determined by the observable data.
The relation between localized endomorphisms and representations of
the gauge group is made concrete in the following way
\cite{DR72}. There is a functor which assigns to a localized
endomorphism $\varrho$ the \emph{Hilbert space of isometries}
$H_\varrho$ consisting of all local fields $\Psi$ which induce
$\varrho$:
$$H_\varrho\DEF\SET{\Psi}{\Psi a=\varrho(a)\Psi,\text{ for all local
observables }a}.$$
The action of the gauge group on the field algebra restricts to a
unitary representation $D_\varrho$ on $H_\varrho$ relative to the
inner product $\langle\Psi,\Psi'\rangle\1\DEF\Psi^*\Psi'$. This
representation of the gauge group determines the \emph{charge} of the
endomorphism $\varrho$; it is customary to refer to any label which
characterizes the representation $D_\varrho$ as the \emph{charge
quantum numbers} of $\varrho$. It will be used below that the
representation $D_\varrho$ is in a canonical way unitarily equivalent
to the representation on the Hilbert space $H_\varrho\Omega$ generated
by applying the field operators in $H_\varrho$ to the vacuum vector
$\Omega$.
Any orthonormal basis $\Psi_1,\dots,\Psi_d$ in $H_\varrho$ generates a
representation of the Cuntz algebra $\mathcal{O}_d$ and implements the
endomorphism $\varrho$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{IMP}
\varrho(a)=\sum_{j=1}^d\Psi_ja\Psi_j^*.
\end{equation}
Using this formula, $\varrho$ can be canonically extended to an
endomorphism of the field algebra. This extension is \emph{gauge
invariant}, i.e.\ commutes with all gauge automorphisms:
\begin{Prp}
\label{prp:GI}
Let $\varrho$ be an endomorphism of the field algebra which is
implemented by a Hilbert space of isometries $H_\varrho$ as in
\eqref{IMP}. Then $H_\varrho$ is gauge invariant if and only if
$\varrho$ is gauge invariant.
\end{Prp}
\begin{proof}
Assume first that $H_\varrho$ is invariant under gauge
automorphisms $\gamma$. Since the representation $D_\varrho$ of
the gauge group on $H_\varrho$, given by
$D_\varrho(\gamma)\DEF\gamma|_{H_\varrho}$,
is unitary, the $\gamma(\Psi_j)$ also form an orthonormal basis in
$H_\varrho$. Since the endomorphism associated with a Hilbert space
of isometries as in \eqref{IMP} is independent of the choice of an
orthonormal basis in $H_\varrho$, it follows that, for any field
operator $f$,
\begin{equation*}
\gamma(\varrho(f))=\sum_j\gamma(\Psi_j)\gamma(f)
\gamma(\Psi_j)^*=\varrho(\gamma(f)).
\end{equation*}
Conversely, assume that $\varrho$ is gauge invariant. Let $\Psi\in
H_\varrho$ and let $\gamma$ be a gauge transformation. Then one has
for any field operator $f$
$$\gamma(\Psi)f=\gamma\bigl(\Psi\gamma^{-1}(f)\bigr)
=\gamma\bigl(\varrho(\gamma^{-1}(f))\Psi\bigr)=\varrho(f)\gamma(\Psi)$$
so that $\gamma(\Psi)\in H_\varrho$.
\end{proof}
The existence of localized endomorphisms and associated Hilbert spaces
of isometries follows from first principles of local quantum field
theory. But it is by no means obvious how to obtain them explicitly in
concrete models. In previous work we have developed a general theory
of quasi-free endomorphisms of the CAR and CCR algebras which can be
implemented by Hilbert spaces of isometries on Fock space
\cite{CB1,CB3}. Among the results are implementability conditions for
endomorphisms, which generalize the well-known criteria of Shale and
Stinespring for automorphisms \cite{S,SS65}, and detailed
constructions of field operators which implement endomorphisms
according to \eqref{IMP}.
In the present paper we are interested in the possible charge quantum
numbers of such endomorphisms. The CAR resp.\ CCR algebra will play
the role of the field algebra. Therefore quasi-free endomorphisms have
to be viewed as endomorphisms of the field algebra and, by
Proposition~\ref{prp:GI}, we have to restrict attention to
endomorphisms which are gauge invariant under an appropriate group
action. We will consider quasi-free actions of arbitrary groups which
leave the Fock vacuum invariant. We show that the charge quantum
numbers are then determined by the natural Fock space structure found
in \cite{CB1,CB3} of the Hilbert spaces of isometries $H_\varrho$
implementing gauge invariant quasi-free endomorphisms $\varrho$: The
representation $D_\varrho$ is unitarily equivalent to the
representation $\Lambda_{\mathfrak{k}_\varrho}$ on the antisymmetric
Fock space over an auxiliary unitary $G$-module
$\mathfrak{k}_\varrho$, tensored with a certain character
${\det}_{\mathfrak{h}_\varrho}$:
$$D_{\varrho}\simeq{\det}_{\mathfrak{h}_\varrho}\otimes
\Lambda_{\mathfrak{k}_\varrho}\quad\text{(CAR),}$$
resp.\ to the representation $\mathfrak{S}_{\mathfrak{k}_\varrho}$ on
the symmetric Fock space over $\mathfrak{k}_\varrho$:
$$D_{\varrho}\simeq\mathfrak{S}_{\mathfrak{k}_\varrho}
\quad\text{(CCR).}$$
This is our main result, contained in Theorems~\ref{thm:CHARGE} and
\ref{ccr:thm:CHARGE}. It follows that $D_{\varrho}$ is reducible if
$\varrho$ is non-surjective. Any $\varrho$ has a quasi-free conjugate
$\varrho^c$ such that $D_{\varrho^c}$ is equivalent to the complex
conjugate of $D_{\varrho}$, provided that the single-particle space
has a particle-antiparticle symmetry.
The analysis of the representations $D_\varrho$ is completely
independent of localization properties of endomorphisms. In order to
show that localization and implementability are not in conflict, we
give in Section~\ref{sec:EXA} an explicit example of a
\emph{localized} implementable gauge invariant endomorphism $\varrho$,
with $\dim H_\varrho=2^N$, of the free massless Dirac field with
$U(N)$ gauge symmetry in two dimensions. The construction rests on the
use of ``local'' Fourier bases for the chiral components, and is in
this respect similar to the known examples \cite{JMB1,JMB2} of
localized endomorphisms in conformal field theory.
The present investigations are taken from the author's Ph.\,D. thesis
in physics \cite{CB4}, to which we refer for further results and
discussions.
\section{The Fermionic Case} \label{sec:FER}
First of all we need some formalism and some results from
\cite{CB1,CB4}.
\subsection{Preliminaries on the implementation of quasi-free
endomorphisms (CAR)} \label{sec:PRECAR}
Recall Araki's approach to the canonical anticommutation relations
\cite{A70,A87}: Let \KK be an infinite dimensional separable complex
Hilbert space, endowed with a complex conjugation $f\mapsto f^*$. The
{\em(selfdual) CAR algebra} \CK over \KK is the unique (simple)
$C^*$-algebra generated by \1 and the elements of \KK, subject to the
anticommutation relation
$$f^*g+gf^*=\langle f,g\rangle\1,\quad f,g\in\KK.$$
Let $P_1$ be a fixed \emph{basis projection} on \KK, i.\,e.\ an
orthogonal projection such that
$$\4{P_1}=\1-P_1.$$
Here the bar denotes the complex conjugate of an operator $A$:
$$\4{A}(f)\DEF A(f^*)^*,\quad f\in\KK.$$
Let $P_2$ be the complementary (basis) projection:
$$P_2\DEF \1-P_1.$$
The components of an operator $A$ on \KK with respect to the
decomposition
$$\KK=\KK_1\oplus\KK_2$$
given by $P_1$ and $P_2$ will be denoted by
$$A_{mn}\DEF P_mAP_n,\quad m,n=1,2$$
and will be regarded as operators from $\KK_n$ to $\KK_m$.
To the basis projection $P_1$ there corresponds a unique (pure,
quasi-free) \emph{Fock state} $\omega_{P_1}$ which is completely
determined by the condition that
\begin{equation}
\label{FS}
\omega_{P_1}(f^*f)=0\quad\text{if}\quad P_1f=0.
\end{equation}
The GNS representation associated with $\omega_{P_1}$ will be denoted
by $(\FF_{P_1},\pi_{P_1},\Omega_{P_1})$.
The Hilbert space $\FF_{P_1}$ can be identified with the antisymmetric
Fock space over $\KK_1$. The elements of \KK are then represented by
sums of creation and annihilation operators:
\begin{equation}
\label{PP1}
\pi_{P_1}(f)= a^*(P_1f)+a(P_1f^*),\quad f\in\KK,
\end{equation}
and the cyclic vector $\Omega_{P_1}$ is the Fock vacuum vector.
Every isometry $V$ on \KK which commutes with complex conjugation
extends to a unique \emph{quasi-free endomorphism} $\varrho_V$ of \CK:
$$\varrho_V(f)=V(f),\quad f\in\KK.$$
As shown in \cite{CB1}, an endomorphism $\varrho_V$ can be implemented
by a Hilbert space of isometries $H_{\varrho_V}$ (cf.~\eqref{IMP}) in
the Fock state $\omega_{P_1}$ if and only if
\begin{equation}
\label{IMPCOND}
[P_1,V]\text{ is Hilbert--Schmidt (HS)}.
\end{equation}
These isometries form a semigroup
$$\END_{P_1}(\KK)\DEF\SET{V\in\BB(\KK)}{V^*V=\1,\ \4{V}=V,\ [P_1,V]
\text{ is HS}}$$
isomorphic to the semigroup of all implementable quasi-free
endomorphisms of \CK. The \emph{statistics dimension} $d_{\varrho_V}$
of $\varrho_V$ is given by
$$d_{\varrho_V}\DEF\dim H_{\varrho_V}=2^{\2\IND V},$$
where $\IND V$ is, up to the sign, the Fredholm index of $V$:
$$\IND V=\dim\ker V^*\in\{0,2,4,\dots,\infty\},\quad
V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK).$$
The grading automorphism of \CK is equal to the quasi-free
automorphism $\varrho_{-\1}$. Let $\Gamma(-\1)$ be the (self-adjoint,
unitary) second quantization of $\varrho_{-\1}$, given by
$$\Gamma(-\1)\pi_{P_1}(a)\Omega_{P_1}=\pi_{P_1}(\varrho_{-\1}(a))
\Omega_{P_1},\quad a\in\CK,$$
and let $\theta(-\1)$ be the unitary operator
\begin{equation}
\label{THETA}
\theta(-\1)\DEF\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bigl(\1-i\Gamma(-\1)\bigr).
\end{equation}
Then the \emph{twisted Fock representation} $\psi_{P_1}$ induced by
$P_{1}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{TWIST}
\psi_{P_1}(a)\DEF\theta(-\1)\pi_{P_1}(a)\theta(-\1)^*.
\end{equation}
It can be used to describe the commutants of ``local'' subalgebras:
If $\HH\subset\KK$ is a subspace invariant under complex conjugation,
and $\mathfrak{C}(\HH)$ the $C^*$-subalgebra of \CK generated by
$\HH$, then
$$\pi_{P_1}(\mathfrak{C}(\HH))'=\psi_{P_1}(\mathfrak{C}(\HH^\bot))''
\qquad\text{(\emph{twisted duality})}.$$
Let $V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK)$ be given. As mentioned in the introduction,
it suffices for our purposes to consider group actions on the Hilbert
space $H_{\varrho_V}\Omega_{P_1}$. An orthonormal basis in this space
can be obtained as follows. Define a finite dimensional subspace
$\mathfrak{h}\subset\KK_1$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{H}
\mathfrak{h}\DEF V_{12}(\ker V_{22}),
\end{equation}
and an antisymmetric\footnote{An operator $A$ on \KK is
\emph{antisymmetric} if $\4{A^*}=-A$.} Hilbert--Schmidt operator $T$
from $\KK_1$ to $\KK_2$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{T}
T\DEF V_{21}{V_{11}}^{-1}-{V_{22}}^{-1*}{V_{12}}^*[\ker {V_{11}}^*].
\end{equation}
Here the bounded operator ${V_{11}}^{-1}$ is defined to be zero on
$\ker{V_{11}}^*$, and $[\HH]$ denotes the orthogonal projection onto a
closed subspace $\HH\subset\KK$. Then one has $T(\mathfrak{h})=0$;
such pairs $(\mathfrak{h},T)$ parameterize the class of all Fock
states which are unitarily equivalent to the given Fock state
$\omega_{P_1}$ \cite {CB4}. The basis projection $P$ corresponding to
the pair $(\mathfrak{h},T)$ is explicitly given by
\begin{equation}
\label{P}
P\DEF(P_1+T)(P_1+T^*T)^{-1}(P_1+T^*)-[\mathfrak{h}]+
[\mathfrak{h}^*],
\end{equation}
and $\mathfrak{h}$ and $T$ can be recovered from $P$ by
\begin{align}
\mathfrak{h} &=\ker P_{11},\label{HDEF}\\
T &=P_{21}{P_{11}}^{-1}\label{TDEF}
\end{align}
(${P_{11}}^{-1}$ is defined in a similar way as ${V_{11}}^{-1}$ above).
The Fock state $\omega_P$ associated with $P$ is an extension of the
partial Fock state $\omega_{P_1}\0\varrho_V^{-1}|_{\RAN\varrho_V}$,
and is induced by the cyclic vector
$$\Omega_P=\bigl({\det}(P_1+T^*T)\bigr)^{-1/4}\psi_{P_1}(e_1\dotsm
e_L)\exp(\3\4{T}a^*a^*)\Omega_{P_1}\in\FF_{P_1}$$
where the determinant has to be computed on $\KK_1$,
$\{e_1,\dots,e_L\}$ is an orthonormal basis in $\mathfrak{h}$, and the
exponential term has a well-defined meaning as a strongly convergent
series on a dense domain containing $\Omega_{P_1}$. The vector
$\Omega_P$ belongs to $H_{\varrho_V}\Omega_{P_1}$; in fact, the latter
Hilbert space consists precisely of the vectors in $\FF_{P_1}$ which
induce extensions of the partial Fock state
$\omega_{P_1}\0\varrho_V^{-1}|_{\RAN\varrho_V}$.
A complete orthonormal basis in $H_{\varrho_V}\Omega_{P_1}$ can be
obtained by applying suitable partial isometries from the commutant of
$\RAN\varrho_V$ to $\Omega_P$. The basis projection $P$ leaves $\ker
V^*$ invariant. Let
\begin{equation}
\label{K}
\mathfrak{k}\DEF P(\ker V^*),\quad\text{with }
\dim\mathfrak{k}=\3\IND V,
\end{equation}
and let $\{g_j\}$ be an orthonormal basis in $\mathfrak{k}$. For any
multi-index $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_l),\
1\leq\alpha_1<\dots<\alpha_l\leq\2\IND V$ (resp.\ $\alpha=0$ if
$l=0$), set
\begin{equation}
\label{OA}
\Omega_\alpha\DEF\psi_{P_1}(g_{\alpha_1}\dotsm
g_{\alpha_l})\Omega_P.
\end{equation}
Then the $\Omega_\alpha$ constitute an orthonormal basis in
$H_{\varrho_V}\Omega_{P_1}$, and they determine an orthonormal basis
$\{\Psi_\alpha\}$ in $H_{\varrho_V}$ via
\begin{equation}
\label{HRV}
\Psi_\alpha\pi_{P_1}(a)\Omega_{P_1}=
\pi_{P_1}(\varrho_V(a))\Omega_\alpha.
\end{equation}
Since $\psi_{P_1}$ is a representation of the canonical
anticommutation relations and since $\Omega_P$ is annihilated by the
operators $\psi_{P_1}(g_j)^*$, the spaces $H_{\varrho_V}$ and
$H_{\varrho_V}\Omega_{P_1}$ can both be identified with the
antisymmetric Fock space over $\mathfrak{k}$ \cite{CB1,CB4}.
\subsection{Gauge invariant quasi-free endomorphisms (CAR)}
\label{sec:GICAR}
Let $G\subset\END_{P_1}(\KK)$ be a group\footnote{The results in this
section hold also for non-compact groups (relative to the strong
topology). However, the close relationship between representations of
$G$ and superselection sectors is then lost. We also do not require
that $-\1\in G$, which would be necessary if the $G$-invariant
elements of \CK were to be interpreted as physical observables.}
consisting of unitary operators which commute with $P_1$. The usual
second quantization of $U\in G$ (or, more precisely, of $U_{11}$) will
be denoted by $\Gamma(U)$; the map $U\mapsto\Gamma(U)$ is strongly
continuous. The corresponding gauge automorphisms, which leave
$\omega_{P_1}$ invariant, will be denoted by $\gamma_U$.
We are interested in the representation $D_{\varrho_V}$ of $G$ on the
Hilbert space $H_{\varrho_V}$ which implements a gauge invariant
quasi-free endomorphism $\varrho_V$. \emph{Gauge invariant}
implementable quasi-free endomorphisms are given by the elements of
the semigroup
$$\END_{P_1}(\KK)^G\DEF\SET{V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK)}{[V,G]=0}.$$
To determine $D_{\varrho_V}$ up to unitary equivalence, it suffices to
calculate the transformed vectors $\Gamma(U)\Omega_\alpha$, $U\in G$,
where the $\Omega_\alpha$ are the basis elements in
$H_{\varrho_V}\Omega_{P_1}$ defined in \eqref{OA}. The basic
observation is that the objects entering the construction of the
$\Omega_\alpha$, namely the spaces $\mathfrak{h}$ and $\mathfrak{k}$
and the operator $T$, are all gauge invariant.
\begin{Lem}
\label{lem:GP}
Let $U\in G$. Then $\Gamma(U)$ implements the gauge automorphism
$\gamma_U$ in the twisted Fock representation $\psi_{P_1}$:
$$\Gamma(U)\psi_{P_1}(a)=\psi_{P_1}(\gamma_U(a))\Gamma(U),
\quad a\in\CK.$$
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $U$ commutes with $P_1$, the implementer $\Gamma(U)$ is even:
$$[\Gamma(U),\Gamma(-\1)]=0.$$
This implies that $[\Gamma(U),\theta(-\1)]=0$ (see \eqref{THETA}) so
that, by \eqref{TWIST},
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma(U)\psi_{P_1}(a)\Gamma(U)^*=\theta(-\1)\Gamma(U)
\pi_{P_1}(a)\Gamma(U)^*\theta(-\1)^*=\psi_{P_1}(\gamma_U(a)).
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{Lem}
\label{lem:EXP}
Let $V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK)^G$. Then $\exp(\3\4{T}a^*a^*)\Omega_{P_1}$,
with $T$ defined by \eqref{T}, is invariant under all gauge
transformations $\Gamma(U),\ U\in G$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
If $S$ is an antisymmetric operator from $\KK_1$ to $\KK_2$ of
finite rank, then one readily verifies that
$$\Gamma(U)(\3\4{S}a^*a^*)\Gamma(U)^*=\3(U\4{S}U^*)a^*a^*$$
(here the expressions of the form $\4{S}a^*a^*$ are defined by
expanding $S=\sum f_j^*\langle g_j,.\rangle$ with $f_j,g_j\in\KK_1$,
and by setting $\4{S}a^*a^*=\sum a^*(f_j)a^*(g_j)$). Approximating
$T$ by such finite rank operators in the Hilbert--Schmidt norm
(cf.~\cite{CR}), one finds that
$$\Gamma(U)(\3\4{T}a^*a^*)^n\Omega_{P_1}=
\bigl(\3(U\4{T}U^*)a^*a^*\bigr)^n\Omega_{P_1},\quad n\in\NN,$$
because $\Gamma(U)\Omega_{P_1}=\Omega_{P_1}$. It follows that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\Gamma(U)\exp(\3\4{T}a^*a^*)\Omega_{P_1}&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty
\frac{1}{n!}\Gamma(U)(\3\4{T}a^*a^*)^n\Omega_{P_1}\\
&=\exp\bigl(\3(U\4{T}U^*)a^*a^*\bigr)\Omega_{P_1}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Since $U$ commutes with $P_1,\ P_2$ and $V$, it also commutes with
all components of $V$ and $V^*$, including the operators
${V_{11}}^{-1},\ [\ker{V_{11}}^*]$ etc. The operator $T$ is by
\eqref{T} a bounded function of these components, so that
\begin{equation}
\label{GT}
[U,T]=0,\quad U\in G.
\end{equation}
Hence we get
$\Gamma(U)\exp(\3\4{T}a^*a^*)\Omega_{P_1}=
\exp(\3\4{T}a^*a^*)\Omega_{P_1}$ as claimed.
\end{proof}
Setting $\delta\DEF\bigl({\det}(P_1+T^*T)\bigr)^{-1/4}$, we thus arrive
at the following formula:
\begin{equation}
\label{GPSIOM}
\Gamma(U)\Omega_\alpha=\delta\cdot\psi_{P_1}\bigl(U(g_{\alpha_1})
\dotsm U(g_{\alpha_l})U(e_1)\dotsm U(e_L)\bigr)\exp(\3\4{T}a^*a^*)
\Omega_{P_1}.
\end{equation}
\begin{Thm}
\label{thm:CHARGE}
Let $P_1$ be a basis projection of \KK, let $G$ be a group of
unitary operators on \KK commuting with $P_1$ and with complex
conjugation, and let $V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK)^G$. Then the finite
dimensional subspace $\mathfrak{h}\subset\KK_1$ and the $(\2\IND
V)$ dimensional subspace $\mathfrak{k}\subset\KK$ associated with
$V$ by \eqref{H} and \eqref{K} are both invariant under $G$. Let
$\Lambda_{\mathfrak{k}}$ be the unitary representation of $G$ on the
antisymmetric Fock space over $\mathfrak{k}$ that is obtained by
taking antisymmetric tensor powers of the representation on
$\mathfrak{k}$. Then the unitary representation $D_{\varrho_V}$ of
$G$ on the Hilbert space of isometries $H_{\varrho_V}$ which
implements $\varrho_V$ in the Fock state $\omega_{P_1}$ is unitarily
equivalent to $\Lambda_{\mathfrak{k}}$, tensored with the
one dimensional representation
${\det}_{\mathfrak{h}}(U)\DEF\det(U|_{\mathfrak{h}})$\textup{:}
\begin{equation}
\label{REPG}
D_{\varrho_V}\simeq{\det}_{\mathfrak{h}}\otimes
\Lambda_{\mathfrak{k}}.
\end{equation}
\end{Thm}
\begin{proof}
The subspace $\mathfrak{h}=V_{12}(\ker V_{22})$ is invariant under
$G$ because $G$ commutes with the components of $V$ (cf.\ the proof
of Lemma~\ref{lem:EXP}). Since $\{e_1,\dots,e_L\}$ is an orthonormal
basis in $\mathfrak{h}$, it follows from the canonical
anticommutation relations that
$$U(e_1)\dotsm U(e_{L})=\det\bigl(U|_{\mathfrak{h}}\bigr)\cdot
e_1\dotsm e_{L},\qquad U\in G.$$
Similarly, $G$ commutes with the basis projection $P$
(cf.\ \eqref{P} and \eqref{GT}) and leaves $\ker V^*$ invariant, so
that $\mathfrak{k}=P(\ker V^*)$ is also left invariant. It then
follows from the canonical anticommutation relations that
$g_{\alpha_1}\dotsm g_{\alpha_l}$ transforms like the $l$-fold
antisymmetric tensor product of $g_{\alpha_1},\dots,g_{\alpha_l}$
under $G$.
Thus we see from \eqref{GPSIOM} that the representation of $G$ on
$H_{\varrho_V}\Omega_{P_1}$ is unitarily equivalent to
${\det}_{\mathfrak{h}}\otimes\Lambda_{\mathfrak{k}}$, and the same
holds true for the representation $D_{\varrho_V}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Rms}
(i) Theorem~\ref{thm:CHARGE} shows that non-surjective quasi-free
endomorphisms $\varrho_V$ are always \emph{reducible} in the sense
that the representation $D_{\varrho_V}$ (or, if $G$ is compact, the
representation induced by $\varrho_V$ of the pointwise gauge
invariant ``observable'' algebra $\CK^G$ on the subspace of
$\Gamma(G)$-invariant vectors in $\FF_{P_1}$) is reducible. In fact,
each ``$n$-particle'' subspace of $H_{\varrho_V}$, i.e.\ the closed
linear span of all $\Psi_\alpha$ with $\alpha$ of length $n$, is
invariant under $G$, and may decompose further. Let
$D_{\varrho_V}^{(n)}$ be the restriction of $D_{\varrho_V}$ to this
subspace. Closest to irreducibility is the case that at least
$D_{\varrho_V}^{(1)}$ is irreducible. In typical situations, the
remaining representations $D_{\varrho_V}^{(n)}$ will then also be
irreducible. This happens for instance if $G\cong U(N)$ or $G\cong
SU(N)$, and $\mathfrak{k}$ carries the defining representation of
$G$. In the $U(N)$ case, the $D_{\varrho_V}^{(n)}$ are not only
irreducible, but also mutually inequivalent. In the $SU(N)$ case,
the representations
$D_{\varrho_V}^{(0)},\dots,D_{\varrho_V}^{(N-1)}$ are mutually
inequivalent, but $D_{\varrho_V}^{(N)}$ is equivalent to
$D_{\varrho_V}^{(0)}$. In general, it can nevertheless happen that
$D_{\varrho_V}^{(1)}$ is irreducible but some $D_{\varrho_V}^{(n)}$
are not, as is the case if $G\cong SO(N)$ ($N>2$ even) and
$\mathfrak{k}$ carries the defining representation of $G$ (cf.\
\cite{Wey,Boe}). If already $D_{\varrho_V}^{(1)}$ is reducible, then
one has an additional Clebsch--Gordan type splitting.
(ii) Theorem~\ref{thm:CHARGE} characterizes the representation
$D_{\varrho_V}$ associated with a fixed gauge invariant endomorphism
$\varrho_V$ in terms of the representations on $\mathfrak{h}$ and
$\mathfrak{k}$. The question which representations of $G$ can be
realized on the spaces $\mathfrak{h}$ and $\mathfrak{k}$ by letting
$V$ vary through $\END_{P_1}(\KK)^G$ is studied in \cite{CB4}. In
typical field theoretic situations, where the single-particle space
$\KK_1$ carries an irreducible representation of a compact group
together with its complex conjugate, both with infinite
multiplicity, as e.\,g.\ in Section~\ref{sec:EXA} below, one finds
that any irreducible representation of $G$ realized on Fock space
$\FF_{P_1}$ is equivalent to a subrepresentation of some
$D_{\varrho_V}$.
(iii) A special case worth mentioning is the case $G\cong U(1)$ and
$\IND V=0$, i.e.\ the case of the \emph{restricted unitary group.}
It is well-known from the work on the external field problem (see
e.\,g.\ \cite{CHOB}) that the charge of elements of the restricted
unitary group is given by a certain Fredholm index $\IND V_{++}$
(which has nothing to do with the index of $V$, but refers to a
finer decomposition $V_{11}=V_{++}\oplus V_{--}$). This fact can be
easily derived from our general result: The factor
$\Lambda_{\mathfrak{k}}$ in \eqref{REPG} becomes trivial, whereas
$${\det}_{\mathfrak{h}}(U_\lambda)=\exp(i\lambda\IND V_{++})$$
if $U_\lambda\in G$ corresponds to $e^{i\lambda}\in U(1)$ \cite{CB4}.
Similarly, in the case $G=\{\pm\1\}\cong\ZZ_2$ and $\IND V=0$, the
factor $\Lambda_{\mathfrak{k}}$ is trivial, but
$${\det}_{\mathfrak{h}}(-\1)=(-1)^{\dim\mathfrak{h}}=
(-1)^{\dim\ker V_{11}}$$
yields the $\ZZ_2$-index of Araki and Evans \cite{AE,A87,EK}.
(iv) If the single-particle space $\KK_1$ decomposes into the direct
sum of two anti\-unitarily equivalent $G$-modules
(``particle-antiparticle symmetry''), then there exists an
involutive automorphism $V\mapsto V^c$ of $\END_{P_1}(\KK)^G$ such
that the spaces $\mathfrak{h}^c$ and $\mathfrak{k}^c$ corresponding
by \eqref{H} and \eqref{K} to $V^c$ are, as $G$-modules, antiunitarily
equivalent to the spaces $\mathfrak{h}$ and $\mathfrak{k}$
corresponding to $V$. That is, the representation
$D_{\varrho_{V^c}}$ is unitarily equivalent to the complex conjugate
of $D_{\varrho_{V}}$ (\emph{charge conjugation}).
\end{Rms}
\subsection{An example: Localized endomorphisms of the chiral Dirac
field} \label{sec:EXA}
In Section~\ref{sec:GICAR} we have analyzed the charge quantum numbers
of gauge invariant implementable quasi-free endomorphisms in complete
generality. In particular, and in sharp contrast to the field
theoretic situation, it was not necessary to assume any localization
properties of endomorphisms. If one could find, in a specific model, a
localized implementable quasi-free endomorphism, then our methods
would apply and could be used to determine its charge and to construct
the corresponding local fields. It is however not clear from the
outset whether localization and implementability are compatible with
each other\footnote{Known results concerning this question are
restricted to the case of automorphisms. Building on the work of Carey
and Ruijsenaars \cite{CR} and others, we constructed in \cite{CB0} a
family of (implementable and transportable) localized automorphisms,
carrying arbitrary $U(1)$-charges, of the free Dirac field in two
spacetime dimensions with arbitrary mass. The operators
$V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK)^{U(1)}$ belonging to these automorphisms are
given by two $U(1)$-valued functions which are equal to $1$ at
spacelike infinity, and the charge $\IND V_{++}$ (cf.\ Remark~(iii) in
Section~\ref{sec:GICAR}) of $\varrho_V$ is equal to the difference of
the winding numbers of these functions. However, unlike in two
dimensions, there seem to be no known examples of implementable
charge-carrying automorphisms in the case $G\cong U(1)$ in four
spacetime dimensions.}. To show that this is in fact the case, we will
present below an explicit example of a non-surjective implementable
localized quasi-free endomorphism of the free massless Dirac field in
two spacetime dimensions.
Let us first introduce the free Dirac field with global $U(N)$
symmetry. Let
\begin{equation}
\label{HL2}
\HH\DEF L^2(\RR^{2n-1},\CC^{2^n})
\end{equation}
be the single-particle space of the time-zero Dirac field in $2n$
spacetime dimensions. Let $H=-i\vec\alpha\vec\nabla+\beta m$ be the
free Dirac Hamiltonian, with spectral projections $E_\pm$
corresponding to the positive resp.\ negative part of the spectrum of
$H$. Tensored with $\1_N$, these operators act on the space
\begin{equation}
\label{CN}
\HH'\DEF\HH\otimes\CC^N.
\end{equation}
The gauge group $U(N)$ also acts naturally on $\HH'$. In the selfdual
CAR formalism, one sets
\begin{equation}
\label{H'}
\KK\DEF\HH'\oplus{\HH'}^*,
\end{equation}
where ${\HH'}^*$ is the Hilbert space conjugate to $\HH'$. There is a
natural conjugation $f\mapsto f^*$ on \KK which is inherited from the
antiunitary identification map $\HH'\to{\HH'}^*$. The basis projection
$P_1$ corresponding to the vacuum representation of the field is given
by
$$P_1\DEF E_+'\oplus\4{E_-'}$$
with $E_\pm'=E_\pm\otimes\1_N$. Gauge transformations act like
$U=(\1_\HH\otimes u)\oplus(\1_{\HH^*}\otimes\4{u}),\ u\in U(N)$, on
\KK. They commute with $P_1$. The field operators $\varphi_t$ at time
$t$ are given by
$$\varphi_t(f)\DEF\pi_{P_1}(e^{itH'}f)=
a(E_+'e^{itH'}f)^*+a(\4{E_-'}e^{-it\4{H'}}f^*)$$
with $H'\DEF H\otimes\1_N,\ f\in\HH'$. They are solutions of the
Dirac--Schr\"odinger equation
$$-i\frac{d}{dt}\varphi_t(f)=\varphi_t(H'f),\quad f\in D(H').$$
If $O$ is a double cone in Minkowski space with base
$B\subset\RR^{2n-1}$ at time $t$, then the local field algebra
associated with $O$ is the von Neumann algebra generated by all
$\varphi_t(f)$ with $\SUPP f\subset B$. The local observable algebras
are the fixed point subalgebras of the local field algebras under the
gauge action. A whole net of local algebras is generated from these
special ones by applying Lorentz transformations.
Gauge invariant implementable localized endomorphisms of the
$N$-component Dirac field can be characterized as follows. A
quasi-free endomorphism $\varrho_V$ is gauge invariant if and only if
$V$ has the form
\begin{equation}
\label{VFORM}
V=(v\otimes\1_N)\oplus(\4{v}\otimes\4{\1_N})
\end{equation}
with respect to the decomposition \eqref{H'}, where $v$ is an isometry
of \HH. This follows from the fact that the defining representation of
$U(N)$ and its complex conjugate are disjoint, so that the commutant
of $G$ on \KK is given by
$$G'=\bigl(\BB(\HH)\otimes\1_N\bigr)\oplus\bigl(\BB(\HH^*)\otimes
\4{\1_N}\bigr).$$
For $V$ of the form \eqref{VFORM} one has
$$[P_1,V]=\Bigl([E_+,v]\otimes\1_N\Bigr)\oplus\Bigl(\4{[E_-,v]}
\otimes\4{\1_N}\Bigr)$$
so that the implementability condition \eqref{IMPCOND} holds if and
only if
\begin{equation}
\label{Ev}
[E_+,v]\text{ and }[E_-,v]\text{ are Hilbert--Schmidt}.
\end{equation}
Therefore $\END_{P_1}(\KK)^{U(N)}$ is isomorphic to the semigroup of
all isometries $v$ of \HH which fulfill \eqref{Ev}.
An endomorphism of the algebra of all local observables is
\emph{localized} in a bounded region $O$ in Minkowski space if it acts
like the identity on observables which are localized in bounded
regions contained in the spacelike complement $O'$ of $O$
\cite{H}. Localized elements of $\END_{P_1}(\KK)^{U(N)}$ (at time
zero) can be characterized as follows.
\begin{Prp}
\label{prop:LOC}
Let $O$ be a double cone with base $B\subset\RR^{2n-1}$ at time
zero. Let $V$ be an element of $\END_{P_1}(\KK)^{U(N)}$, and let
$v$ be the isometry of \HH associated with $V$ by
\eqref{VFORM}. Then $\varrho_V$ is localized\footnote{More
precisely, the normal extension of $\varrho_V$ in the representation
$\pi_{P_1}$ is localized in $O$.} in $O$ if and only if there
exists, for each connected component $\Delta$ of
$\RR^{2n-1}\setminus B$, a phase factor $\tau_\Delta\in{U(1)}$ such
that \begin{equation} \label{TAUDELTA} v(f)=\tau_\Delta
f\quad\text{for all }f\in\HH\text { with } \SUPP f\subset\Delta.
\end{equation}
\end{Prp}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\varrho_V$ is localized in $O$. Let $b_1,\dots,b_N$ be
the standard basis in $\CC^N$, let $\Delta$ be a component of the
complement of $B$, and let $f,g\in\HH$ with $\SUPP
f,g\subset\Delta$. Then
$$a(f,g)\DEF\sum_{j=1}^N(f\otimes b_j)(g\otimes b_j)^*$$
is gauge invariant, and $\pi_{P_1}(a(f,g))$ is an observable
localized in $O'$. Since $\varrho_V$ is localized in $O$, one has
$a(f,g)=\varrho_V(a(f,g))=\sum_j(v(f)\otimes b_j)(v(g)\otimes b_j)^*$.
Since the $b_j$ are linearly independent, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{FG}
(f\otimes b_j)(g\otimes b_j)^*=(v(f)\otimes b_j)(v(g)\otimes b_j)^*,
\qquad j=1,\dots,N.
\end{equation}
Now let $P'$ be the (basis) projection onto $\HH'\subset\KK$, and let
$\omega_{P'}$ be the corresponding Fock state. One has
$$\omega_{P'}\bigl((f\otimes b_j)^*(f\otimes b_j)(f\otimes b_j)^*
(f\otimes b_j)\bigr)=\NORM{f}^4,$$
and, since $(v(f)\otimes b_j)^*$
belongs to the annihilator ideal of $\omega_{P'}$,
\begin{equation*}
\omega_{P'}\bigl((f\otimes b_j)^*(v(f)\otimes b_j)(v(f)
\otimes b_j)^*(f\otimes b_j)\bigr)=\ABS{\langle v(f),f\rangle}^2.
\end{equation*}
Therefore one gets from \eqref{FG}, in the special case $f=g$, that
$\NORM{f}^2=\ABS{\langle v(f),f\rangle}$. It follows that there
exists $\tau_f\in{U(1)}$ such that $v(f)=\tau_f f$. By the same
argument, $v(g)=\tau_g g$ for some $\tau_g\in{U(1)}$. Then \eqref{FG}
yields that $\tau_f=\tau_g$. Therefore these phase factors depend
only on $\Delta$ and not on the functions.
Conversely, assume that \eqref{TAUDELTA} holds. Then $\varrho_V$
acts on fields localized in bounded regions in $O'$ like a gauge
transformation, and therefore like the identity on observables
localized in $O'$. It follows that $\varrho_V$ is localized in $O$.
\end{proof}
Of course, $\RR^{2n-1}\setminus B$ is connected if $n>1$, but it has
two connected components if $n=1$. This is the basic reason for the
possible occurrence of braid group statistics and soliton sectors in
two dimensional Minkowski space.
Next let us demonstrate that at least the free massless Dirac field in
two spacetime dimensions possesses non-surjective implementable
localized quasi-free endomorphisms. It suffices to consider one chiral
component of the field. Thus consider the Hilbert space $\HH=L^2(\RR)$
with Dirac Hamiltonian $-i\tfrac{d}{dx}$. It is convenient to
transform to the Hilbert space $L^2({S^1})$ via the Cayley transform
$\vartheta$
$$\vartheta: \RR\cup\{\infty\}\to{S^1},\qquad x\mapsto -e^{2i\arctan
x}=\frac{x-i}{x+i}$$
(cf.\ \cite{CR}). $\vartheta$ induces a unitary transformation
$\tilde\vartheta$
$$\tilde\vartheta:L^2({S^1})\to L^2(\RR),\qquad(\tilde\vartheta f)(x)=
\pi^{-\2}\frac{f(\vartheta(x))}{x+i}.$$
The important point is that the spectral projections $E_\pm$ of
$-i\tfrac{d}{dx}$ are transformed into the Hardy space projections:
Set $\tilde E_\pm\DEF\tilde\vartheta^{-1}E_\pm\tilde\vartheta$, then
$$\tilde E_+=\sum_{n\geq0}e_n\langle e_n,.\,\rangle,\quad
\tilde E_-=\sum_{n<0}e_n\langle e_n,.\,\rangle,\quad e_n(z)\DEF z^n\
(z\in{S^1},n\in\ZZ).$$
We want to construct an isometry $v$ of $L^2({S^1})$ with
$[\tilde E_\pm,v]$ Hilbert--Schmidt (implementability), with $\IND v=1$
(close to irreducibility, cf.\ Rem.~(i) in Section~\ref{sec:GICAR}),
and such that $v(f)=f$ for all $f\in L^2({S^1})$ with $\SUPP
f\subset{S^1}\setminus I$, where $I\subset{S^1}$ is a fixed interval
(localization). As localization region we shall choose the interval
$$I\DEF\SET{e^{i\lambda}}{\tfrac{\pi}{2}\leq\lambda\leq\tfrac{3\pi}{2}}$$
which corresponds, by the inverse Cayley transform, to the interval
$\vartheta^{-1}(I)=[-1,1]$ in \RR. We need the following orthonormal
basis $(f_m)_{m\in\ZZ}$ in $L^2(I)\subset L^2({S^1})$
$$f_m(z)\DEF\sqrt{2}(-1)^mz^{2m}\chi_I(z),\quad z\in{S^1},$$
where $\chi_I$ is the characteristic function of $I$. We now define
the isometry $v$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{v}
v\DEF\1+\sum_{m\geq0}(f_{m+1}-f_m)\langle f_m,.\,\rangle.
\end{equation}
Note that $v$ acts like the identity on functions with support in
${S^1}\setminus I$, that $v(f_m)=f_m$ if $m<0$, and that $v$ acts like the
unilateral shift on the remaining $f_m$: $v(f_m)=f_{m+1}$ if $m\geq0$.
\begin{Lem}
\label{lem:HS}
The commutators $[\tilde E_+,v]$ and $[\tilde E_-,v]$ are Hilbert--Schmidt.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
The rather lengthy estimates of the Hilbert--Schmidt norms of these
commutators, which are essentially due to P.~Grinevich, can be found
in \cite{CB4}.
\end{proof}
Thus the operator $V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK)^{U(N)}$ induced by $v$ via
\eqref{VFORM} yields a localized endomorphism $\varrho_V$ of the
chiral Dirac field. Since by construction
$$\3\IND V=N,$$
it is clear that the space $\mathfrak{k}$ associated with $V$ by
\eqref{K} carries either the defining representation of $U(N)$ or its
complex conjugate. By Remark~(i) in Section~\ref{sec:GICAR}, the
irreducible constituents of $\varrho_V$ correspond to the irreducible,
mutually inequivalent representations $D_{\varrho_V}^{(n)},\
n=0,\dots,N$. Note that the same isometry $v$ gives rise to localized
gauge invariant implementable endomorphisms for \emph{arbitrary}
symmetry groups $G$, by replacing the defining representation of
$U(N)$ in Eq.~\eqref{CN} with a suitable finite dimensional
representation of $G$.
\section{The Bosonic Case}
We need some preparations from \cite{CB3}. The exposition will closely
follow the lines of the Fermionic case considered in
Section~\ref{sec:FER}.
\subsection{Preliminaries on the implementation of quasi-free
endomorphisms (CCR)} \label{sec:PRECCR}
We start with a Fock representation of the canonical commutation
relations. Thus we may assume as above that \KK is an infinite
dimensional separable complex Hilbert space with a complex conjugation
$f\mapsto f^*$, and that $P_1$ is a fixed basis projection. Let $P_2$
be the complementary projection. Define a self-adjoint unitary
operator
$$C\DEF P_1-P_2$$
so that $\4{C}=-C$, and a nondegenerate hermitian sesquilinear form
$$\kappa(f,g)\DEF\langle{f,Cg}\rangle$$
so that
$$\kappa(f^*,g^*)=-\kappa(g,f),\quad f,g\in\KK.$$
It must be emphasized that the basic form on \KK which
determines the canonical commutation relations is $\kappa$ and not the
Hilbert space inner product. In fact, the latter depends on the choice
of the Fock state, i.\,e.\ on the choice of $P_1$.
The \emph{(selfdual) CCR algebra} \CKK over $(\KK,\kappa)$ is the
simple *-algebra which is generated by \1 and elements $f\in\KK$,
subject to the commutation relation \cite{AS71,A71}
\begin{equation*}
f^*g-gf^*=\kappa(f,g)\1,\quad f,g\in\KK.
\end{equation*}
The \emph{Weyl algebra} $\WK$ over $(\KK,\kappa)$ is the simple
$C^*$-algebra generated by unitary operators $w(f),\ f\in\KK$ with
$f=f^*$, subject to the relations
$$w(f)^*=w(-f),\quad w(f)w(g)=e^{-\2\kappa(f,g)}w(f+g).$$
The \emph{Fock state} $\omega_{P_1}$ over \CKK induced by $P_1$ is
again determined by condition \eqref{FS}. The GNS representation
$(\FF_{P_1},\pi_{P_1},\Omega_{P_1})$ of $\omega_{P_1}$ can be
identified with the representation $\pi_{P_1}$ given by formula
\eqref{PP1}, where $a^*(f)$ and $a(f)$, $f\in\KK_1$, now are Bosonic
creation and annihilation operators, acting on the symmetric Fock
space $\FF_{P_1}$ over $\KK_1$ with Fock vacuum vector
$\Omega_{P_1}$. All operators $\pi_{P_1}(a)$, $a\in\CKK$, are defined
on the invariant dense domain $\DD\subset\FF_{P_1}$ of algebraic
tensors, are closable, and fulfill
$\pi_{P_1}(a^*)\subset\pi_{P_1}(a)^*$.
The irreducible Fock representation of the Weyl algebra $\WK$ induced
by $P_1$ is obtained by identifying the Weyl operator $w(f)$,
$f=f^*\in\KK$, with the exponential of the closure of
$i\pi_{P_1}(f)$. The vacuum expectation value of $w(f)$ is
$$\langle{\Omega_{P_1}, w(f)\Omega_{P_1}}
\rangle=e^{-\frac{1}{4}\NORM{f}^2},\quad f=f^*.$$
Let \HH be a subspace of \KK with $\HH=\HH^*$, and let $\WW(\HH)$ be
the $C^*$-algebra generated by all $w(f)$ with $f=f^*\in\HH$. If
$\HH\SC$ is the orthogonal complement of \HH with respect to $\kappa$,
then
\begin{equation*}
\WW(\HH)'=\WW(\HH\SC)''\qquad\text{(\emph{duality})}.
\end{equation*}
Every operator $V$ on \KK which preserves the form $\kappa$ and which
commutes with complex conjugation extends to a unique \emph{quasi-free
endomorphism} $\varrho_V$ of \CKK:
$$\varrho_V(f)=V(f),\quad f\in\KK,$$
and to a unique *-endomorphism, denoted by the same symbol, of $\WK$:
$$\varrho_V(w(f))=w(V(f)),\quad f=f^*.$$
As shown in \cite{CB3}, an endomorphism $\varrho_V$ of $\WK$ can be
implemented by a Hilbert space of isometries $H_{\varrho_V}$ on
$\FF_{P_1}$ as in \eqref{IMP} if and only if the Hilbert--Schmidt
condition \eqref{IMPCOND} holds. Such operators $V$ form a semigroup
$$\END_{P_1}(\KK,\kappa)\DEF\SET{V\in\BB(\KK)}{V\+V=\1,\ \4{V}=V,\ [P_1,V]
\text{ is HS}}$$
isomorphic to the semigroup of all implementable quasi-free
endomorphisms of $\WK$. Here we use the notation
$$A\+\DEF CA^*C$$
for the adjoint of an operator $A$ on \KK relative to the form
$\kappa$. Every $V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK,\kappa)$ has a well-defined
Fredholm index:
$$\IND V=\dim\ker V\+\in\{0,2,4,\dots,\infty\}.$$
The \emph{statistics dimension} $d_{\varrho_V}$ of $\varrho_V$ is in
the Bosonic case given by
\begin{equation}
\label{ccr:DRV}
d_{\varrho_V}\DEF\dim H_{\varrho_V}=
\begin{cases}
1, & \IND V=0,\\
\infty, & \IND V\neq 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
In order to obtain an orthonormal basis in the Hilbert space
$H_{\varrho_V}\Omega_{P_1}$ associated with a fixed
$V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK)$, it is again convenient to extend the partial
Fock state $\omega_{P_1}\0\varrho_V^{-1}|_{\RAN\varrho_V}$ to a proper
Fock state $\omega_P$ which is unitarily equivalent to
$\omega_{P_1}$. The basis projection\footnote{In the Bosonic case, a
basis projection $P$ is an operator on \KK such that
$P=P^2=P\+=\1-\4{P}$, and such that $CP$ is positive definite on
$\RAN P$.} $P$ corresponding to this new Fock state has the form
$$P\DEF VP_1V\++p$$
where the basis projection $p$ of $\ker V\+$ is defined as follows
\cite{CB3}. Let $E$ be the orthogonal projection onto $\ker V\+$, and
let $A\DEF ECE$ be the operator describing the restriction of $\kappa$
to $\ker V\+$ with respect to the scalar product. Let $A_+$ be the
positive part of $A$, i.\,e.\ the unique positive operator such that
$A=A_+-\4{A_+}$ and $A_+\4{A_+}=0$. Let $A_+^{-1}$ be defined on $\RAN
A_+$ as the inverse of $A_+$, and on $(\RAN A_+)^\bot$ as zero. Then
$p$ is defined as
$$p\DEF A_+^{-1}C.$$
The class of all Fock states over $\WK$ which are unitarily equivalent
to $\omega_{P_1}$ is parameterized by symmetric\footnote{I.\,e.\
$T=\4{T^*}$.} Hilbert--Schmidt operators $T$ from $\KK_1$ to $\KK_2$
with $\NORM{T}<1$. The operator $T$ corresponding to $P$ is again
given by \eqref{TDEF}:
\begin{equation}
\label{ccr:TDEF}
T\DEF P_{21}{P_{11}}^{-1},
\end{equation}
whereas $P$ can be recovered from $T$ by
$$P=(P_1+T)(P_1+T\+T)^{-1}(P_1+T\+).$$
The cyclic vector $\Omega_P$ in $\FF_{P_1}$, unique up to a phase,
which induces the state $\omega_P$, is given by
$$\Omega_P=\bigl({\det}(P_1+T\+T)\bigr)^{1/4}\exp(-\3\4{T}a^*a^*)
\Omega_{P_1}.$$
It belongs to $H_{\varrho_V}\Omega_{P_1}$. A complete orthonormal
basis in $H_{\varrho_V}\Omega_{P_1}$ is obtained by applying certain
isometries from the commutant of $\RAN\varrho_V$ to $\Omega_P$. The
basis projection $P$ leaves $\ker V\+$ invariant, and $\kappa$ is
positive definite on $\RAN P$. Let
\begin{equation}
\label{ccr:K}
\mathfrak{k}\DEF P(\ker V\+),\quad\text{with }
\dim\mathfrak{k}=\3\IND V,
\end{equation}
and let $g_1,g_2,\dotsc$ be a basis in
$\mathfrak{k}$ such that $\kappa(g_j,g_k)=\delta_{jk}$. Let $\psi_j$
be the isometry obtained by polar decomposition of the closure of
$\pi_{P_1}(g_j)$. For any multi-index
$\alpha=(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_l)$ with
$1\leq\alpha_j\leq\alpha_{j+1}\leq\3\IND V$ ($\alpha=0$ if $l=0$), set
\begin{equation}
\label{ccr:OA}
\Omega_\alpha\DEF\psi_{\alpha_1}\dotsm\psi_{\alpha_l}\Omega_P.
\end{equation}
Then the $\Omega_\alpha$ form an orthonormal basis in
$H_{\varrho_V}\Omega_{P_1}$ and, by \eqref{HRV}, induce an orthonormal
basis in $H_{\varrho_V}$. The spaces $H_{\varrho_V}$ and
$H_{\varrho_V}\Omega_{P_1}$ can both be identified with the symmetric
Fock space over $\mathfrak{k}$ \cite{CB3}.
\subsection{Gauge invariant quasi-free endomorphisms (CCR)}
\label{sec:GICCR}
We assume again that a group $G\subset\END_{P_1}(\KK,\kappa)$
consisting of unitary operators $U$ which commute with $P_1$ (so that
$G$ can be identified with a subgroup of $U(\KK_1)$) acts by
second quantization $\Gamma(U)$ on $\FF_{P_1}$. \emph{Gauge invariant}
implementable quasi-free endomorphisms correspond to the elements of
the semigroup
$$\END_{P_1}(\KK,\kappa)^G\DEF\SET{V\in\END_{P_1}
(\KK,\kappa)}{[V,G]=0}.$$
To determine the representation $D_{\varrho_V}$ of $G$ on the Hilbert
space $H_{\varrho_V}$ associated with $V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK,\kappa)^G$,
it suffices to consider the action of $\Gamma(U)$ on the vectors
$\Omega_\alpha$ defined in \eqref{ccr:OA}. In contrast to the
Fermionic case (cf.\ Lemma~\ref{lem:GP}), there is no simple
transformation law for the $\psi_j$ under $G$. They obey however a
linear transformation law when applied to $\Omega_P$; in fact, one can
show that $\Omega_\alpha$ is proportional to
\begin{equation}
\label{ccr:OA'}
\pi_{P_1}(g_{\alpha_1})\dotsm\pi_{P_1}(g_{\alpha_l})
\exp(-\3\4{T}a^*a^*)\Omega_{P_1}
\end{equation}
(cf.\ \cite{CB4}; taking the closures of the $\pi_{P_1}(g_j)$ is
tacitly assumed here). The behavior of the $\pi_{P_1}(g_j)$ under
gauge transformations is obvious.
\begin{Lem}
\label{ccr:lem:GEXP}
Let $V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK,\kappa)^G$ be given, and let $T$ be defined
by \eqref{ccr:TDEF}. Then $\exp(-\3\4{T}a^*a^*)\Omega_{P_1}$ is
invariant under all gauge transformations $\Gamma(U)$, $U\in G$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $E$ be the orthogonal projection onto $\ker V\+=C\ker V^*$, and
let $A\DEF ECE$ as in Section~\ref{sec:PRECCR}. Then $E$ and $A$
commute with $G$ because $V$ and $P_1$ do so. Therefore the positive
part $A_+$ of $A$ and the operator ${A_+}^{-1}$ defined in
Section~\ref{sec:PRECCR} also commute with $G$. It follows that
$P=VP_1V\++{A_+}^{-1}C$ and $T\DEF P_{21}{P_{11}}^{-1}$ commute with
$G$ as well.
Arguing as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:EXP}, one finds for $U\in
G$
$$\Gamma(U)\bigl(-\3\4{T}a^*a^*\bigr)^n\Omega_{P_1}
=\bigl(-\3(U\4{T}U\+)a^*a^*\bigr)^n\Omega_{P_1}$$
and finally
$$\Gamma(U)\exp\bigl(-\3\4{T}a^*a^*\bigr)\Omega_{P_1}=
\exp\bigl(-\3(U\4{T}U\+)a^*a^*\bigr)\Omega_{P_1}=
\exp\bigl(-\3\4{T}a^*a^*\bigr)\Omega_{P_1}.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{Thm}
\label{ccr:thm:CHARGE}
Let $P_1$ be a basis projection of $(\KK,\kappa)$, let $G$ be a
group of unitary operators on \KK commuting with $P_1$ and with
complex conjugation, and let $V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK,\kappa)^G$. Then
the subspace $\mathfrak{k}$ defined in \eqref{ccr:K} is invariant
under $G$, and the unitary representation $D_{\varrho_V}$ of $G$ on
the Hilbert space of isometries $H_{\varrho_V}$ which implements
$\varrho_V$ in the Fock representation determined by $P_1$ is
unitarily equivalent to the representation
$\mathfrak{S}_\mathfrak{k}$ on the symmetric Fock space over
$\mathfrak{k}$ that is obtained by taking symmetric
tensor powers of the representation on $\mathfrak{k}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{ccr:REPG}
D_{\varrho_V}\simeq\mathfrak{S}_{\mathfrak{k}}.
\end{equation}
\end{Thm}
\begin{proof}
$\mathfrak{k}$ is invariant under $G$ because $\ker V\+$ is
invariant and because $P$ commutes with $G$ (see the proof of
Lemma~\ref{ccr:lem:GEXP}). The assertion hence follows from
\eqref{ccr:OA'} and Lemma~\ref{ccr:lem:GEXP}.
\end{proof}
\begin{Rms}
(i) Theorem~\ref{ccr:thm:CHARGE} shows that non-surjective quasi-free
endomorphisms of the CCR algebra are even ``more reducible'' than
endomorphisms of the CAR algebra in that they are always
\emph{infinite} direct sums, a fact which explains the generic
occurrence of infinite statistics in the CCR case (cf.\
\eqref{ccr:DRV}). Again, each closed subspace of
$H_{\varrho_V}\Omega_{P_1}$ spanned by the $\Omega_\alpha$ with
length of $\alpha$ fixed is invariant under $G$.
(ii) Any representation of $G$ which is contained in $\KK_1$ with
infinite multiplicity is realized on some space $\mathfrak{k}$
belonging to a $V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK,\kappa)^G$.
(iii) Quasi-free automorphisms are less interesting in the CCR
case because they are all neutral: $D_{\varrho_V}$ is the trivial
representation of $G$ if $\IND V=0$.
(iv) If the single-particle space $\KK_1$ has a
particle-antiparticle symmetry, then every
$V\in\END_{P_1}(\KK,\kappa)^G$ has a conjugate in
$\END_{P_1}(\KK,\kappa)^G$, just as in the Fermionic case.
\end{Rms}
\section{Concluding Remarks}
As we have seen, gauge invariant implementable quasi-free
endomorphisms of the CAR and CCR algebras with statistics dimension
$d\neq1$ restrict to reducible endomorphisms of the observable
algebra. In typical cases, e.g.\ if $G$ is isomorphic to one of the
classical compact Lie groups, any irreducible representation of the
group is equivalent to a subrepresentation of some tensor power of the
defining representation. In such cases there will exist quasi-free
endomorphisms, behaving like ``master endomorphisms'', which contain
each superselection sector as a subrepresentation.
It is an interesting problem how to obtain the irreducible
``subobjects'' of a quasi-free endomorphism $\varrho$. Suppose that
$\{\Psi_j\}$ is an (incomplete) orthonormal set in $H_\varrho$ which
transforms irreducibly under $G$. According to the general theory
\cite{DHR3}, there should exist a gauge invariant isometry $\Phi$ on
Fock space with $\RAN\Phi=\oplus_j\RAN\Psi_j$. The corresponding
irreducible endomorphism $\varrho_\Phi$ (which is not quasi-free)
would then be given by
$$\varrho_\Phi(a)\DEF\Phi^*\Bigl(\sum_j\Psi_ja\Psi_j^*\Bigr)\Phi.$$
Collections of gauge invariant isometries $\{\Phi_j\}$ fulfilling the
Cuntz relations would permit to define direct sums of quasi-free
endomorphisms $\{\varrho_j\}$:
\begin{equation*}
(\oplus_j\varrho_j)(a)\DEF\sum_j\Phi_j\varrho_j(a)\Phi_j^*,
\end{equation*}
so that one would get the whole Doplicher--Roberts category generated
by quasi-free endomorphisms.
Another important question is how to find basis-independent examples
of, say, localized isometries $v$ with index one on the
single-particle space \HH (see \eqref{HL2}) of the time-zero Dirac
field, such that the implementability condition \eqref{Ev}
holds. Recall that our construction of such an operator in
Eq.~\eqref{v} made essential use of the existence of local Fourier
bases on the circle. Of particular interest would be the massive case
in two dimensions, where one might hope to find localized quasi-free
endomorphisms obeying non-Abelian braid group statistics. However,
preliminary calculations based on the explicit formulas in
\cite{CB1,CB3} indicate that the commutation relations of implementers
corresponding to irreducible subobjects of quasi-free endomorphisms
only admit Abelian braid group statistics.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The author profited from discussions with P.~Grinevich on the
estimates mentioned in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:HS}.
\end{acknowledgements}
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
|
\section{Introduction}
The recent atmospheric neutrino data from the Super-Kamiokande (SK) experiment
\cite{Su99} are in excellent agreement with the hypothesis of flavor
oscillations generated by nonzero neutrino mass and mixing \cite{Po67} in the
$\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_\tau$ channel \cite{SKEV}. Such hypothesis is
consistent with all the SK data, including sub-GeV $e$-like and $\mu$-like
events (SG$e,\mu$) \cite{SKSG}, multi-GeV $e$-like and $\mu$-like events
(MG$e,\mu$) \cite{SKMG}, and upward-going muon events (UP$\mu$) \cite{SKUP},
and is also corroborated by independent atmospheric neutrino results from the
MACRO \cite{MACR} and Soudan-2 \cite{SOUD} experiments, as well as by the
finalized upward-going muon data sample from the pioneering Kamiokande
experiment \cite{KAUP}. Oscillations in the $\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_\tau$
channel are also compatible with the negative results of the reactor experiment
CHOOZ in the $\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_e$ channel \cite{CHOO}.
However, it has been realized that {\em dominant\/}
$\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_\tau$ oscillations plus {\em subdominant\/}
$\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_e$ oscillations are also consistent with SK+CHOOZ
data, and lead to a much richer three-flavor oscillation phenomenology
\cite{Fo99}. A detailed $3\nu$ analysis of the SK observations, including the
full 33 kTy data sample, can be found in Ref.~\cite{Fo99}. Here we report and
comment briefly the results of our updated analysis, based on the recent 45
kTy SK data \cite{Me99,Ha99}. The theoretical framework is based on the
so-called one mass scale dominance \cite{Fo95}, which has been used also for
three-flavor oscillation studies of pre-SK atmospheric and reactor neutrino
data in Refs.~\cite{Fo95,Fo97,Fo98}.
\section{$3\nu$ analysis of SK phenomenology (45 kTy)}
In the hypothesis that the two lightest neutrinos $(\nu_1,\nu_2)$ are
effectively degenerate $(m^2_1\simeq m^2_2)$ (one mass scale dominance), it can
be shown \cite{Fo95,Fo99} that atmospheric neutrinos probe only $m^2\equiv
m^2_3-m^2_{1,2}$, together with mixing matrix elements $U_{\alpha i}$ related
to $\nu_3$, namely: \begin{equation} {\rm Parameter\ space}
\;\equiv\;(m^2,U^2_{e1},U^2_{e2},U^2_{e3})\ , \end{equation} where
$U^2_{e1}+U^2_{e2}+U^2_{e3}=1$ for unitarity. The unitarity constraint can be
conveniently embedded in a triangle plot \cite{Fo95,Fo97,Fo99}, whose corners
represent the flavor eigenstates, while the heights projected from any inner
point represent the $U^2_{\alpha3}$'s.
Within this framework, we analyze 30 data points, related to the zenith
distributions of sub-GeV events (SG $e$-like and $\mu$-like, 5+5 bins),
multi-GeV events (MG$e$,$\mu$ 5+5 bins) and upward-going muons (UP$\mu$, 10
bins), using the latest 45 kTy SK sample \cite{Me99,Ha99}. We also consider the
rate of events in the CHOOZ reactor experiment \cite{CHOO} (one bin), which
constrains the $\nu_e$ disappearance channel. Constraints are obtained through
a $\chi^2$ statistic, as described in Ref.~\cite{Fo99}.
Figure~1 shows the regions favored at 90\% and 99\% C.L.\ in the triangle plot,
for representative values of $m^2$. The CHOOZ data, which exclude a large
horizontal strip in the triangle, appear to be crucial in constraining
three-flavor mixing. Pure $\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_e$ oscillations (right
side of the triangles) are excluded by SK and CHOOZ independently. The center
of the lower side, corresponding to pure $\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_\tau$
oscillations with maximal mixing, is allowed in each triangle both by SK and
SK+CHOOZ data. However, deviations from maximal
$(\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_\tau)$ mixing, as well as subdominant mixing with
$\nu_e$, are also allowed to some extent. Such deviations from maximal $2\nu$
mixing are slightly more constrained than in the previous analysis of the 33
kTy SK data \cite{Fo99}.
Figure~2 shows the constraints on the mass parameter $m^2$ for unconstrained
three-flavor mixing. The best fit value is reached at $m^2\sim3\times 10^{-3}$
eV$^2$, and is only slightly influenced by the inclusion of CHOOZ data.
However, the upper bound on $m^2$ is significantly improved by including CHOOZ.
As compared with the corresponding plot in Ref.~\cite{Fo99} (33 kTy), this
figure shows that the 45 kTy data are in better agreement with the oscillation
hypothesis (lower $\chi^2$). Moreover, the favored range of $m^2$ is restricted
by $\sim 10\%$ with respect to Ref.~\cite{Fo99}.
Figures~1 and 2 clearly show the tremendous impact of the SK experiment in
constraining the neutrino oscillation parameter space. Prior to SK, the data
could not significantly favor $\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_\tau$ over
$\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_e$ oscillations, and could only put weak bounds on
$m^2$ (see Refs.~\cite{Fo97,Fo98}).
\begin{figure}
\epsfysize=14.5truecm
\hspace*{0.7truecm}
\epsfbox{fig1.ps}
\vskip-1.3cm
\caption{Three-flavor analysis in the triangle plot, for five representative
values of $m^2$. Left and middle column: separate analyses of Super-Kamiokande
(45 kTy) and CHOOZ data, respectively. Right column: combined SK+CHOOZ allowed
regions. Although the SK+CHOOZ solutions are close to pure
$\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_\tau$ oscillations, the allowed values of $U^2_{e3}$
are never negligible, especially in the lower range of $m^2$.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\begin{figure}
\epsfysize=9.truecm
\phantom{.}
\vspace*{-.5truecm}
\hspace*{2.3truecm}
\epsfbox{fig2.ps}
\vskip-2.5cm
\caption{Values of $\chi^2$ as a function of $m^2$, for unconstrained
three-flavor mixing. Dashed curve: fit to SK data only (45 kTy). Solid curve:
fit to SK+CHOOZ. The minimum of $\chi^2$ is reached for $m^2\simeq 2.8\times
10^{-3} {\rm\ eV}^2$.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
Finally, Fig.~3 shows the best-fit zenith distributions of SG$e,\mu$,
MG$e,\mu$, and UP$\mu$ events, normalized to the no-oscillation rates in each
bin. There is excellent agreement between data and theory, especially for the
$\mu$ distributions. The nonzero value of $U^2_{e3}$ at best fit leads to a
slight expected electron excess in the MG$e$ sample for $\cos\theta\to -1$. The
observed electron excess is, however, somewhat larger than expected, both for
SG$e$'s and for MG$e$'s. A significant reduction of the statistical error is
needed to probe possible MG$e$ distortions, which would be unmistakable
signals of subdominant $\nu_\mu\to\nu_e$ oscillations.
\section{Outlook}
The Super-Kamiokande data are compatible with three-flavor oscillations
dominated by $\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_\tau$ transitions. The amplitude of the
$\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_e$ channel is not necessarily zero, although being
strongly constrained by both SK and CHOOZ. A contribution from the
$\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_e$ channel might explain part of the electron excess
observed in SK, especially for multi-GeV $e$-like events. Higher statistics is
needed to test such interpretation. A definite progress in confirming the
oscillation hypothesis, and in constraining the mass-mixing parameters, emerges
from a comparison of the 33 kTy and 45 kTy SK data analyses.\\[2mm]
{\bf Acknowledgments.} G.L.F.\ thanks the organizers of the workshop WIN'99
for kind hospitality.
\newpage
\begin{figure}
\epsfysize=12.truecm
\phantom{.}
\vspace*{-2.8truecm}
\hspace*{1.3truecm}
\epsfbox{fig3.ps}
\vskip-4.0cm
\caption{SK zenith distributions of leptons at best fit (dashed lines), also
including CHOOZ (solid lines), as compared with the 45 kTy experimental data
(dots with error bars). The $3\nu$ mass-mixing values at best fit are indicated
in the upper right corner.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In a recent paper \cite{BL} two of the present authors proposed a new
superparticle model with tensorial central charges \cite{HP}--\cite{RS}
and
auxiliary fundamental spinor variables. An interesting peculiar feature
of this model is that it describes a superparticle whose presence breaks
only one of target--space supersymmetries. In all previously known cases
superparticles and (in general) superbranes break half or more
supersymmetries of a target superspace vacuum.
As we shall show in this paper
the model of \cite{BL} describes an infinite tower of
massless particles of arbitrary
(half)integer helicities.
The model can be
regarded as an extension of a Ferber--Shirafuji formulation
\cite{F78,S83} of $D=4$
superparticle mechanics. In the framework of
the $N=1$ Ferber--Shirafuji model one performs,
at the
classical level, the twistor transform \cite{F78,S83} from the $N=1$, $D=4$
superspace
description of massless superfields to their
description
in terms of supertwistors forming a fundamental representation of
a superconformal group $SU(2,2|1)$.
In an analogous way the superparticle model of \cite{BL} admits the
description in terms of $OSp(1|8)$ supertwistors \cite{Lstw,8}.
The supergroups $SU(2,2|1)$ and $OSp(1|8)$ are not subgroups of each
other,
but they are different subgroups of the supergroup $OSp(2|8)$. Hence,
one can assume that the Ferber--Shirafuji model and the model \cite{BL}
are different reductions of an $OSp(2|8)$ supertwistor model.
In this paper we construct such a generic $N=1$, $D=4$ superparticle
action
which depends on a numerical non--negative real parameter $a$.
When the value of $a$ varies within the interval $0<a<1$ the model
admits
an $OSp(2|8)$ supertwistor description, while $a=0$ and $a=1$ are two
critical points. At $a=0$ the model reduces to the Ferber--Shirafuji
superparticle. And at $a=1$ one arrives at the $OSp(1|8)$ supertwistor
model of ref. \cite{BL}.
For all values of $a$ except for $a=1$ the superparticle breaks half of
the
target--space supersymmetries, while at $a=1$ only one supersymmetry is
broken.
When $a>1$ the supertwistor group becomes $OSp(1,1|8)$ which contains
a noncompact group $SO(1,1)$ as a subgroup instead of $SO(2)$ in the
case of
$OSp(2|8)$.
The (super)twistor formulation of relativistic (super)particle dynamics
is useful in many aspects. Let us recall that, since the relativistic
(super)particle is a constrained dynamical system not all its dynamical
variables are independent. By performing (super)twistor transform
we deal directly with independent physical degrees of freedom
of the (super)particle in a covariant way. This, for instance,
simplifies
the quantization procedure and the analysis of the spectrum of quantum
states of the model.
We perform the quantization of the generic superparticle model for
arbitrary values of the parameter $a$ and find that in $D=4$
first--quantized states of the superparticle form an infinite tower of
massless states of a (half)integer helicity.
We thus demonstrate that an extra dynamical
(central charge) coordinate in the model under consideration has the
physical meaning of a spin variable. This allows one to admit that
the model considered might be related to the higher--spin field theory
of Vasiliev \cite{Vasiliev} (see also relevant papers \cite{rel}).
We first quantize the superparticle in the supertwistor formulation
where
the quantization is almost straightforward since at $a\not =0$ the
supertwistor model is unconstrained and at $a=0$ there is only one
first--class constraint.
We then quantize the model in the $N=1$, $D=4$ superspace extended with
the tensorial central charge coordinates, and show that the resulting
spectrum of the quantum physical states coincides with that of the
supertwistor formulation.
Since in this formulation the model contains second
class constraints
our main tool in carrying out the quantization procedure
will be
the extension of the model in such a way that all the
constraints of the initial model
become first class constraints. This method, which
can be traced back to the papers by
Faddeev \& Shatashvili \cite{9,10},
Batalin, Fradkin \& Fradkina \cite{12,13} and
Egorian \& Manvelian \cite{11}
has already been applied
to the quantization of `standard' massless
superparticles by Moshe \cite{14} and Eisenberg \&
Solomon \cite{15,ES,17}.
The
main advantage of this method is that it allows one to avoid problems
with covariant splitting fermionic
constraints into first and second class ones.
The initial formulation of the
model is recovered when we
gauge fix additional
gauge symmetries (associated with new first--class constraints)
by putting the conversion variables to zero.
In its nature the conversion method is
related to an old Stueckelberg formalism \cite{18} which extends the
theory
of massive vector fields with
an auxiliary scalar gauge degree of freedom.
The quantization of the model at $a=1$ has additional peculiarities.
In this case superparticle dynamics is subject to only one second--class
constraint, which is quite unusual. Dynamical systems with the odd
number
of fermionic second class constraints are rather rare. One of few known
examples is a superparticle in $D=2$ superspace with a single chiral
fermion direction \cite{Sorokin87}. So the quantization of such systems
is an
interesting exercise by itself which requires one to deal with a single
Clifford--like variable. In the case under consideration we shall use
an auxiliary Clifford variable of Grassmann--odd parity to convert the
single
second class fermionic constraint into
the one of
a first class. Further we present
two methods for quantizing the model with the single Clifford
variable,
both producing the same spectrum of first--quantized physical
states.
The paper is organized as follows.
In Section 2 we consider the one-parameter family of actions
describing the generalized $D=4$ superparticle models labelled
by the real positive parameter $a\ge 0$ where the case $a=0$
corresponds to the Ferber--Shirafuji model,
while at $a=1$ the action describes the superparticle model of
\cite{BL}. We demonstrate that in the target space with four
supersymmetries the $a\not=1$ models possess two fermionic
$\kappa$-symmetries and, hence, corresponding superparticle
configurations preserve 1/2 of the supersymmetries,
while the $a=1$ generalized superparticle has three $\kappa$--symmetries
and, hence, preserves $3\over 4$ of the supersymmetries.
We also find that the $U(1)$ symmetry is inherent to the $a=0$ case
only.
In Section 3 we describe the transform to a supertwistor form of the
action.
We show that $0<a<1$ models are described by a
free $OSp(2|8)$ supertwistor action and thus link
the Ferber-Shirafuji $SU(2,2|1)$ supertwistor model
and the free $OSp(1|8)$ supertwistor model
of \cite{BL}.
The model with $a>1$ is transformed into a free $OSp(1,1|8)$
supertwistor
action.
We perform
the quantization of the
supertwistor models and find that
the `supertwistor' wave function describes an infinite tower of
short supersymmetric multiplets of massless fields of all possible
helicities.
In Section 4 we extend the initial
phase space of the superparticle model with auxiliary variables and
perform the conversion of the initial set of first and
second class constraints
into the first--class constraints generating new gauge
symmetries. We then carry out the quantization of the
extended model and find that the dependence of the wave functions
on Grassmann--odd conversion variables is inessential and can be
ignored.
We show that
the wave function of the first--quantized model
of Section 2 can be identified with the supertwistor wave
function of Section 3 if Cartan--Penrose twistor formulae
relating superspace and supertwistor coordinates are imposed.
Thus, we find that the infinite spectrum of the first--quantized states
of
the superparticle consists of massless fields of an arbitrary
(half)integer helicity.
In Section 5 we consider a multidimensional generalization of the
$a=1$ model and its quantization. It appears that after
quantization the superwave function depends on only one Grassmann
variable, and all other fermionic degrees of freedom can be
eliminated by $N-1$ $\kappa$--transformations, where $N$ is the
total number of supersymmetries. Thus, the corresponding superparticle
configuration preserves the $(N-1)/N$ fraction of
target--space supersymmetry.
In the Appendix we analyze in detail the quantization of a
supersymmetric system with one real Grassmann variable, which
after quantization becomes a single Clifford variable.
\section{$D=4$ model with fundamental spinor and tensorial central
charge coordinates}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Let us consider the following $D=4$ superparticle action
\begin{equation}\plabel{ac(a)}
S = \int d \tau
\left( \lambda_{A}\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} \Pi_\tau^{A\dot{B}} +
a \lambda_{A}\lambda_{B} \Pi_\tau^{AB}
+ \bar a \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}} \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}}
\, \Pi_\tau^{\dot{A}\dot{B}} \right)\, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\plabel{vielbeine}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
\Pi^{A\dot{B}} \equiv d\tau \Pi_\tau^{A\dot{B}}
= dx^{A\dot{B}}
+ i \left( d\Theta^{A} \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
- \Theta^{A} d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}\right) \, ,
\\ \nonumber
\displaystyle
\Pi^{AB} \equiv d\tau \Pi_\tau^{AB} =
d{y}^{AB} - ~i~ \Theta^{(A}~d{\Theta}^{B)}\, ,
\\
\displaystyle
\bar{\Pi}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}
\equiv d\tau \bar{\Pi}_\tau^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}
= d{\bar{y}}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}
- ~i ~\bar{\Theta}^{(\dot{A}} ~d{\bar{\Theta}}\,{}^{\dot{B})}\, ,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
$A, B=1,2$, $\dot{A},\dot{B} =1,2$
are Weyl spinor indices, and
the spin--tensors $x^{A\dot{B}}$ and ${y}^{AB}$ are related to $D=4$
vector
coordinates $x^m$ and antisymmetric tensorial coordinates $y^{mn}$
through the Pauli matrices
\begin{equation}\label{vt}
x^{A\dot{B}}=x^m\sigma_m^{A\dot{B}}, \qquad {y}^{AB}=
{1 \over 2} y^{mn}(\sigma_{[m}\tilde\sigma_{n]})^{A{B}}
= ( \bar{y}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}})^*
\end{equation}
$a$ is a numerical parameter which, without the loss of generality,
can be taken to be real and positive definite $a=\bar a \in [0, \infty
)$.
Indeed,
if $a$ is complex its phase can always be absorbed by
the bosonic spinor $\l_A$ redefined in an appropriate way
($\l_A \rightarrow (\bar{a}/|a|)^{1/2} \l_A$).
The action \p{ac(a)} describes a superparticle propagating in the
extended
superspace
\begin{equation}\plabel{superspace}
M^{(4+6|4)} = \{ Y^M \} \equiv \{ (x^{A\dot{A}}, y^{AB},
\bar{y}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}; \Theta^{A}, \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{A}})\}
\end{equation}
{\sl with tensorial central charge coordinates}
$y^{AB}, \bar{y}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}$
\footnote{For previous consideration of different
models of superparticles and
p-branes in superspaces with tensorial central charges see
\cite{ES,Cz,RS}.}.
The configuration
space of the system
\begin{equation}\plabel{confsuperspace}
{\cal M}^{(4+6+4|4)} = \{ q^{{\cal M}} \} \equiv
\{ (Y^M; \l^A, \bar{\l}^{\dot{A}}) \}
=\{ (x^{A\dot{A}}, y^{AB},
\bar{y}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}; \l^A, \bar{\l}^{\dot{A}};
\Theta^{A}, \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{A}})\}
\end{equation}
contains in addition four bosonic spinor coordinates
$\l^A, \bar{\l}^{\dot{A}}$.
The presence of the parameter $a$ in the action \p{ac(a)} reflects the
property
that each of its three terms is separately invariant under
global supersymmetry transformations acting on $M^{(4+6|4)}$ as follows
$$
\d \Theta^A = \e^A, \qquad \d \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}=
\bar{\e}^{\dot{B}},
$$
\begin{equation}\plabel{susy}
\d x^{A\dot{B}} = i \e^A \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
- i \Theta^A \bar{\e}^{\dot{B}}, \qquad
\d {y}^{AB}= ~i~ \e^{(A}~{\Theta}^{B)}, \qquad
d{\bar{y}}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}=~i ~\bar{\e}^{(\dot{A}}
~{\bar{\Theta}}\,{}^{\dot{B})}, \qquad
\end{equation}
$$
\d\l_A =0, \qquad \d \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}=0.
$$
The generators of the transformations \p{susy}
$$ \d Y^M = i (\e^AQ_A +\bar{Q}_{\dot{A}}\bar{\e}^{\dot{A}}) Y^M $$
satisfy the supersymmetry algebra with central charges
\begin{equation}\plabel{alg}
\{ Q_A, Q_B\} = Z_{AB}, \qquad
\{ Q_A, {\bar{Q}}_{\dot{B}} \} = - 2 P_{A\dot{B}}, \qquad
\{\bar{Q}_{\dot{A}}, \bar{Q}_{\dot{B}}\} = \bar{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}},
\qquad
\end{equation}
and all other commutators of the generators vanish.
The superalgebra \p{alg} has the following realization in the
superspace \p{superspace}
\begin{equation}\plabel{genera}
Q_A = i \partial_A - \partial_{A\dot{B}} \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}} -
{1 \over 2} \Theta^B \partial_{AB}, \qquad
\bar{ Q}_{\dot{A}} = - i \bar{\partial}_{\dot{A}}
+ \partial_{\dot{A}{B}} \Theta^B + {1 \over 2}
\bar{\partial}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}
\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}, \qquad
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{gener}
P_{A\dot{B}} = - i \partial_{A\dot{B}}, \qquad
Z_{AB} = - {i}\partial_{AB} , \qquad
\bar{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}= - {i} \bar{\partial}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}
\end{equation}
$$
\partial_{A\dot{B}}\equiv { \partial \over \partial x^{A\dot{B}}},
\qquad
\partial_{AB}\equiv { \partial \over \partial y^{AB}},
\qquad
\bar{\partial}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}\equiv { \partial \over \partial
\bar{y}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}},
$$
$$
\partial_{A} \equiv { \partial \over \partial
\Theta^A }, \qquad \bar{\partial}_{\dot{A}}\equiv
{ \partial \over \partial\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{A}}}.
$$
If $a=0$ the action \p{ac(a)} reduces to the Ferber--Shirafuji action
\cite{F78,S83},
and if $a=1$ the action becomes the one considered in \cite{BL}.
We shall see that $a=0$ and $a=1$ are `critical'
values of the parameter
where symmetries of the action \p{ac(a)} as well as
the physical content
of
the model are modified.
\subsection{Critical points $a=0$ and $a=1$}
In order to analyze symmetry properties of the action \p{ac(a)} at
different
values
of $a$ we consider the general variation of
\p{ac(a)} which (modulo boundary terms) has the form
\begin{equation}\plabel{dac(a)}
\delta S = \int
\left[
\d\lambda_{A}
\Big(\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} \Pi^{A\dot{B}} +
2a \lambda_{B} \Pi^{AB}\Big)
+ \d \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}} \Big(\Pi^{B\dot{A}}\lambda_{B} +
2{a} \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} \Pi^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}
\Big) \right]\, -
\end{equation}
$$
- \int
\left[ d \Big(\lambda_{A} \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} \Big) i_\d
\Pi^{A\dot{B}}
+ a ~d \Big(\lambda_{A} \lambda_{B}\Big) i_\d \Pi^{AB} +
{a} ~ d \Big(\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}}\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}}\Big)
i_\d\Pi^{\dot{A}\dot{B}} \right]\, +
$$
$$
+ \int
\left[2i \Big( d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} + a d{\Theta}^{{B}} \l_B \Big) \d{\Theta}^{A}
\l_A
+ 2i \Big(d{\Theta}^{{B}} \l_B +{a} d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}}\Big) \d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
{\bar{\l}}_{\dot{B}}
\right],
$$
where the basis in the space of variations of $x$ and $y$ is
chosen in the form
\begin{equation}\plabel{var}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
i_\d \Pi^{A\dot{B}} \equiv
\d{x}^{A\dot{B}}
+ i \left( \d\Theta^{A} \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
- \Theta^{A} \d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}\right) \, ,
\\ \nonumber
\displaystyle
i_\d \Pi^{AB} \equiv
\d{y}^{AB} - ~i~ \Theta^{(A}~\d {\Theta}^{B)}\, ,
\\
\displaystyle
i_\d \bar{\Pi}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}
\equiv \d {\bar{y}}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}
- ~i ~\bar{\Theta}^{(\dot{A}} ~d{\bar{\Theta}}\,{}^{\dot{B})}\, .
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{$U(1)$ gauge symmetry of $a=0$ model}
Let us consider the variation of the action when the variations of all
fields
except for $\lambda_A$, $\bar\lambda_{\dot A}$ are zero
\begin{equation}\plabel{lv}
\delta S = \int
\left[
\d\lambda_{A}
\Big(\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} \Pi^{A\dot{B}} +
2a \lambda_{B} \Pi^{AB}\Big)
+ \d \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}} \Big(\Pi^{B\dot{A}}\lambda_{B} +
2{a} \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} \Pi^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}
\Big) \right].
\end{equation}
If the variation of $\lambda$ corresponds to local infinitesimal $U(1)$
rotations
\begin{equation}\plabel{eqdllss}
\l^\prime_A (\tau )= \l_A e^{i\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon (\tau )} , \qquad
\bar{\l}^\prime_{\dot{A}}=\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}} e^{-i\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon (\tau )}
\end{equation}
the Eq. \p{lv} takes the form
$$
\delta S = \int
\left[
i\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon(\tau)\lambda_{A}
\Big(\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} \Pi^{A\dot{B}} +
2a \lambda_{B} \Pi^{AB}\Big)
-i\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon(\tau) \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}} \Big(\Pi^{B\dot{A}}\lambda_{B} +
2{a} \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} \Pi^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}
\Big) \right].
$$
Such a variation vanishes at $a=0$. Hence at this value of $a$
the $U(1)$
transformations \p{eqdllss} describe local symmetry of the model which
is inherent to the Ferber-Shirafuji formulation \cite{F78,S83} of
the massless superparticle.
Note that for all values of the parameter $a$ the spinors $\lambda$ are
constants on the mass shell. Indeed, the equations of motion
$$
{\d S \over \d {x}^{A\dot{B}}}=0, \qquad
{\d S \over \d {y}^{AB}}=0, \qquad
{\d S \over \d {\bar{y}}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}}=0
$$
which follow from \p{dac(a)} have the form
\begin{equation}\plabel{eqdll}
d(\l_A\bar{\l}_{\dot{B}})=0 , \qquad
a~d(\l_A \l_B)=0 , \qquad
a~d(\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}} \bar{\l}_{\dot{B}})=0.
\end{equation}
In the framework of any twistor or twistor-like approach
\cite{Penrose}
one assumes that the bosonic spinors parametrize a projective space.
This
requirement
does not allow $\l$ to have all its components equal to zero
simultaneously.
Then in the generic case $a\not=0$ eqs. \p{eqdll} imply
\begin{equation}\plabel{eqdll1}
d(\l_A)=0 , \qquad
d(\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}})=0,
\end{equation}
i.e. the bosonic spinor is constant on the mass shell
\begin{equation}\plabel{eqdlls}
\l_A (\tau )= \l_A^0=const , \qquad
\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}=\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}^0=const.
\end{equation}
When $a=0$ only one equation is left in \p{eqdll}
\begin{equation}\plabel{eqdll0}
a=0: \qquad d(\l_A\bar{\l}_{\dot{B}})=0 . \qquad
\end{equation}
The general solution of \p{eqdll0} is
\begin{equation}\plabel{eqdlls0}
\l_A (\tau )= \l^0_A e^{i\tilde\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon (\tau )} , \qquad
\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}=\bar{\l}^0_{\dot{A}} e^{-i\tilde\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon (\tau )}.
\end{equation}
The arbitrary function $\tilde\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon (\tau )$ (whose presence in
\p{eqdlls0}
reflects the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry of the $a=1$ model)
can be gauged away by the
local $U(1)$ transformation \p{eqdllss}, and we are
again left with constant $\l$ on the mass shell.
\bigskip
\subsubsection{Fermionic variations and $\kappa$--symmetry}
Let us consider now
the formula \p{dac(a)} with the
variations of fermionic coordinates accompanied
by the following variations of $x$ and $y$
\begin{eqnarray}\plabel{varXZ}
& \d{x}^{A\dot{B}}=
- i \left( \d\Theta^{A} \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
- \Theta^{A} \d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}\right)
~\Rightarrow
& i_\d \Pi^{A\dot{B}}=0 ,
\nonumber \\
& \d{y}^{AB} = ~i~ \Theta^{(A}~\d {\Theta}^{B)} ~~~~~~ \Rightarrow
& i_\d \Pi^{AB} =0 ,
\\
& \d {\bar{y}}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}
= ~i ~\bar{\Theta}^{(\dot{A}} ~d{\bar{\Theta}}^{\dot{B})}
~~~~~~
\Rightarrow
& i_\d \bar{\Pi}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}} = 0 . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The bosonic spinor $\lambda_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$ remains unchanged. In such a
case eq. \p{dac(a)} takes the form
\begin{equation}\plabel{dfac(a)}
\delta S = \int
\left[2i d{\Theta}^{A} \l_A
\Big( \d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} +
a \d{\Theta}^{{B}} \l_B \Big)
+ 2i d{\bar{\Theta}}^{\dot{B}}{\bar{\l}}_{\dot{B}}
\Big(\d{\Theta}^{{B}} \l_B + {a} \d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} \Big)
\right].
\end{equation}
We see that for $a\not=1$ only two out
of four variations of the fermionic coordinates
$\d{\Theta}^{{A}}, \d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{A}} $ are effectively involved
into the variation \p{dfac(a)} of the action \p{ac(a)}.
This reflects the presence
of local fermionic $\kappa$-- symmetry \cite{AL}
with {\sl two} independent parameters $\kappa=(\kappa_1 + i\kappa}\def\l{\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}\def\s{\sigma}\def\S{\Sigma_2)$,
$\bar{\kappa}=(\kappa_1 - i\kappa}\def\l{\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}\def\s{\sigma}\def\S{\Sigma_2)$. The $\kappa$--transformations of the
coordinates are given by
eq. \p{varXZ} and
\begin{equation}\plabel{kappag}
\d{\Theta}^{A} = \kappa \l^A = (\kappa_1 + i\kappa}\def\l{\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}\def\s{\sigma}\def\S{\Sigma_2) \l^A, \qquad
\d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
= \bar{\kappa}\bar{\lambda}^{\dot{B}} =
(\kappa_1 - i\kappa}\def\l{\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}\def\s{\sigma}\def\S{\Sigma_2) \bar{\lambda}^{\dot{B}}.
\end{equation}
At the critical point $a=1$
the number of independent $\kappa$--symmetries increases from two to
{\sl three}, since in this case
only one linear combination
($\d{\Theta}^{{B}} \l_B + \d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}}$)
of four real fermionic variations enters into
the variation of the action
\begin{equation}\plabel{dfac(1)}
a= 1~:~ \qquad
\delta S = \int
2i
\Big(d{\Theta}^{{A}} \l_A + d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{A}}
\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}}\Big) ~
\Big( \d{\Theta}^{{B}} \l_B
+ d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}}
\Big).
\end{equation}
Thus remaining three fermionic variations correspond to the local
fermionic
symmetries of the $a=1$ model \cite{BL}.
In order to present an explicit form of these {\sl three $\kappa$
symmetries}
we should introduce an additional bosonic spinor
$u_A$ such that
\begin{equation}\plabel{hatu}
\l^A {u}_A = \bar{\l}^{\dot{A}}{\bar{u}}_{\dot{A}} =1.
\end{equation}
Then one can perform the decomposition of the unit matrix in the
spinor space \footnote{The pair of Weyl spinors
$\lambda^{A}, u_{A}$ is analogous to the Newman--Penrose dyad
\cite{NewmanPenrose63} widely used in General Relativity.}
\begin{equation}\plabel{ddec}
\d_B^{~A} = \l^A{u}_B -{u}^A \l_B,
\qquad \d_{\dot{B}}^{\dot{A}}=
\bar{\l}^{\dot{A}} {\bar{u}}_{\dot{B}} -
{\bar{u}}^{\dot{A}} \bar{\l}_{\dot{B}}
\end{equation}
and use it to decompose the fermionic variation of $\Theta$.
As a result we find that the $\kappa$--symmetry transformations of the
$a=1$ model are given by eqs. \p{varXZ} and
\begin{equation}\plabel{kappa1}
\d{\Theta}^{A} = (\kappa_1 + i\kappa}\def\l{\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}\def\s{\sigma}\def\S{\Sigma_2) \l^A + i \kappa}\def\l{\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}\def\s{\sigma}\def\S{\Sigma_3{u}^A,
\qquad
\d\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
=
(\kappa_1 - i\kappa}\def\l{\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}\def\s{\sigma}\def\S{\Sigma_2) \bar{\lambda}^{\dot{B}} -
i \kappa}\def\l{\lambda}\def\L{\Lambda}\def\s{\sigma}\def\S{\Sigma_3{\bar{u}}^{\dot{A}}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Hamiltonian analysis}
We now turn to the Hamiltonian
analysis of the model with the purpose of getting all the constraints
on the dynamics of the system, classifying them {\it a la} Dirac and
thus
identifying all local symmetries of the model.
For the case $a=1$ the analysis has been performed in \cite{BL}.
The generic model ($a\not =0$) has the same total number of constraints
as the $a=1$ model, the only difference being that when the parameter
$a$
takes the value $a=1$ one of
the fermionic second--class constraints
becomes the first--class constraint generating the third
$\kappa$--symmetry.
So what we should do is just to adapt the results
of the Hamiltonian analysis of \cite{BL} to the generic case.
The constraints corresponding to the
case $a=0$ of the Ferber--Shirafuji superparticle are obtained from the
generic set of constraints by putting the canonical momenta for the
central charge coordinates identically equal to zero.
The canonical momenta of the generic system are
\begin{equation}\label{momenta}
{\cal P}_{{\cal M}} = { \partial L \over \partial \dot{q}^{{\cal M}} }
= (P_{A\dot{A}}, Z_{AB},
\bar{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}; P^A, \bar{P}^{\dot{A}};
\pi_{A}, \bar{\pi}_{\dot{A}}) ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{brackets}
[ {\cal P}_{{\cal M}}, {q}^{{\cal N}} \}_P
= - (-1)^{{\cal M}{\cal N}}
[{q}^{{\cal N}}, {\cal P}_{{\cal M}} \}_P=
\d _{{\cal M}}^{{\cal N}} ~:
\end{equation}
$$
[P_{A\dot{A}}, x^{B\dot{B}}]_P = \d_{A}^{B}\d_{\dot{A}}^{\dot{B}},
\qquad
[Z_{AB}, y^{CD}]_P = 2 \d_{[A}^{C}\d_{B]}^{D}, \qquad
[\bar{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}, \bar{y}^{\dot{C}\dot{D}}]_P =
2 \d_{[\dot{A}}^{\dot{C}} \d_{\dot{B}]}^{\dot{D}}, \qquad
$$
$$
[P^{A}, \l_{B}]_P = \d_{B}^{A}, \qquad
[\bar{P}^{\dot{A}}, \bar{\l}_{\dot{B}}]_P = \d^{\dot{A}}_{\dot{B}},
\qquad
$$
$$
\{\pi_{A}, \Theta^B \}_P= \d_{A}^{B}, \qquad
\{ \bar{\pi}_{\dot{A}}, \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}} \}_P=
\d_{\dot{A}}^{\dot{B}}. \qquad
$$
They satisfy the following set of constraints
\begin{equation}\label{Phi1}
\Phi_{A\dot{B}} \equiv
P_{A\dot{B}} - \lambda_{A} \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} = 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Phi2}
\Phi_{A{B}} \equiv
Z_{A{B}} - a \lambda_{A} {\lambda}_{{B}} = 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Phi3}
\bar{\Phi}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} \equiv
\bar{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} - a
\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}} \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} = 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{PA=0}
P_{A}=0, \qquad
\bar{P}_{\dot{A}} = 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{DA=0}
D_{A}\equiv - \pi_A + i P_{A\dot{B}} \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}} + i
Z_{AB} \Theta^B=0, \qquad
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{bDA=0}
\bar{D}_{\dot{A}}\equiv \bar{\pi} _{\dot{A}} - i \Theta^B P_{B\dot{A}}
- i \bar{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}} = 0.
\end{equation}
To separate the constraints \p{Phi1}--\p{bDA=0}
into the first and second class
let us project them on the bosonic spinors $\lambda$ and $u$
(Eqs. \p{hatu}, \p{ddec}). We get
\begin{equation}\label{B1}
B_1 =
{\l}^{A} {\bar{\l}}^{\dot{B}}
P_{A\dot{B}} = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{B2}
B_2 =
{\l}^{A} {\bar u}^{\dot{B}}
P_{A\dot{B}} - \l^A{u}^B Z_{AB} = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{B3}
B_3 \equiv (B_2)^*=
{u}^{A} {\bar{\l}}^{\dot{B}}
P_{A\dot{B}} - \bar{\l}^{\dot{A}} {\bar{u}}^{\dot{B}}
\bar{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{B4}
B_4 =
2 {u}^{A} \hat{{u}}^{\dot{B}}
P_{A\dot{B}} - {1\over a}{u}^A {u}^B Z_{AB}
- {1\over a}{\bar{u}}^{\dot{A}} {\bar{u}}^{\dot{B}}
\bar{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}}
= 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{B5}
B_5 =
{\l}^{A} {\bar{\l}}^{{B}}
Z_{AB} = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{B6}
B_6 \equiv (B_5)^*=
\bar{\l}^{\dot{A}} {\bar{\l}}^{\dot{B}}
\bar{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{SB12}
B_7\equiv {\l}^{A}{\bar{u}}^{\dot{B}}
P_{A\dot{B}} + \l^A {u}^B Z_{AB} = 0, \qquad
B_8\equiv {u}^{A} {\bar{\l}}^{\dot{B}}
P_{A\dot{B}} + \bar{\l}^{\dot{A}}{\bar{u}}^{\dot{B}}
\bar{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{SB34}
B_9\equiv {u}^A {u}^B Z_{AB} - a = 0, \qquad
B_{10}\equiv {\bar{u}}^{\dot{A}} {\bar{u}}^{\dot{B}}
\bar{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} -a
= 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{SB56}
B_{11}\equiv i(\lambda^AP_{A}-\bar\l^{\dot A}\bar{P}_{\dot{A}}) =0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{SB57}
B_{12}\equiv \lambda^AP_{A}+\bar\l^{\dot A}\bar{P}_{\dot{A}}=0,
\end{equation}
$$
B_{13}\equiv u^AP_{A}=0,\qquad
B_{14}\equiv \bar{u}^{\dot A}\bar{P}_{\dot{A}} = 0.
$$
\begin{equation}\label{F1}
F_1 =
{\l}^{A}
D_{A} = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{F2}
F_2 \equiv (F_1)^*=
\bar{\l}^{\dot{A}} {\bar{D}}_{\dot{A}}= 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{F3}
F_3 =
{u}^{A}
D_{A} +
{\bar{u}}^{\dot{A}} {\bar{D}}_{\dot{A}}= 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{SF1}
F_4\equiv {u}^{A}
D_{A} -
{\bar{u}}^{\dot{A}} {\bar{D}}_{\dot{A}}= 0.
\end{equation}
For arbitrary $a\not =0,1$ it can be checked that
the bosonic constraints \p{B1}--\p{B6} and the fermionic constraints
\p{F1} and \p{F2} belong to the first class, i.e. their Poisson brackets
with all constraints vanish on the constraint surface, and the
constraints
\p{SB12}--\p{SB57}, \p{F3} and \p{SF1} are second--class. When computing
the Poisson brackets of the constraints one should take into account
that,
because of the normalization condition \p{hatu}, the spinor $u^A$
should be regarded as a variable depending on $\l_A$. The simplest way
of taking this into account is
to assume
the
following Poisson (actually Dirac) brackets of $u^A$
with the $\lambda$--momentum $P_A$
\footnote{These brackets appear as Dirac brackets with respect to the
pair of the second class constraints \p{hatu} and $u^AP^{(u)}_A = 0$,
(and their complex conjugate pair), when the bosonic spinor $u$ is
considered as
an independent variable whose momentum is constrained to be zero
$P_A^{(u)} = 0$. Then it is not hard to verify that the new phase
space variables $u^A, P^{(u)}_A$ do not introduce new redundant
degrees of freedom into the system under consideration. }
$$
[P_A,u^B]_P=- u^Bu_A.
$$
Thus in the case $a\not = 0,1$ among 14 bosonic and 4 fermionic
constraints
6 bosonic and 2 fermionic constraints are of the first class and
8 bosonic and 2 fermionic constraints are of the second class.
The first class constraints generate
local symmetries of the dynamical system.
For instance, the constraints \p{B1}, and $(B_5+B_6)$ of \p{B5}, \p{B6}
generate worldline reparametrizations of the coordinates $x$ and $y$.
The fermionic constraints \p{F1} and \p{F2} generate the
$\kappa$--symmetry
transformations \p{varXZ} and \p{kappag}.
Each first class constraint reduces the number of independent phase
space
variables by two, while each second class constraint
eliminates only one degree of freedom. Hence, in the case $a\not =0,1$
the phase space of $2\times (4+6+4)=28$ bosonic and $2\times 4=8$
fermionic
canonical variables of the system is reduced to
\begin{equation}\label{H(a)}
a\not= 0, 1: \qquad n_{ph}=\hbox{{\bf 8$_b$ + 2$_f$}}
\end{equation}
i.e. we get
eight bosonic and two fermionic physical degrees of freedom.
In order to see how at $a=1$ the fermionic second--class constraint
\p{F3}
transforms
into the first--class constraint generating the third $\kappa$--symmetry
\p{kappa1} let us consider the Poisson bracket of the constraint \p{F3}
with
itself
\begin{equation}\label{F3PB}
\{F_3,F_3\}_P=2(a-1).
\end{equation}
When $a\not =1$ the r.h.s. of \p{F3PB} is nonzero and hence this
constraint is
second class, but at $a=1$ the r.h.s. of \p{F3PB} vanishes.
Since $F_3$ weakly
commutes with all other constraints, at this critical value of
$a$
we obtain one more fermionic first class constraint, and
we achieve
the reduction of the number of
independent
fermionic physical degrees of freedom from two to one
\begin{equation}\label{H(a1)}
a=1: \qquad n_{ph}=\hbox{{\bf $8_b$ + $1_f$}}.
\end{equation}
Finally, when $a=0$ the tensorial coordinates $y$ disappear from the
action \p{ac(a)}, and in Eqs. \p{B1}--\p{SF1} we must put to zero
their canonical momenta $Z$. The remaining set of the constraints takes
the following form
\begin{equation}\label{B10}
B_1 =
{\l}^{A} {\bar{\l}}^{\dot{B}}
P_{A\dot{B}} = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{B20}
B_2 =
{\l}^{A} {\bar u}^{\dot{B}}
P_{A\dot{B}} = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{B30}
B_3 \equiv (B_2)^*=
{u}^{A} {\bar{\l}}^{\dot{B}}
P_{A\dot{B}} = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{B40}
B_4 =
{u}^{A} \hat{{u}}^{\dot{B}}
P_{A\dot{B}} - 2 = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{SB560}
B_{5}\equiv i(\lambda^AP_{A}-\bar\l^{\dot A}\bar{P}_{\dot{A}}) =0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{SB570}
B_{6}\equiv \lambda^AP_{A}+\bar\l^{\dot A}\bar{P}_{\dot{A}}=0,
\end{equation}
$$
B_{7}\equiv u^AP_{A}=0,\qquad
B_{8}\equiv \bar{u}^{\dot A}\bar{P}_{\dot{A}} = 0.
$$
\begin{equation}\label{F10}
F_1 =
{\l}^{A}
D_{A} = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{F20}
F_2 \equiv (F_1)^*=
\bar{\l}^{\dot{A}} {\bar{D}}_{\dot{A}}= 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{F30}
F_3 =
{u}^{A}
D_{A} +
{\bar{u}}^{\dot{A}} {\bar{D}}_{\dot{A}}= 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{SF10}
F_4\equiv {u}^{A}
D_{A} -
{\bar{u}}^{\dot{A}} {\bar{D}}_{\dot{A}}= 0.
\end{equation}
These are the constraints of the Ferber--Shirafuji formulation of the
superparticle which has been analyzed in detail in a number of papers
\cite{S83,14,15,ES,17}.
Now two bosonic constraints \p{B10} and \p{SB560} are first--class and
other six are second--class, while, as in the generic case $a\not =1$,
two of the fermionic constraints are first--class \p{F10}, \p{F20} and
two are second--class \p{F30}, \p{SF10}.
Therefore, the number of independent phase--space physical degrees
of freedom of
the standard $N=1$, $D=4$ superparticle consists of six bosonic and two
fermionic variables
\begin{equation}\label{H(a0)}
a= 0: \qquad n_{ph}=\hbox{{\bf $6_b$ + $2_f$}}.
\end{equation}
In the next section we shall show that the independent phase--space
physical
degrees of freedom \p{H(a)}, \p{H(a1)} and \p{H(a0)}
of the generic superparticle model can be covariantly described by
$OSp(2|8)$ (or $OSp(1,1|8)$), $OSp(1|8)$ and $SU(2,2|1)$ supertwistors,
respectively.
\section{Supertwistor transform.
$OSp(2|8)$, $OSp(1|8)$ and $SU(2,2|1)$ supertwistors}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Let us integrate the action \p{ac(a)} by parts and neglect the boundary
term.
The result is
\begin{equation}\plabel{ac(a)tw}
S = - \int \left( \mu^A d\l_A +
\bar{\mu}^{\dot{A}}d\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}\right)
- i\int \left( \chi d \bar{\chi}+ \bar{\chi}d\chi +a \chi d\chi +
{a} \bar{\chi}d\bar{\chi}
\right)
\end{equation}
or
$$
S = - \int \left( \mu^A d\l_A +
\bar{\mu}^{\dot{A}}d\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}\right)
- 2i\int \left( (1+a)\chi_1 d{\chi}_1+ (1-a){\chi}_2d\chi_2
\right)
$$
\begin{equation}\plabel{ac(a)tw2}
= - \int \left( \mu^A d\l_A +
\bar{\mu}^{\dot{A}}d\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}\right)
- 2i\int \bar\chi(a)d{\chi}(a),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\plabel{Pcorr(a)b}
\mu^A= x^{A\dot{B}}\bar{\l}_{\dot{B}} + 2a y^{AB}\l_B
+ i \Theta^A [(\bar{\Theta}\bar{\l}) + a ({\Theta}{\l})],
\qquad \\ \nonumber
\bar{\mu}^{\dot{A}} = \l_B x^{B\dot{A}} + 2\bar{a}
\bar{y}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}
\bar{\l}_{\dot{B}} + i \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{A}}
[({\Theta}{\l})+ \bar{a} (\bar{\Theta}\bar{\l})],
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}\plabel{Pcorr(a)f}
\chi = ({\Theta}{\l})\equiv {\Theta}^A {\l}_A, \qquad
\bar{\chi}= (\bar{\Theta}\bar{\l})\equiv
\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{A}} \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{chi}
\chi_1 = {1 \over 2}
( \chi + \bar{\chi}),\qquad \chi_2 = {i \over 2} ( \bar{\chi}- \chi).
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{chia}
\chi(a)=\sqrt{(1+a)}\chi_1+i\sqrt{(1-a)}\chi_2,\quad
\bar\chi(a)=\sqrt{(1+a)}\chi_1-i\sqrt{(1-a)}\chi_2.
\end{equation}
(Note that $\chi(a)$ and $\bar\chi(a)$ are complex conjugate to each
other
only for $a<1$, while for $a\ge 1$ they are real spinors).
Thus, in the generic case $a\not=0,1$ one can reformulate
the dynamical system
in terms of
8 bosonic variables $\l_A, \mu^A ; \bar{\l}_{\dot{B}},
\bar{\mu}^{\dot{B}}$
and two real fermionic variables
$\chi_1,~ \chi_2$.
These variables can be regarded as components of a real
$(8,2)$ component supertwistor (cf. with \cite{BL})
\begin{equation}\plabel{stw(a)}
{Y}_{{\cal A}} = (y_1, \ldots , y_8; \chi_1,\chi_2 )
= (\l^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon, \mu^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon, \chi_1,\chi_2)
\end{equation}
where $\l^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$ and $\mu^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$ are real Majorana
spinors formed of the Weyl spinors
$$
\l^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon ~\Leftrightarrow ~ \left(\matrix{\l_A \cr
\bar{\l}^{\dot{A}}}\right),
\qquad \mu^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon ~\Leftrightarrow ~ \left(\matrix{\mu_A \cr
\bar{\mu}^{\dot{A}}}
\right)
$$
One can write the action \p{ac(a)tw2} in the form
\begin{equation}
\plabel{actw(a)2}
S = - {1 \over 2} \int d \tau {Y}_{{\cal A}} G^{{\cal A} {\cal B}}
\dot{Y}_{{\cal B}}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\plabel{OSpm(a)}
G^{{\cal A}{\cal B}} = \left( \matrix{
\om^{(8)} & 0 \cr
0 & i \om^{(2)}
\cr} \right) =
\left(
\matrix{
\left({\matrix{
0_2 & I_2 & 0_2 & 0_2 \cr
-I_2 & 0_2 & 0_2 & 0_2 \cr
0_2 & 0_2 & 0_2 & I_2 \cr
0_2 & 0_2 & {-I}_2 & 0_2 \cr }}\right)
& 0 \cr
0 & i
\left(
\matrix{ 2(1+a) & 0 \cr
0 & 2(1-a) }\right)
\cr}
\right)\, .
\end{equation}
$\om^{(8)}$ is the $Sp(8)$ invariant simplectic metric.
When $a\not = 1$ we can rescale the fermionic variables ${\chi}_1$ and
${\chi}_2$, i.e.
multiply them, respectively, by $\sqrt{1+a}$ and $\sqrt{|1-a|}$.
This results in the following form of the metric $\om^{(2)}$ in
\p{OSpm(a)}
\begin{equation}
\plabel{mfer(a)+}
\om^{(2)}
\rightarrow ~~~ \om^{(2)}=
2 \left(
\matrix{ 1 & 0 \cr
0 & 1 }\right)\qquad for~a<1
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{mfer(a)-}
\om^{(2)}
\rightarrow ~~~ \om^{(2)} =
2 \left(
\matrix{ 1 & 0 \cr
0 & -1 }\right)\qquad for~a>1.
\end{equation}
We see that the symmetry group of
the fermionic sector of the metric
\p{OSpm(a)} is $SO(2)=U(1)$ when $a<1$ and
$SO(1,1)$ when $a>1$.
Hence, when $a<1$ the complete symmetry group of the
metric \p{OSpm(a)} is the supergroup $OSp(2|8)$, while in the case $a>1$
the symmetry group becomes $OSp(1,1|8)$. The supertwistors \p{stw(a)}
transform under the fundamental representations of these supergroups.
When $a=1$ the
metric becomes degenerate
\begin{equation}
\plabel{mfer(a)1}
\om^{(2)}
\rightarrow ~~~ \om^{(2)}_{a=1} =
2 \left(
\matrix{ 1 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 }\right).
\end{equation}
This reflects the absence of the
second fermionic variable $\chi_2$ from the action \p{ac(a)tw2}.
Thus at $a=1$ the supergroups $OSp(2|8)$ and $OSp(1,1|8)$ reduce to
$OSp(1|8)$ with the corresponding supertwistor representation having
one real fermionic component (cf. with \cite{BL})
\begin{equation}\plabel{stw(1)}
{Y}_{{\cal A}} = (y_1, \ldots , y_8; \chi_1).
\end{equation}
Consider now the case $a=0$. At $a=0$ the action has the same form as
for $a<1$ and hence is formally $OSp(2|8)$ invariant. But, as we have
seen in the previous section, at this critical point the model acquires
additional local $U(1)$ symmetry, which must have its counterpart in the
supertwistor description, i.e. there should appear a first--class
constraint
on the supertwistor variables which generates this symmetry. In
order to identify
this constraint
we use the defining relations \p{Pcorr(a)b}
and
consider the following
bilinear
combination of supertwistor
components
for an arbitrary value of $a$
\begin{equation}\plabel{U(1)(a)}
\mu^A(a) \l_A - \bar{\mu}^{\dot{A}}(a) \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}} + 2i
\bar{\chi} \chi=
2a \l y \l - 2\bar{a} \bar{\l} \bar{y}\bar{\l}.
\end{equation}
At $a=0$ eq. \p{U(1)(a)} does
not involve central charge coordinates $y$ and thus
we obtain the pure supertwistor constraint
\begin{equation}\plabel{U(1)(0)}
\mu^A(0) \l_A - \bar{\mu}^{\dot{A}}(0) \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}} + 2i
\bar{\chi} \chi= 0.
\end{equation}
Hence, at $a=0$ for the action \p{ac(a)tw} to be equivalent to
\p{ac(a)}
it must be supplemented with
the (first--class) constraint \p{U(1)(0)} introduced through a
Lagrange multiplier term
\begin{equation}\plabel{ac(0)tw}
a=0: \qquad
S = - \int \left( \mu^A d\l_A +
\bar{\mu}^{\dot{A}}d\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}\right)
- i\int \left( \chi d \bar{\chi}+ \bar{\chi}d\chi \right) + i
\int d\tau \L
(\mu \l - \bar{\mu} \bar{\l} + 2i
\bar{\chi} \chi)
\end{equation}
The constraint \p{U(1)(0)} generates the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry
appearing only in
the $a=0$ case. This constraint introduces the complex structure
and thus breaks the $OSp(2|8)$ symmetry of the $a<1$ model
down to $SU(2,2|1)$. As a result one gets
the Ferber-Shirafuji formulation \cite{F78,S83} of a
conventional massless
superparticle \cite{casal,vt,BS} in terms of $SU(2,2|1)$
supertwistors
$$
{\cal Z}_{{\cal A}} = (\l_A, \bar{\mu}^{\dot{A}}, \chi ), \qquad
\bar{{\cal Z}}^{{\cal A}} = ( \mu^A, \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}},
\bar{\chi} ),
$$
\begin{equation}\plabel{ac(0)tw1}
a=0: \qquad
S = - \int \left( \bar{{\cal Z}}^{{\cal A}}d{\cal Z}_{{\cal A}}
\right)
+ i
\int d\tau \L (\bar{{\cal Z}}^{{\cal A}}{\cal Z}_{{\cal A}} - s),
\end{equation}
where the constant $s$ has been introduced in order
to have the possibility
of
describing massless superparticles with nonzero (super)helicity
\cite{Penrose} (see \cite{ES,B90} and references therein for details).
\subsection{Quantization of the supertwistor model}
\subsubsection{Canonical supertwistor quantization}
The quantization of the
dynamical system \p{ac(a)tw2} with $a\not=0,1$ is quite straightforward.
The action is of the first order form, therefore $\mu, \bar{\mu}$
should be identified with the canonical momenta conjugate to
$\l_A, \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}},$ and $2i\bar{\chi}(a)$ is the
momentum
conjugate to $\chi(a)$ (remember that $\chi(a)$ and $\bar{\chi}(a)$ are
defined by \p{chia}). The canonical Poisson brackets are
\begin{equation}\plabel{twbrack}
[\mu_A, \l^B ]_P = \d_A^{~B}, \qquad
[\bar{\mu}_{\dot{A}}, \bar{\l}^{\dot{B}}]_P = \d_{\dot{A}}^{\dot{B}},
\qquad \{\bar\chi(a),\chi(a)\}_P=-{i \over 2}.
\end{equation}
At the quantum level the dynamical variables become operators, and the
Poisson brackets are replaced by (anti)commutators
($[..., ...]_P~\rightarrow i[...,...]$,
$\{ , \}_P ~\rightarrow -i\{ ,\}$).).
For instance,
in the `coordinate' representation the momenta are the derivatives of
corresponding coordinates
\begin{equation}\plabel{twqu}
\mu^A = i {\partial \over \partial \l_A} , \qquad
\bar{\mu}^{\dot{A}} = i {\partial \over \partial \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}},
\qquad
\bar{\chi}(a) = - {1 \over 2} {\partial \over {\partial \chi(a)}}.
\end{equation}
The canonical Hamiltonian of the system vanishes identically.
The wave function of the system in the supertwistor
`coordinate' representation is
\begin{equation}\plabel{twvfa<1}
a\not =1:
\Phi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}}, \chi(a) )= \phi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}}) +
i \chi(a) \psi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}})
\end{equation}
and the spectrum of quantum states is described by
one bosonic and one fermionic function depending on
Weyl spinor variables.
At $a=1$ $\chi(1)$ becomes a real Clifford variable and
the field \p{twvfa<1} becomes a Clifford algebra valued function.
We shall discuss this case in detail in Subsections 3.1.4, 5.2. and
Appendix.
To understand what kind of physical states are described by the
function \p{twvfa<1} in the case $a\not=0,1$ we shall first consider the
well known case $a=0$.
\subsubsection{ $a=0$}
At $a=0$ the dynamics of the system is subject to the
first--class constraint \p{U(1)(0)} which at the quantum level is
imposed
on the wave function \p{twvfa<1} \footnote{In this section we basically
follow the quantization procedure of references \cite{15}. The
operator $D=D^{(0)} + \chi {\partial \over \partial \chi} $ is
the superhelicity operator.}
\begin{equation}\plabel{twD0}
(D^{(0)} + \chi {\partial \over {\partial \chi} }- s)
\Phi (\l_A, \bar\l_{\dot{A}}; \chi ) =0,
\end{equation}
where
$$
D^{(0)}= \l_A {\partial \over \partial \l_A} -
\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}} {\partial \over \partial \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}}
$$
is the supertwistor representation of the bosonic part of the $U(1)$
generator, $\chi=\chi(0)$ (see Eqs. \p{Pcorr(a)f}--\p{chia}) and $s$ is
an
integer
constant which appears due to the ambiguity in ordering the operators in
\p{twD0}
(see \cite{Penrose,ES,B90} and refs. therein for details,
here we only note that the quantization of $s$ follows from
the requirement for the wave function to be
single valued). The (half)integer values of $s/2$ describe helicities
of massless quantum states.
Let us consider first
the case $s=0$.
Eq. \p{twD0} requires the
bosonic and fermionic components of the superfield \p{twvfa<1}
to be homogeneous functions of $\l, \bar{\l}$ of the degree $0$ and
$-1$,
respectively,
\begin{equation}\plabel{twD0c}
D^{(0)} \phi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}}) =0, \qquad
D^{(0)} \psi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}}) = - \psi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}})
\qquad
\end{equation}
The solution is \footnote{
A rigorous approach \cite{B90,ZF}
consists in the consideration of the decomposition
of the wave function $\phi (\l_A , \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}})$
in the basis of the functions on {\bf C}$^2- \{ 0\}$ formed by
homogeneous infinite-differentiable functions
$
\phi_{\nu_1, \nu_2} (z\l_A , \bar{z}\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}})
= z^{\nu_1}\bar{z}^{\nu_2} \phi_{\nu_1, \nu_2} (\l_A ,
\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}})
$
of a homogeneity index $\chi = (\nu_1 , \nu_2 )$ \cite{Gelfand}.
The homogeneous functions are defined by the Mellin transformation
$$
\phi_{\nu_1, \nu_2} (\l_A ,\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}})
= {i \over 2} \int dz d\bar{z}~z^{\nu_1+1}\bar{z}^{\nu_2+1}
\phi (z\l_A , \bar{z}\bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}).
$$
The decomposition
$$
\phi (\l_A , \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}) =
\Sigma^{{}^{+\infty}}_{{}^{-\infty}} \int\limits^{+\infty}_{-\infty}
d\rho
\phi_{(n+i\rho )/2, (-n+i\rho )/2} (\l_A , \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}})
$$
can be substituted
into Eq. \p{twD0c} instead of the power series in $\l_A$, $\l_{\dot{A}}$
to obtain the general solution.
We refer the reader to \cite{B90,ZF}
for further details and to \cite{Gelfand} for an excellent presentation
of
related mathematics, and, for simplicity, use a
physical 'shortcut' of the rigorous approach.
}
\begin{equation}\plabel{twD0s}
\phi= \phi_0 (p_m) , \qquad
\psi = \bar{\l}^{\dot{A}}{\bar\psi}_{\dot{A}} (p_m)
\end{equation}
where, by definition, $p_m$ is a light-like vector composed of $\l$
and $\bar\l$ (see also \p{Phi1})
\begin{equation}\plabel{twqCP}
p_{A\dot{A}} = p_m \s^m_{A\dot{A}}= \l_A \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}.
\qquad
\end{equation}
We see that the spectrum of the Ferber--Shirafuji model at $s=0$
consists of a massless $N=1$, $D=4$ (anti)chiral supermultiplet
containing a complex
scalar field of zero helicity and a Weyl fermion field of helicity
$-{1\over 2}$. This supermultiplet
can be described either
by the set of bosonic and fermionic wave functions depending on the
bosonic Weyl spinor variables $\lambda_{A}, \lambda_{\dot{A}}$
in accordance with the formula
\p{twD0s}-\p{twqCP}, or as a set of the unrestricted bosonic scalar
function
$\phi_0 (p_m)$ and the fermionic spinor function
$\bar{\psi}_{\dot{A}}(p_m)$
depending on the light-like vector $p_mp^m=0$ which we identify
with the momentum of the massless superparticle.
In such a way we establish the relation of the supertwistor
formulation with the space--time description of the massless superparticle,
and this dual
description can be extended to the case of more general
model with nonvanishing central charge coordinates.
Finally, let us consider the case of the nonvanishing
operator ordering constant $s$ in \p{twD0} which we shall call
the superhelicity parameter, characterizing the helicity
properties of the superfield solutions.
The component form of the constraint \p{twD0} now reads
\begin{equation}\plabel{twD0cs}
D^{(0)} \phi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}}) = s \phi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}}),
\qquad
D^{(0)} \psi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}}) = (s-1) \psi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}})
\qquad
\end{equation}
For integer $s>0$ the solution of \p{twD0cs}
is
\begin{equation}\plabel{twD0ss}
\phi= \l^{A_1} \ldots \l^{A_s}\phi_{A_1 \ldots A_s} (p_m) , \qquad
\psi = \l^{A_1} \ldots \l^{A_{s-1}} {\psi}_{A_1 \ldots A_{s-1}} (p_m)
\end{equation}
We thus obtain supermultiplets whose
components have the helicities $s/2$ and $s/2-1/2$, respectively.
The choice of the statistics of the superfields \p{twD0ss}
should be made in accordance with the general spin--statistics theorem,
such that for the even values of $s$ (integer superhelicities) the
superfields
\p{twD0ss} are bosonic and
for odd $s$ (half-integer superhelicities) they are fermionic.
Notice that the Grassmann parity of the superfield $\Phi$ \p{twD0}
(and its components $\phi$ and $\psi$) is related to the parity of
$\Phi(\lambda,\bar\l,\chi)$ under the change $\lambda
~\rightarrow~-\l$ ($\lambda$--parity)
which implies $\chi~\rightarrow~-\chi$.
If
$\Phi(- \lambda,- \bar\l,- \chi)= \Phi(\lambda,\bar\l,\chi)$
then
from \p{twD0ss} follows that $s$ is even (integer superhelicities)
and
such a superfield
is Grassmann--even ($\phi$ is bosonic and $\psi$ is fermionic).
Analogously if
the superfield
$\Phi(\lambda,\bar\l,\chi)$ changes the sign under the
$\l$--parity, then $s$ is odd (half-integer superhelicities) and
the superfield
is Grassmann--odd ($\phi$ is fermionic, and $\psi$ is bosonic).
For integer $s<0$ the solution of \p{twD0cs}
is
\begin{equation}\plabel{twD0ss1}
\phi= \l^{\dot{A}_1} \ldots \l^{\dot{A}_{-s}}
\bar{\phi}_{\dot{A}_1\ldots \dot{A}_{-s}}
\qquad
\psi = \l^{\dot{A}_1} \ldots \l^{\dot{A}_{-s+1}}
\bar{\psi}_{\dot{A}_1\ldots \dot{A}_{-s+1}}
\end{equation}
and thus the spectrum of the quantum states of the model
is represented by a supermultiplet of helicity $(-s/2,(-s+1)/2)$.
\subsubsection{$a\not = 0,1$}
Let us return to the generic $a\not= 0,1$ models.
Their spectrum is defined by
arbitrary scalar bosonic and fermionic functions of the
Weyl bosonic spinors
$\phi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}})$ and $\psi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}})$ which,
in contrast
to the $a=0$ case, are not subject to any constraints.
The bosonic spinor components can be regarded to be defined through
the components of the light-like vector
$p_mp^m=0$ \p{twqCP} up to the phase transformations
\begin{equation}\plabel{phase}
\l_A ~\rightarrow~ e^{i\alpha (\tau)}\l_A, \qquad
\l_{\dot{A}}~ \rightarrow~ e^{-i\alpha (\tau)}\l_{\dot{A}}.
\end{equation}
Thus for $a\not=0$ we can consider the bosonic and fermionic wave
functions
to depend
on the light-like vector and a $U(1)$ angle variable $\alpha \sim
\alpha + 2\pi k$
\begin{equation}\plabel{twa<1rep}
\phi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}})= \phi (p_m, \alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon ), \qquad
\psi (\l_A, \l_{\dot{A}})= \psi (p_m, \alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon ).
\end{equation}
Hence, in contrast to the Ferber--Shirafuji model, the wave function
of the generic dynamical system
\p{ac(a)tw} with $a\not=0$ depends on
{\sl one additional variable} which {\sl parametrizes a compact
manifold}
$U(1)=S^1$.
This means that the functions $\phi$ and $\psi$, as the single valued
functions, can be expanded in the Fourier series
\begin{equation}\plabel{twa<1ser0}
\phi (p_m, \alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon )= \S_{k \in {\hbox{{\bf Z}}} }
e^{ik\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon } \phi_k (p_m), \qquad
\psi (p_m, \alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon )= \S_{k \in {\hbox{{\bf Z}}}}
e^{ik\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon } \psi_k (p_m).
\end{equation}
The meaning of this series expansion becomes clear if we use the
Lorentz--covariant
representation of $\phi$ and $\psi$ as single valued functions
of $\l_A$ \p{twvfa<1} where
$\l_A\bar\l_{\dot A}$
are replaced by
$p_m$. Then the series \p{twa<1ser0}
acquires the form
\begin{equation}\plabel{sphi}
\phi (\l, \bar{\l} )= \phi^0 (p_m)+ \S_{k \in {\hbox{{\bf Z}}_+}}
\left(\l^{A_1}\ldots \l^{A_k} \phi_{A_1\ldots A_k} (p_m) +
\bar{\l}^{\dot{A}_1} \ldots \bar{\l}^{\dot{A}_k}
\bar{\phi}_{\dot{A}_1 \ldots \dot{A}_k} (p_m)
\right),
\end{equation}
$$
\psi (\l, \bar{\l} )= \psi^0 (p_m)+ \S_{k \in {\hbox{{\bf Z}}_+}}
\left(\l^{A_1}\ldots \l^{A_k} \psi_{A_1\ldots A_k} (p_m) +
\bar{\l}^{\dot{A}_1} \ldots \bar{\l}^{\dot{A}_k}
\bar{\psi}_{\dot{A}_1 \ldots \dot{A}_k} (p_m)
\right).
$$
We therefore conclude that the
most general solution of the model with $a\not = 0$ describes
an infinite doubly degenerate spectrum
of massless fields of an arbitrary
helicity, with
the additional
compact $S^1$--coordinate
in the momentum space conjugate to the discrete helicity
variable.
\bigskip
If we assume the validity of spin--statistics theorem the
bosonic fields should have positive $\lambda$--parity, and fermionic
fields should have odd $\lambda$--parity.
Thus, the $\l$-even part $
\Phi_+ (\l, \bar{\lambda}, \chi)
\equiv \Phi_+ (-\l, -\bar{\lambda}, -\chi) =
\phi_+ (\lambda, \bar{\lambda}) + i \chi \psi_-(\lambda, \bar{\lambda})
$
of the general superfield solution $
\Phi (\l, \bar{\lambda}, \chi) =
\phi(\lambda, \bar{\lambda}) + i \chi \psi (\lambda, \bar{\lambda})
$ (see
\p{twvfa<1} and \p{sphi}) should be regarded as
bosonic (i.e. Grassmann--even). Consequently this implies that the
wave function $\phi_{+}(\lambda, \bar{\lambda})$ has positive
$\lambda$--parity (even powers of $\lambda$) i.e. it is
bosonic,
and the fermionic wave
function $\psi_{-}(\lambda, \bar{\lambda})$ has negative
$\lambda$--parity (odd powers of $\lambda$).
Another sector of the full quantum state spectrum
is described by the fermionic
$\l$--odd superfield
$
\Phi_- (\l, \bar{\lambda}, \chi)
\equiv - \Phi_- (-\l, -\bar{\lambda}, -\chi) =
\phi_- (\lambda, \bar{\lambda}) + \chi \psi_+(\lambda, \bar{\lambda})
$ which is composed of the fermionic $\l$-odd field $\phi_-
(\lambda, \bar{\lambda})$
and the bosonic $\l$--even field $\psi_+ (\lambda, \bar{\lambda})$.
We, therefore, see that in order to obtain physically meaningful
solutions described by the superfields $\Phi_{+}
(\lambda,\bar{\lambda}, \chi)$ and $\Phi_{-} (\lambda,
\bar{\lambda},\chi)$ with definite Grassmann parity one should
divide the general solution \p{twvfa<1} into two parts with even and odd
$\lambda$--parity. Note that the superfield
solutions with definite even/odd $\lambda$--parity have the even/odd
superhelicities, but each of them contains a complete
nondegenerate spectrum of states with both even and odd helicities.
It is instructive to compare the consequences of the presence of the
``internal'' compact coordinate in our case and in Kaluza--Klein
theories.
In the Kaluza--Klein theories the compact variables arise in an
extension of space--time with extra directions and
lead to the quantization of corresponding ``internal''
momenta in the extended momentum space.
The ``internal''
quantized momenta describe masses and gauge charges of Kaluza--Klein
fields
in the dimensionally reduced theory
\footnote{It is worth mentioning that `usual' Lorentz--scalar
central charges
can be interpreted as Kaluza-Klein momenta \cite{ALcch}}.
In our case
the compactification is achieved by expressing the generalized momenta
in terms of bosonic spinor (twistor) componenta. Thus,
we have the opposite situation:
the compact ``internal'' manifold is
in the extended
{\sl momentum} (twistor) space and a {\sl quantized (discrete)}
central charge coordinate is in the extended {\it coordinate} space
(space--time + central charge coordinates).
The Fourier transform of the
compact ``internal" momentum
results in the discrete values of the conjugate coordinate, which
are described
by an integer $s$. From the physical point of view the (half)integer number
$s/2$
describes the possible helicities of the massless quantum states.
The quantum states of our model form a reducible (infinite--dimensional)
representation of target space supersymmetry.
Indeed, as the bosonic spinor is inert under global supersymmetry,
the fields \p{sphi}
can be collected into the superfield series expansion with each
term having definite superhelicity
\begin{equation}\plabel{sPhi}
\Phi (\l^{A}, \bar{\l}^{\dot{A}}, \chi(a) )= \Phi^0 (p_m,\chi (a) )
+ \S_{k \in {\hbox{{\bf Z}}_+}}
\l^{A_1}\ldots \l^{A_k} \Phi_{A_1 \ldots A_k} (p_m,\chi(a)) +
\end{equation}
$$
+ \S_{k \in {\hbox{{\bf Z}}_+}}
\bar{\l}^{\dot{A}_1} \ldots \bar{\l}^{\dot{A}_k}
\bar{\Phi}_{\dot{A}_1 \ldots \dot{A}_k} (p_m, \chi(a)) .
$$
It is easy to see that each term is separately invariant under
supersymmetry
\footnote{Remember that the supersymmetry transformations
of the superfield \p{sPhi} are generated by the transformations of
$\chi$
as functions of $\Theta$ (eqs. \p{Pcorr(a)f}).}.
In the case $a=0$ the
additional $U(1)$ constraint \p{twD0} appears. It
singles out one irreducible superfield with a definite superhelicity
out of the infinite series \p{sPhi}.
\subsubsection{$a=1$}
Consider now a peculiarity of the model at $a=1$. In this case
the action \p{ac(a)tw}, \p{ac(a)tw2} contains only one real fermionic
variable $\chi_1$. The corresponding term in the action
is
\begin{equation}\plabel{chi1}
S_\chi=-4i\int \chi_1d\chi_1 \qquad
\chi_1 = {1\over 2}(\Theta \l+ \bar{\Theta}\bar{\l}).
\end{equation}
From \p{chi1} we conclude that the odd momentum of $\chi$ is
proportional
to
$\chi$ itself
\begin{equation}\plabel{S1}
S_{\chi} = \pi_{\chi_1} -4i\chi_1 =0.
\end{equation}
Eq. \p{S1} is the second--class constraint being
typical of any free fermion theory
\begin{equation}\plabel{S1S1}
\{ S_\chi, S_\chi \}_P = -8i.
\end{equation}
It can be regarded to be satisfied
in the strong sense \cite{Dirac} after we pass
from the Poisson brackets to the
Dirac brackets
\begin{equation}\plabel{DB}
[ f, g\}_D
= [ f, g\}_P
-{i \over 8}[ f , S_\chi \}_P [ S_\chi, g \}_P
\end{equation}
which imply
\begin{equation}\plabel{xixiD}
\{ \chi_1, \chi_1 \}_D = 2i.
\end{equation}
Hence, upon quantization $\xi$ becomes a Clifford
variable of odd Grassmann parity
\begin{equation}\label{cliff}
(\hat{\chi_1})^2=1.
\end{equation}
The Clifford algebra generated by this variable consists of two
elements, the unit element and $\hat{\chi_1}$. Hence, all functions of
$\hat{\chi_1}$ can be
written as a `Clifford algebra valued superfield' having two components
\cite{Sorokin87}
\begin{equation}\plabel{csf}
\Phi(\hat{\xi})=\phi + i\hat{\chi_1}\psi,
\end{equation}
where $\phi$ and $\psi$ do not depend on $\hat{\chi_1}$.
We conclude that {\sl at $a=1$ the
wave functions \p{twvfa<1}, \p{sPhi} become
Clifford `superfields' whose components again (as in the case
$a\not=0,1$)
describe an infinite tower of fields of
all possible helicities}.
We can decompose the superfields \p{csf}
into the even and odd parts with respect to
$\l$-parity and thus have the wave functions
with definite Grassmann parity (bosonic and fermionic superfields).
We see that at $a=1$ the model has the same spectrum of quantum
physical
states
as in the generic case.
The difference with the generic case ($a\neq 1$) is only in the
transformation properties of the field components with respect to
target space supersymmetry -- the $a=1$ supersymmetry multiplets are
shortened (see [1], Section 2).
Note also that in the models with $a\ge 1$
one can impose additional reality condition on the quantum wave
functions.
In the Appendix we shall present another way of quantizing a single
classical fermionic variable $\chi_{1}$ (see \p{chi1})
which allows to treat it as
a usual Grassmann variable and quantum superwave functions as
standard superfields.
\section{Quantization by using the conversion method}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In order to justify the results of the supertwistor
quantization of the model presented in Sect. 3
and to clarify the space--time structure of the quantum
wave functions, in this section we shall perform the quantization
directly in the coordinate representation.
Because of the appearance of a particular mixture of fermionic
first and second class constraints there appears
a problem of quantizing the system covariantly.
However, there exists a powerful method to handle this problem
\cite{11,12,13}, which is based on the conversion of the second class
constraints into the first class ones.
The quantization of the Ferber-Shirafuji model by the conversion method
was considered in \cite{14,15,ES,17}. In \cite{ES} a
$D=10$ supersymmetric particle with extra tensorial coordinates
has been also discussed. In the present paper, however,
the relation between spinor variables and the tensorial
central charges, as well as their physical interpretation,
goes far beyond the results presented in \cite{ES}.
\bigskip
\subsection{Conversion degrees of freedom}
To convert the
second class constraints into the first class ones we introduce
additional (conversion) phase space
degrees of freedom, whose number is equal to the the number of the
second class constraints.
Thus, for the $a\not= 0,1 $ models
we need {\bf 8}$_b$ $+$ {\bf 2}$_f$ conversion degrees of
freedom. For this purpose we introduce
bosonic spinors $\rho_A$, $\bar{\rho}_{\dot{A}}$
plus its canonical momenta
$P_{(\rho )}^A$, $\bar{P}_{\bar{(\rho})}^{\dot{A}}$
\begin{equation}\plabel{brcvb}
[P_{(\rho )}^A, \rho_{B}]_P = \d_{B}^{~A}, \qquad
[\bar{P}_{\bar{\rho}}^{\dot{A}}, \bar{\rho}_{\dot{B}}]_P =
\d^{~\dot{A}}_{\dot{B}}, \qquad
\end{equation}
and two real fermionic variables $f_1$ and $f_2$ whose Poisson brackets
form a Clifford algebra
\begin{equation}
\plabel{SS1,2}
\{f_1, f_1 \}_P = -i (1-a), \qquad
\{f_1, f_2 \}_P = 0, \qquad
\{f_2, f_2 \}_P = -i (1+a). \qquad
\end{equation}
Instead of $f_1$ and $f_2$ we shall also use two conjugate
fermionic variables
\begin{equation}
\plabel{tS}
{S}= \sqrt{(1+a)} f_1 - i\sqrt{(1-a)}f_2 , \qquad
\bar{{S}}= \sqrt{(1+a)} f_1 + i\sqrt{(1-a)}f_2, \qquad
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\plabel{tStS}
\{ {S},{S}\}_P = 0, \qquad
\{\bar{{S}}, \bar{{S}} \}_P = 0, \qquad
\{ {{S}}, \bar{{S}} \}_P = -2i (1-a^2).
\end{equation}
Note, that
$\bar{{S}}$ is complex conjugate of ${{S}}$ only
for the case $0<a<1$, while for $a>1$, where $ \sqrt{(1-a)}=
i\sqrt{|1-a|}$ is imaginary, both ${S}$ and $\bar{{S}}$
are independent real variables.
For $a\not=1$
$\bar{{S}}$ can be regarded as the momentum conjugate to ${{S}}$.
\bigskip
\subsection{Conversion of the constraints}
We use the additional degrees of freedom \p{brcvb} and \p{SS1,2}
in order
to convert the mixture of first and second class constraints
\p{Phi1}--\p{bDA=0} into the first class ones.
As it was shown in \cite{BMRS},
in twistor-like formulations of particle mechanics
it is convenient to perform
conversion of the whole set of primary constraints, without
dividing
them into the sets of first and second class constraints.
For any $a$ the first class constraints obtained as the result of
conversion
are \footnote{We denote the converted constraints with the same letters
as the original ones.}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tPhi1}
{\Phi}_{A\dot{B}} \equiv
{P}_{A\dot{B}} -
(\lambda_{A} + \rho_A ) (\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} + \bar{\rho}_{\dot{B}}
)
= 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tPhi2}
{\Phi}_{A{B}} \equiv
Z_{A{B}} - a (\lambda_{A} + \rho_A ) (\lambda_{B} + \rho_B ) = 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tPhi3}
{\bar{\Phi}}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} \equiv
\bar{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} - a
(\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}} + \bar{\rho}_{\dot{A}} )
(\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}} + \bar{\rho}_{\dot{B}} )
= 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tPA=0}
{{\Phi}}_{{A}}\equiv
P^{A}_{(\lambda )} + P^{A}_{(\rho )} =0, \qquad
{\bar{\Phi}}_{\dot{A}}\equiv
\bar{P}^{\dot{A}}_{(\bar{\lambda})}+\bar{P}^{\dot{A}}_{(\bar{\rho})}
= 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tPrho=0}
P^{A}_{(\lambda )}- P^{A}_{(\rho )} =0, \qquad
\bar{P}^{\dot{A}}_{(\bar{\lambda})} - \bar{P}^{\dot{A}}_{(\bar{\rho})}
= 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tDA=0}
{D}_{A}\equiv - \pi_A + i P_{A\dot{B}} \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}} + i
Z_{AB} \Theta^B + (f_1+if_2) ~(\lambda_{A} + \rho_A )
=0, \qquad
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tbDA=0}
{\bar{D}}_{\dot{A}}\equiv
\bar{\pi} _{\dot{A}} - i \Theta^B P_{B\dot{A}}
- i \bar{Z}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}} +
(f_1-if_2)~ (\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}} + \bar{\rho}_{\dot{A}} )= 0.
\end{equation}
The algebra of the first class constraints
\p{tPhi1}--\p{tbDA=0}
is quite simple. The only nonvanishing brackets (in the strong sense)
appear in the fermionic sector and have the form
\begin{equation}
\label{DDD}
{{\cal D}}_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} \equiv \left( \matrix{
\{{ D}_{A},{ D}_{B} \}_P &
\{ { D}_{A},{\bar{D}}_{\dot{B}} \}_P \cr
\{ {\bar{D}}_{\dot{A}},{D}_{{B}} \}_P &
\{ {\bar{D}}_{\dot{A}},{\bar{D}}_{\dot{B}} \}_P \cr }\right)
= 2i \left( \matrix{
-{\Phi}_{AB} & {{\Phi}}_{A\dot{B}} \cr
{{\Phi}}_{B\dot{A}} &
- { \bar{\Phi}}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} \cr }\right).
\end{equation}
The r.h.s. of \p{DDD} vanishes weakly, i.e. on the constraint surface
\p{tPhi1}--\p{tPhi3}.
Note that the expressions \p{tPhi1}--\p{tPhi3}, \p{tDA=0} and \p{tbDA=0}
contain only the combination ($\l+\rho$) of the commuting spinors.
We denote this combination by $\tilde\l$
\begin{equation}
\label{tlambda}
\tilde{{\l}}_{A}= \lambda_{A} + \rho_A , \qquad
\tilde{\bar{\l}}_{\dot{A}} =
\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}} + \bar{\rho}_{\dot{A}} ,
\end{equation}
while the linearly independent variables
\begin{equation}
\label{trho}
\tilde{{\rho}}_{A}= \lambda_{A} - \rho_A, \qquad
\tilde{\bar{\rho}}_{\dot{A}} =
\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}} - \bar{\rho}_{\dot{A}}
\end{equation}
completely decouple and
have vanishing canonical momenta \p{tPrho=0}. Hence, the variables
\p{trho}
can be excluded from the consideration, since the wave functions
will not depend on these variables.
\subsection{Quantization of the converted system:
equations for the wave function}
Now it is straightforward to quantize the system by using the Dirac
method
\cite{Dirac}.
For this purpose let us choose the (super-)Shr\"{o}dinger
representation for the superspace coordinates and the bosonic spinor
variables
\begin{equation}\plabel{hatP4D}
\hat{P}_{A\dot{B}} = - i
{\partial \over \partial X^{A\dot{B}}}, \qquad
\hat{Z}_{A{B}} = - { i}
{\partial \over \partial y^{A{B}}}, \qquad
\hat{\bar{Z}}_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} = - i
{\partial \over \partial \bar{y}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}} }, \qquad
\end{equation}
$$
\hat{P}^{A}_{\tilde{\l} }= - i
{\partial \over \partial \tilde{\l}^{A}},
\qquad
\hat{\bar{P}}^{\dot{A}}_{\tilde{\bar{\l}} }= - i
{\partial \over \partial \tilde{\bar{\l}}^{\dot{A}}},
\qquad
$$
\begin{equation}\plabel{hatpi4D}
\hat{\pi}_{A} = + i
{\partial \over \partial \Theta^{A}},
\qquad \hat{\bar{\pi}}_{\dot{A}} = + i
{\partial \over \partial \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{A}}}.
\qquad
\end{equation}
The fermionic variables $f_1$ and $f_2$ become Clifford algebra
operators
\begin{equation}
\plabel{brcvfq}
({\hat{f}_1})^2 = {1\over 2}(1-a) , \qquad
({\hat{f}_2})^2 = {1\over 2}(1+a) , \qquad
\{\hat{f}_1,\hat{f}_2 \} = 0. \qquad
\end{equation}
The Grassmann parity of $f_1$ and $f_2$ must
be odd because the constraints \p{tDA=0} and \p{tbDA=0} should
have definite parity.
Note that the linear combinations \p{tS} of fermionic quantum variables
$f_1$ and $f_2$
satisfy the commutation relations
\begin{equation} \plabel{qtStS}
\{ \hat{S}, \hat{S} \} = 0, \qquad
\{ \bar{\hat{S}}, \bar{\hat{S}} \} = 0, \qquad
\{ {\hat{S}}, \bar{\hat{S}} \} = 2 (1-a^2).
\end{equation}
So one can choose $S$ as an odd coordinate and $\bar{\hat{S}}$ as
its momentum operator
$$\hat{\bar{S}}=2(1-a^2){\partial\over{\partial {S}}}, \qquad
\hat{S}=S$$
Despite of the fact that such a representation makes hermiticity
condition nonmanifest,
it is convenient since it simplifies the calculations and
provides the possibility of treating the cases $0<a<1$ and $a>1$
on an equal footing.
\bigskip
After quantization the first--class constraints \p{tPhi1}-\p{tPA=0},
\p{tDA=0} and \p{tbDA=0}
are imposed on the wave function
\begin{equation}
\plabel{wf4D}
\Psi = \Psi (x^{A\dot{A}}; y^{AB}, \bar{y}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}};
\tilde{\l}^A, \tilde{\bar{\l}}^{\dot{A}};
\Theta^A, \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{A}}, S)
\end{equation}
(we recall that we have consistently removed the variables \p{trho} from
the consideration).
Thus, the wave function of the system satisfies the first
order differential equations
\begin{equation}\plabel{tPhi1q}
({\partial \over \partial x^{A\dot{B}}} - i
\tilde{\lambda}_{A} \tilde{\bar{\lambda}}_{\dot{B}} )
\Psi = 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tPhi2q}
({1 \over 2}
{\partial \over \partial y^{A{B}}} -
ia\tilde{\lambda}_{A}\tilde{\lambda}_{B})
\Psi = 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tPhi3q}
({1 \over 2}
{\partial \over \partial
\bar{y}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}} - i a \tilde{\bar{\lambda}}_{\dot{A}}
\tilde{\bar{\lambda}}_{\dot{B}})
\Psi = 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tDA=0q}
\left({\partial \over \partial \Theta^A} + i
{\partial \over \partial x^{A\dot{B}}} \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
+ {i \over 2} a {\partial \over \partial y^{A{B}}}\Theta^B
- i (f_1+if_2) \tilde{\lambda}_{A}\right)
\Psi = 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tbDA=0q}
\left({\partial \over \partial \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{A}}}
+ i {\partial \over \partial x^{B\dot{A}}} \Theta^B
+ {i \over 2} a {\partial \over \partial \bar{y}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}}
\bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}
+i (f_1-if_2)\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}}\right)
\Psi = 0 ,
\end{equation}
The solution of eqs. \p{tPhi1q}--\p{tPhi3q} is
\begin{equation}
\plabel{wf4Ds1}
\Psi = e^{
i \l_A \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}} x^{A\dot{A}}
+ ia \l_A\l_By^{AB} + ia \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}}\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}}
\bar{y}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}}}
~~~
g(
\tilde{\l}^A, \tilde{\bar{\l}}^{\dot{A}};
\Theta^A, \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{A}}, S).
\end{equation}
Because of the constraints \p{tDA=0q} and \p{tbDA=0q}
the function $g$ \p{wf4Ds1} satisfies the conditions
\begin{equation}\plabel{tDA=0q1}
\left({\partial \over \partial \Theta^A} -
\tilde{\lambda}_{A} [(\bar{\Theta}\bar{\lambda})
- a ({\Theta}{\lambda}) - i(f_1+if_2) ]\right)
g = 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tbDA=0q1}
\left({\partial \over \partial \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{A}}}
- \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}} [({\Theta}{\lambda}) -
a (\bar{\Theta}\bar{\lambda})
+ i (f_1-if_2)]\right) g = 0 ,
\end{equation}
An evident consequence of eqs. \p{tDA=0q1} and \p{tbDA=0q1}
is that $g$ depends only on the composite Grassmann variables
$\chi=\Theta^B\l_B$ and
$\bar\chi= \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}\bar{\l}_{\dot{B}}$ introduced in
\p{Pcorr(a)f}
\begin{equation}
\plabel{wf4Ds2}
g(
\tilde{\l}^A, \tilde{\bar{\l}}^{\dot{A}};
\Theta^A , \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{A}}, S)=
g(
\tilde{\l}^A, \tilde{\bar{\l}}^{\dot{A}};
\Theta^B\l_B , \bar{\Theta}^{\dot{B}}\bar{\l}_{\dot{B}}, S).
\end{equation}
Then the eqs. \p{tDA=0q1} and \p{tbDA=0q1}
reduce to
\begin{equation}\plabel{tDA=0q2}
\left({\partial \over \partial \chi} - \bar{\chi } - a
\chi - i ({f_1}+if_2) \right)
~g(\l_A, \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}; \chi ,
\bar{\chi }, S) = 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tbDA=0q2}
\left({\partial \over {\partial \bar{\chi}}} - {\chi}- a\bar{\chi}
+ i ({f_1}-if_2) \right)
~g (\l_A, \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}; \chi ,
\bar{\chi }; S) = 0.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Quantization of the converted system:
dependence on the fermionic variables}
To find the solution of equations \p{tDA=0q2} and \p{tbDA=0q2}
we take their linear combinations and rewrite them
in the following form
\begin{equation}\plabel{dchiS}
\left[\sqrt{1-a^2}({\partial\over{\partial\bar\chi(a)}}
-\chi(a))-S\right]g=0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{dchibS}
\left[\sqrt{1-a^2}({\partial\over{\partial{\chi(a)}}}-\bar\chi(a))-2(1-a^2)
{\partial\over{\partial S}}\right]g=0,
\end{equation}
where $\chi(a)$ were introduced in \p{chi}, \p{chia} and $S$ are defined
in \p{tS}.
The equations \p{dchiS} and \p{dchibS} are easily solved in terms of the
components of the superfunction $g(S)$
\begin{equation}\plabel{gs}
g(S)=g_0(\chi,\bar\chi)+iSg_1(\chi,\bar\chi)
\end{equation}
which satisfies the conditions
\begin{equation}\plabel{g0}
({\partial\over{\partial\bar\chi(a)}}
-\chi(a))g_0=0\quad \Rightarrow
g_0(\chi,\bar\chi)=e^{-\bar\chi(a)\chi(a)}
\Phi(\l_A, \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}; \chi(a)),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{g1}
2\sqrt{1-a^2}g_1(\chi,\bar\chi)=
-i({\partial\over{\partial{\chi(a)}}}-\bar\chi(a))g_0.
\end{equation}
We see that when $a\not =1$ the component $g_1$ of the superfunction
\p{gs} is expressed in terms of $g_0$ which is specified by
the condition \p{g0} in terms of a single independent superfield
$\Phi(\l_A, \bar{\l}_{\dot{A}}; \chi(a))$.
Hence, the independent wave function \p{wf4D} which describes
the general solution of the equations \p{tPhi1q}--\p{tbDA=0q} is
\begin{equation}
\plabel{wf4Ds3}
\Psi = e^{
i \l_A \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}} x^{A\dot{A}}
+ ia \l_A\l_By^{AB} + ia \bar{\lambda}_{\dot{A}}\bar{\lambda}_{\dot{B}}
\bar{y}^{\dot{A}\dot{B}} - \bar\chi(a)\chi(a)}
~~~
\Phi(
\tilde{\l}^A, \tilde{\bar{\l}}^{\dot{A}};\chi(a)).
\end{equation}
At the critical value $a=1$ the result is the same though the proof is
slightly changed since in such a case
(as in Subsection 3.1.4) we should deal with a single
conversion Clifford variable
$f$ instead of $f_1$ and $f_2$ (and/or $S$ and $\bar S$).
More precisely, in eqs. \p{tDA=0q2} and \p{tbDA=0q2} one should put a=1,
$\bar\chi=\chi$ and $f_1=S=0$, and then follow the quantization
prescription
described in the Appendix.
One should notice that the wave function
$\Phi(\tilde{\l}^A, \tilde{\bar{\l}}^{\dot{A}};\chi(a))$
in \p{wf4Ds3} has exactly
the same structure as in the supertwistor case \p{twvfa<1}, but where
now $\chi(a)$
are the composite Grassmann coordinates
defined by eqs. \p{chi}, \p{chia}.
We therefore conclude that the direct supertwistor
quantization and the quantization with the use of conversion
of the superparticle model
based on the generic action \p{ac(a)}
result
in the same supersymmetric spectrum of
the quantum states.
The supersymmetry transformations of the components of $\Phi(
\tilde{\l}^A, \tilde{\bar{\l}}^{\dot{A}};\chi(a))$ are easily derived
from
\p{wf4Ds3} using the supersymmetric variations \p{susy} of the
coordinates.
The higher dimensional
generalization of the $a=1$ model and its quantization
will be the subject of the next section.
\section{The $a=1$ model in higher dimensions and internal
degrees of freedom}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
A generalization of the $D=4$, $a=1$ superparticle model has been
proposed in \cite{BL}.
In higher space--time dimensions $D$ we consider an extension of an
$N=1$ supersymmetry algebra by tensorial central charges
\begin{equation}\plabel{n1cc}
\{Q_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon,Q_\b\}=P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}, \quad [P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b},Q_\g]=0,
\end{equation}
where, depending on space--time dimension $D$, the supercharges $Q_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$
$(\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon = 1,\ldots 2^k)$
are real Majorana, or Majorana--Weyl
spinors\footnote{\label{lufoot} In the general case one can also
consider the
cases of pseudo--Majorana, simplectic--Majorana and Dirac (complex)
supercharges \cite{west}.
Technical details of the extension of the results of
Section 5 to arbitrary type of supercharges will be considered
in another publication.} and $P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}$ is
a symmetric generalized `momentum' generator conjugate to
$2^k (2^k +1)$ symmetric spin-tensor coordinates $X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}$, which can
be
split into the usual space--time coordinates and tensorial
central charge coordinates, as we shall demonstrate below.
We assume that $P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}$ is defined by the Cartan--Penrose
relation
\begin{equation}\plabel{CPrepD}
P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} = \l_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} \l_{\b},
\end{equation}
where the real bosonic spinor $\l_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}$ has the same spinor properties
as
the supercharge $Q_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$.
The expression \p{CPrepD} implies the BPS condition
$det P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}=0$ and can be obtained as a primary constraint
from the action functional \cite{BL}
\begin{equation}\plabel{actionD}
S = \int_{{\cal M}^1} \l_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} \l_{\b} \Pi^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}
\end{equation}
$$
\Pi^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} = dX^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} - i d\Theta^{(\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\Theta^{\b )}
=d\tau \Pi^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}_\tau , \qquad
$$
$$
\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon =1,...,2^k.
$$
\bigskip
For any value of $k$ the model possesses
$2^k$ global target space supersymmetries generated by \p{n1cc}
$$
\d_{susy} X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} = i \Theta^{(\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\e^{\b )}, \qquad
\d_{susy} \Theta^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}=\e^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon }, \qquad
\d_{susy} \l_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} = 0, \qquad
$$
as well as $2^k-1$ $\kappa$--symmetries.
To show the presence of the $2^k-1$ $\kappa$--symmetries let us
write the variation of the action \p{actionD}
\begin{equation}\plabel{actionDv}
\d S = \int_{{\cal M}^1}
\left(2 \d \l_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} ~\l_{\b} \Pi^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}
+ d (\l_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} \l_{\b}) i_\d \Pi^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} -
2i d\Theta^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon \l_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} \l_{\b}\d\Theta^\b
\right) +
\left(\l_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} \l_{\b} i_\d \Pi^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} \right)\vert_{\tau_i}^{\tau_f},
\end{equation}
where
$$
i_\d \Pi^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} = \d X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} - i \d \Theta^{(\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\Theta^{\b )}. \qquad
$$
One can see that only one linear combination $\l_{\b}\d\Theta^\b$
of $2^k$ independent variations of Grassmann coordinates
$\d\Theta^\b$ is effectively involved into the variation of the action.
Hence, other $2^k-1$ Grassmann coordinate variations (which do not
appear in
\p{actionDv}) can be identified with
the parameters of local fermionic $\kappa$--symmetry. They
can be written in the form
$$\kappa^I= u^I_{\b}\d\Theta^\b, $$
where
$u^I_{\b}$ ($I=1,\ldots, 2^k-1$) and $\l_\b$
form a set of $2^k$ linearly independent bosonic
spinors.
\bigskip
Identifying the $\kappa$ symmetry with the part of
target space supersymmetry which is
preserved by the particle or brane configuration,
we claim that the model \p{actionD} describes the dynamics of
BPS states preserving all but one target space supersymmetries
in space--time of a dimension $D$.
\bigskip
{\bf Examples.}
\bigskip
In $D=3$ (where $k=1$) the action \p{actionD} describes the
standard massless superparticle
$$
k=1~\leftrightarrow ~D=3: \quad X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} = X^m \g_m^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b},
\quad P^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} = P^m \g_m^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}.
$$
On the other hand the case $k=1$ can be regarded as a model in a
`minimal'
$D=2+2$ superspace with self-dual tensorial central charge coordinates
$X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}= y^{mn}\s_{mn}^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}$, $y^{mn} = {1\over 2} \e^{mnkl}
y_{kl}$.
\bigskip
The case of $k=2$ corresponds to the $D=4$, $a=1$ model considered
in Sections 2--4
but written in the Majorana representation.
\bigskip
The construction also holds in $D=6$ where $k=3$, but here
we should use the ($SU(2)$--Majorana--Weyl) `reality' conditions.
In addition to the 4--dimensional spinor index
$\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$ the complex 8--component
spinors $Q_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon^i$ and $\l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon^i$ carry the $SU(2)$ index $i=1,2$
and they are the $SU(2)$ Majorana--Weyl spinors
(see for details \cite{west}).
The number of tensorial central
charges in this model is $30$.
The case $k=4$ can be regarded as describing a
$D=10$ massless superparticle with $126$ composite
(self--dual) tensorial central charges
$Z_{m_1 \ldots m_5}$ \cite{BL} (cf. with \cite{HP,ES}).
The real supercharges $Q_{\alpha}$ satisfy the Majorana--Weyl
reality condition.
\bigskip
The action \p{actionD} with $k=5$ corresponds to a
$0$--superbrane model
in $D=11$ superspace with
$517$ tensorial central charges
composed from $32$ components of one real bosonic Majorana
spinor. In contrast to the cases of $D=3,4,6$ and 10, in such a model
the superparticle is not massless, the mass of the 0-brane
being generated dynamically
in a way similar to the mechanism generating the tension of
superstrings and superbranes \cite{generation}
(see \cite{BL} for some details).
\bigskip
On the other hand it is possible to use the
twelve dimensional $D=2+10$ $32\times 32$ gamma matrices
to treat the $k=5$ model from the point of view
of two--time physics \cite{Bars}.
The bosonic coordinates $X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}$
are decomposed into two--index and self--dual 6--index
central charge coordinates $y^{mn}, y^{m_1\ldots m_6}=
1/6! \epsilon^{m_1\ldots m_6 n_1\ldots n_6} y_{n_1\ldots n_6}$.
\bigskip
\subsection{$OSp(1|2^k)$ supertwistor representation of the
D-dimensional model}
Performing the integration by parts we can rewrite the action
\p{actionD}
in the $OSp(1|2^k)$ invariant form (i.e. $OSp(1|16)$ for $D=10$
and $OSp(1|32)$
for $D=11$) in terms of a supertwistor $Y^{{\cal A}}= (\mu^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon, \zeta )$
\begin{equation}\plabel{actiontwD}
S= - \int (\mu^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon d\l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon + i d\zeta ~\zeta ), \qquad \alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon = 1,\ldots ,
2^k.
\end{equation}
The generalized Penrose--Ferber correspondence
between the supertwistors and the generalized superspace
looks as follows
\begin{equation}\plabel{muXZD}
P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} = \l_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} \l_{\b},\quad
\mu^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon = X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} \l_\b - i \Theta^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon (\Theta^\b \l_\b), \quad
\zeta = \Theta^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon \l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon .
\end{equation}
and does not imply other constraints.
\subsection{Quantization of the higher dimensional model
with the use of conversion}
The quantization of the supertwistor formulation
\p{actionD} is straightforward and is completely analogous to
the quantization of the $D=4$ model considered in Subsection {\bf 3.1.4}
and Appendix.
The spectrum of quantum states is described by the
superfield
\begin{equation}\plabel{wftwD}
\Phi = \Phi
( \l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon, \zeta ) =
\phi ( \l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon) + i \zeta \psi ( \l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon)
\end{equation}
depending on the bosonic spinor
$\l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$ and one Grassmann (or, equivalently, Clifford) variable $\zeta
$.
\bigskip
For completeness we briefly describe the quantization of the
higher dimensional model \p{actionD} with the use of conversion.
The primary constraints of the model \p{actionD}
are
\begin{equation}\plabel{Phi}
\Phi_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} \equiv P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} - \l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\l_\b = 0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{D}
D_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} \equiv \pi_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} + i \Theta}\def\th{\theta}\def\om{\omega}\def\Om{\Omega}\def\G{\Gamma^\b P_{\b\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} = 0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{Pl}
P^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}_{(\l )} = 0
\end{equation}
where the momenta are defined in such a way that the
nonvanishing Poisson brackets have the following form
\begin{equation}\plabel{Pbr}
[P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}, X^{\g\d}]_P= 2\d_{(\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}^{(\g}\d_{\b )}^{\d) } , \qquad
\{ \pi_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}, \Theta}\def\th{\theta}\def\om{\omega}\def\Om{\Omega}\def\G{\Gamma^{\b} \}_P = \d_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}^{\b} , \qquad
[P^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}_{(\l )}, \l_\b ]_P = \d^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}_{\b} . \qquad
\end{equation}
This set of $2^k (2^k + 1) / 2$ bosonic and $2^k$ fermionic constraints
obeys the algebra
\begin{equation}\plabel{algD}
[\Phi_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}, P^{\g}_{(\l )}]_P= 2\l_{(\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} \d_{\b )}^{\d} , \qquad
\{ D_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}, D_{\b} \}_P = 2i P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}
\equiv 2i (\Phi_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} + \l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\l_\b),
\end{equation}
$$
all~other~brackets~= 0,
$$
and thus contains $2^k$ bosonic and $1$ fermionic second class
constraints.
Therefore, our system with
$2^k (2^k + 1) / 2$ bosonic and $2^k$ fermionic configuration space
variables contain $2^k$ bosonic and $1$ fermionic
physical degrees of freedom which can be identified with the
components of
$OSp(1|2^k)$ supertwistor.
\bigskip
Exactly as in the $D=4$ case,
to perform the conversion (see \cite{9}--\cite{13})
of the second class
constraints into the first class ones we introduce
additional 'conversion' degrees of freedom (two for each
pair of the bosonic second class constraints and one
self--conjugate fermionic variable for each fermionic
second class constraint)
\begin{equation}\plabel{Pbrmu}
[P^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}_{(\rho )}, \rho_\b ]_P = \d^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}_{~\b}, \qquad
\{ \xi , \xi \} = - {i \over 2}, \qquad
\end{equation}
and transform the second--class constraints into first--class ones
extending the former with the new coordinates and momenta
\begin{equation}\plabel{tPhi}
\tilde{\Phi}_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} \equiv P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} - \tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon \tilde{\l}_\b= 0 ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tD}
\tilde{D}_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} \equiv D_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon + 2 \tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon \xi \equiv
\pi_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} + i \Theta}\def\th{\theta}\def\om{\omega}\def\Om{\Omega}\def\G{\Gamma^\b P_{\b\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} + 2
\tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon
\xi = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{tPl}
P^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}_{\tilde{\rho} } = 0.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\plabel{tildel}
\tilde{\l}_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}=\l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon + \rho_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}, \qquad \tilde{\rho}_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}=\l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon -
\rho_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}.
\end{equation}
Following the
Appendix we obtain the superwave function describing the
first--quantized states of the model determined
by the single superfield \p{wftwD}
depending on
$\tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$ and one Grassmann variable $\chi= (\Theta}\def\th{\theta}\def\om{\omega}\def\Om{\Omega}\def\G{\Gamma\l)$.
We have
\begin{equation}\plabel{Psisol}
\Psi(\tilde{\l}_a, (\Theta}\def\th{\theta}\def\om{\omega}\def\Om{\Omega}\def\G{\Gamma\tilde\l))=
e^{{i \over 2} \tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\tilde{\l}_\b X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon \b}}
\left[\phi(\tilde{\l}_a)
+ i(\Theta}\def\th{\theta}\def\om{\omega}\def\Om{\Omega}\def\G{\Gamma\tilde\l )~ \psi (\tilde{\l}_a)\right].
\end{equation}
In the sector with
even $\lambda$--parity of the wave function ($\Psi=\Psi_{+}$)
the spectrum of the quantum states of the model
\p{actionD} is described by one bosonic $\phi_+(\tilde{\l}_a)$
and one fermionic $ \psi_-(\tilde{\l}_a)$ function,
while in the $\l$--odd sector ($\Psi=\Psi_{-}$) we have the
fermionic field $\phi_-(\tilde{\l}_a)$ and the bosonic field
$ \psi_+(\tilde{\l}_a)$.
This is in complete correspondence with the result of the
quantization of the free supertwistor model \p{actiontwD}.
\subsection{Properties of the wave function with arbitrary
helicity spectrum}
To clarify the meaning of the wave function \p{wftwD} (or
\p{Psisol}),
let us consider
its bosonic limit at
$\Theta^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon=0$
\begin{equation}\plabel{Psisol0}
\Psi= e^{{i \over 2} \tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\tilde{\l}_\b X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon \b}}
\phi(\tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon), \qquad \alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon=1,\ldots , 2^k,
\end{equation}
and use the decomposition of the product of
the spinor representations in the basis of $D$-dimensional
gamma-matrices.
\bigskip
For the simplest case $k=1$ ($\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon =1,2$), where our model coincides with
a $D=3$ counterpart of the usual (Ferber-Shirafuji) model
\cite{F78,S83},
the Fierz identity reads
\footnote{
We use the matrices
$\gamma^{a}_{\alpha \beta}$ which are symmetric and obtained
from standard Dirac matrices
$(\gamma^{a})_{\alpha}^{~\beta}$ by lowering one of the indices with the
charge conjugation matrix
$C=\gamma_{0}= i \tau_2$.}
$$
D=3: \qquad \l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon \l_\b = {1 \over 2} \gamma^a_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} (\l \g_a\l)=
{1 \over 2} \gamma^a_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} P_a,
$$
and we can identify the matrix coordinates $X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}$
and their momenta $P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}$ with the usual vector
coordinates and momenta
$$
D=3: \quad X^a = {1 \over 2} \gamma^a_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}, \quad
X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}= X^a \gamma_{a\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}; \quad
P^a = {1 \over 2} \gamma^a_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}P^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}, \quad
P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}= P^a \gamma_{a\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}. \qquad
$$
Thus, in $D=3$ eq. \p{Psisol0} describes a plane wave solution\footnote{More precisely, in $D=3$ $\phi( \l_a ) =
\psi (p_m, sign(\l ))$, where $sign(\l )$ denotes the
sign factor $(\pm 1)$ of the bosonic spinor.
This is a `parameter' of the residual {\bf Z}$_2$
symmetry, whose action on $\l$ does not change
$p_m$.}
\begin{equation}\plabel{Psisol3D0}
D=3: \qquad \Psi= e^{i p_m X^{m}}\phi (p_m).
\end{equation}
\bigskip
The case $k=2$, $D=4$ has been analized in detail in Sections 2--4.
To transform the wave function \p{Psisol0} to the wave function
\p{wf4Ds3} (at $a=1$, and $\Theta=0$) one should perform the similarity
transformation from the real Majorana to the
complex Weyl representation of the $D=4$ gamma--matrices
and replace the Majorana spinor by the pair of complex conjugate Weyl
spinors
\begin{equation}\plabel{sdec4D}
\tilde\l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon ~~ \leftrightarrow
\pmatrix{ \tilde{\l}_A \cr
{\bar{\tilde{\lambda}}}_{\dot{A} }\cr
}.
\end{equation}
In the momentum representation
the wave function $\phi (\l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon )$ differs
from the usual one given by
$\phi_0 (p_m)$ by the presence of additional dependence on the
angle
variable $\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$ which describes the common phase factor
of the Weyl spinor $\lambda_{A}$ $(\lambda_{1} = e^{i(\alpha
+\beta)} |\lambda_{1}|$, $\lambda_{2}=e^{i(\alpha - \beta)}
|\lambda_{2}|$) and parametrizes the 1-dimensional
sphere $S^1$
$$
D=4: \qquad \phi (\l_a)=\phi (\l_A, \bar{\l}_{\dot{B}})
= \phi (p_m, \alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon), \qquad \alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon \in [0,2\pi)
$$
where $
p_m = {1 \over 4} \l \g_m \l = {1 \over 2} \l^A {\s}_{A\dot{A}}
\bar{\l}^{\dot{A}}$ (see also $^{10}$).
The additional internal
momentum variable $\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$
is the only independent degree of freedom
contained in the $D=4$ tensorial central charges
composed of the bosonic spinor
$$ \alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon \in [0,2\pi)
\qquad \Leftrightarrow \qquad Z_{mn} = {1 \over 4} \l\g_{mn} \l
\qquad
$$
It describes the $D=4$ helicity spectrum
of the quantum states.
\bigskip
In the general case of $k > 2$ with $2^k$ equal to the dimension
of an irreducible spinor representation of $SO(1,D-1)$ in
$D= 3,4,6, ~10 ~(mod~8)$ (i.e. $k= 3,4,\ldots$) the discussion
is similar.
For example, in the case $k=4$, $D=10$ we can use the basis
of symmetric $\sigma$ matrices
$\s_m, \s_{m_1 \ldots m_5}$ to make the decomposition
\begin{equation}\plabel{ll10D}
\l_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} \l_{\b} \equiv P_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} =
P_m \s^m_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}+
Z_{m_1...m_5}
\s^{m_1...m_5}_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\plabel{P10D}
P_m = {1 \over 16} \l_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} \s_m^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}\l_{\b} \qquad
\Rightarrow \qquad P_mP^m = 0
\end{equation}
is an ordinary light--like momentum vector in $D=10$ and
\begin{equation}\plabel{Z10D}
Z_{m_1...m_5} = {1 \over 16\cdot 5! } \l_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} \s_{m_1...m_5}^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}\l_{\b}
\qquad
\end{equation}
is the momenta canonically conjugate to the {\bf 126}
tensorial central charge coordinates
$y^{m_1...m_5}$.
It was demonstrated that
the $D=10$ model contains the local
symmetries
(first class constraints)
and second--class constraints which reduce the number of the classical
bosonic degrees
of freedom to the ones described by the
$16$--component bosonic spinor
$\l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$ and its momentum plus one Grassmann degree of freedom.
In the quantum theory this is reflected in the dependence of
the `momentum space representation' of the wave function
on 16 bosonic spinor variables and one Grassmann variable only.
Due to the identities $(\s_m)_{(\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} (\s^m)_{\g ) \d}=0$ the
$D=10$ momentum \p{P10D} is light--like.
Hence, the
tensorial central
charge momenta $Z_{m_1...m_5}$ contain $16-9= 7$ additional
degrees of freedom which are not determined by the
light-like momentum.
\bigskip
We now show that these additional internal
degrees of freedom parametrize an $S^7$ sphere.
For this purpose we
perform a Lorentz transformation to a frame where the
light--like momentum \p{P10D} acquires the form
\begin{equation}\plabel{P10Dst}
P_m= (p, 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, p).
\end{equation}
Then in this frame we make an $SO(8)$ invariant split of the bosonic
spinor
$\tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$
\begin{equation}\plabel{sdec10D}
\tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon =\left(\matrix{\L_q \cr \S_{\dot{q}}\cr }\right), \qquad
q=1, \ldots 8, \qquad \dot{q} = 1, \ldots 8
\end{equation}
and choose the $SO(8)\times SO(1,1)$ covariant representation
for
the D=10 $\sigma$-matrices
$$
\s^{\underline{ 0}}_{\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}}=
\hbox{ {\it diag}}(\delta _{{ qp}},
\delta_{{\dot q}{\dot p}})
= \tilde{\s }^{\underline{0}~\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}} ,
\qquad \s^{\underline{9}}_{\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}}=
\hbox{ {\it diag}} (\delta _{qp},
-\delta _{{\dot q}{\dot p}}) =
-\tilde{\s }^{\underline{9}~\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}} ,
$$
\begin{equation}\plabel{gammarep}
\s^{i}_{\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}} =
\left(\matrix{0 & \gamma ^{i}_{q\dot p}\cr
\tilde{\gamma}^{i}_{{\dot q} p} & 0\cr}
\right)
= - \tilde{\s }^{i~\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}} ,
\end{equation}
$$
\s^{{++}}_{\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}} \equiv
(\s^{\underline{ 0}}+
\s^{\underline{ 9}})_{\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}}=
\hbox{ {\it diag}}(~2\delta _{qp},~ 0)
= -(\tilde{\s }^{\underline{ 0}}-
\tilde{\s }^{\underline{ 9}})^{\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}} =
\tilde{\s }^{{--}~\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}} ,
\qquad
$$
$$
\s ^{{--}}_{\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}}\equiv
(\s ^{\underline{ 0}}-\G ^{\underline{ 9}}
)_{\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}}=
\hbox{ {\it diag}}(~0, ~2\delta
_{{\dot q}{\dot p}}) = (\tilde{\s }^{\underline{ 0}}+
\tilde{\s }^{\underline{ 9}})^{\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}}
= \tilde{\s }^{{++}~\underline{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}\underline{\b}}.
$$
In the frame \p{P10Dst} the Cartan-Penrose representation \p{P10D}
looks as follows
\begin{equation}\plabel{CP10Dst}
\L_q~\L_q = p, \qquad
2 \S_{\dot q} \S_{\dot q} =0, \qquad
\L_{q} \g^i_{q\dot{p}} \S_{\dot{p}}=0
\end{equation}
The general solution of eqs. \p{CP10Dst}
is
\begin{equation}\plabel{sdec10Dsol}
\S_{\dot q} =0, \qquad \Rightarrow \qquad \tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon
=\left(\matrix{\L_q \cr 0\cr }\right), \qquad
\end{equation}
and the only nonvanishing component of the momentum \p{P10Dst}
is given by the norm of the $SO(8)$ spinor $\L_q$
\begin{equation}\plabel{CP10Dst0}
p=\L_q~\L_q . \qquad
\end{equation}
The expression \p{CP10Dst0} is invariant under the $SO(8)$ rotations
$$
\L_q ~\rightarrow~\L_p S_{pq}, \qquad S~S^T=I.
$$
But not all $SO(8)$ transformations act on $\L_q$ effectively.
Indeed, if one fixes the $SO(8)$ gauge
\begin{equation}\plabel{sga10D}
\L_q = \left(\matrix{ \pm \sqrt{p} \cr 0 \cr \ldots \cr \ldots \cr
\ldots \cr
0 \cr }\right)
\end{equation}
one finds that i) this gauge is invariant under the $SO(7)$
transformations,
ii) any form of the spinor $\L_q$ can be obtained from
\p{sga10D}
by a transformation from the coset space
$SO(8)/SO(7)$ isomorphic to the sphere $S^7$.
\bigskip
Thus, the 16 components of the bosonic spinor
$\l_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$ in $D=10$ can be split into (double covering ($\lambda
\simeq - \lambda$))
\\ i) degrees of freedom which
characterize the light-like momentum $P_m$,
\\ ii) 7 coordinates of the sphere $S^7$.
The variables parametrizing the sphere $S^7$
correspond to `helicity'
degrees of freedom of the quantum states of the massless $D=10$
superparticle.
\bigskip
It is worth mentioning that the appearance of extra compact
dimensions in the momentum spaces of the superparticle models
considered
above is
related to the well known fact that in $D=3,4,6$ and 10
the commuting spinors (twistors) with $n=2(D-2)=2,4,8$ and 16
components
parametrize, modulo scale transformations,
$S^1$, $S^3$, $S^7$ and $S^{15}$ spheres, respectively.
These spheres are Hopf fibrations (fiber bundles) which are associated
with the division algebras {\bf R,~C,~H} and {\bf O}.
Their bases are
the spheres $S^1$, $S^2$, $S^4$ and $S^8$, and the fibers are $Z^2$,
$S^1=U(1)$, $S^3 =SU(2)$
and $S^7$, respectively. The base spheres are
parametrized (up to a scaling factor
which, due to the Cartan-Penrose representation,
is identified with the square of
spinor components)
by the
light--like vectors (massless particle momenta) in $D=3,4,6$ and $10$,
respectively.
We see that the fibers are extra ``momentum dimensions" which we have
in our
models with
central charges (at $a\not = 0$). This is the geometrical ground for
the appearance of $S^{1}$ in $D=4$ and $S^7$ in $D=10$.
\section{Conclusion and discussion}
We have performed the detailed analysis and quantization of the
massless superparticle model with tensorial central charges associated
with
twistor--like commuting spinors in space--times of dimension $D=3,4,6$
and 10.
The physical phase space degrees of
freedom of this model have a natural description in terms of
supertwistors
which form a fundamental representation of a corresponding maximal
supergroup
of conformal type underlying the dynamics of the superparticle.
A peculiarity of the $a=1$ model is that it possesses
$n=2^{[{D\over 2}]}-1$ $\kappa$--symmetries, while the standard massless
superparticles have $n=2^{[{D\over 2}]-1}$ $\kappa$--symmetries.
The presence of such a large number of $\kappa$--symmetries in the
$a=1$ models
means that the superparticle breaks only one of the $2^{[{D\over 2}]}$
supersymmetries of the target space vacuum. This results in very short
two--component
supermultiplets describing the quantum states of the $a=1$
superparticle,
since the corresponding target space superfields depend only on one
Grassmann coordinate. The existence of these short Lorentz--covariant
superfields is made possible because the target superspace has been
enlarged by commuting spinor coordinates, whose role is in singling out
a `small' covariant subsuperspace in the extended target superspace.
Let us compare this situation with well known cases.
In the case of the ordinary massless superparticle in N=1, D=4
superspace the
quantum states of the superparticle are described by a chiral scalar
superfield \cite{n1}. The
chirality constraint is a consequence of first--class fermionic constraints
generating $\kappa$--symmetries.
Consequently the
chiral superfield effectively depends on only two Grassmann
coordinates, which reflects the fact that the ordinary superparticle
preserves half (i.e. two out of four) supersymmetries of
$N=1$, $D=4$ superspace.
In the case of an $N=2$, $D=4$ superparticle
in harmonic superspace \cite{n2}
which also breaks half of the target space supersymmetries,
$SU(2)$--harmonic variables allow one to
pick a harmonic analytic subsuperspace out of the general
$N=2$, $D=4$ superspace \cite{harm}, and
quantum states of the superparticle are described by analytic
superfields
which depend on four Grassmann coordinates singled out from
the original eight Grassmann coordinates
by the use of the harmonic variables.
In the analogous way, in the case of the generalized superparticle model
\p{ac(a)}, \p{actionD}
at $a=1$, when only one target space supersymmetry is broken, one finds
a Lorentz covariant subsuperspace of the target superspace,
which has only one Grassmann direction parametrized
by the Lorentz scalar $\theta^\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\lambda_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$. The ``short'' superfields
\p{wf4Ds3}, \p{Psisol},
which exist only due to the presence of the auxiliary spinor
variable,
describe the quantum states of the generalized
superparticle.
We have shown that in contrast to standard superparticles the
considered model
possesses additional compact phase--space variables which
describe helicity degrees of freedom of the superparticle and which
upon quantization parametrize infinite tower of free states with
arbitrary
(half)integer helicities. Due to this property it would be
interesting
to consider the possibility of treating
our generalized superparticle
model as a classical mechanics counterpart
of the theory of higher--spin fields
developed by M. Vasiliev \cite{Vasiliev}. Since the nontrivially
interacting
higher spin fields should live in a space--time of (anti)-de--Sitter
geometry
a natural generalization of the results of this paper would be
to consider a superparticle model on supergroup manifolds
describing isometries of corresponding AdS superspaces. For
$D=4$
the supergroup $OSp(1|4)$ is the isometry of
a $D=4$ AdS superspace ${OSp(1|4)}\over{SO(1,3)}$
which in addition to 4 bosonic directions
has 4 Grassmann fermionic directions. Six bosonic coordinates
corresponding
to the group $SO(1,3)$ (which extends
the coset superspace ${OSp(1|4)}\over{SO(1,3)}$
to the supergroup manifold $OSp(1|4)$) are a non--Abelian
generalization of the central charge coordinates of the $D=4$ model
considered
above. It appears that our model with central charges
can be regarded as an appropriate
truncation of the $OSp(1|4)$ model. Work in this direction is now in
progress.
\bigskip
We should also remark that
tensorial central charges are usually associated with
brane charges, which are topological and take discrete
(quantum) values. In contrast, in the superparticle models considered in
this paper the central charges
take continuous values and parametrize compact manifolds, while their
Fourier conjugate coordinates are quantized.
\bigskip
{\bf Acknowledgements}. The authors would like to thank J. de Azcarraga,
K. Landsteiner, C. Preitschopf and M. Tonin
for interest to this work and valuable discussions.
Work of I.B. and D.S. was partially supported by
the INTAS Grants N96--308 and N 93--493--ext.
\newpage
\noindent
\section*{APPENDIX}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection*{A1. Quantization of one fermionic degree of freedom by a
`half-conversion' prescription}
Here we shall present a method of quantizing a single
fermionic variable alternative to that used in Subsection 3.1.4, but
which leads to the same spectrum of quantum states.
Let us convert the second--class constraint \p{S1} into the first--class
constraint by introducing one more Clifford-like variable
$\xi^\prime$
\begin{equation}\plabel{Pbrxi'}
\{ \xi^\prime , \xi^\prime \}_P = - {i \over 2}. \qquad
\end{equation}
Using $\xi^\prime$ we replace \p{S1} by the first class
constraint
\begin{equation}\plabel{Azeta}
{\cal A} \equiv \xi -i \pi_{(\xi)} + 2 \xi^\prime
=0, \qquad \{ {\cal A} , {\cal A} \}_P= 0,
\end{equation}
where instead of $\chi_1$ of Eq. \p{S1} we have introduced ${\xi
=2\chi_1}$.
\bigskip
Let us quantize the model using the coordinate representation for the
original Grassmann variable $\xi$
$$
\hat{\xi}=\xi, \qquad \hat{\pi}_\xi = i {\partial\over \partial \xi }
$$
and a real $2 \times 2$ matrix representation
\begin{equation}\plabel{xitau}
\hat{\xi^\prime}= {1 \over 2} \tau = {1 \over 2} \left(\matrix{ * & *
\cr
* & * \cr}\right)
\qquad
\tau^2=I
\end{equation}
for the new Clifford algebra valued variable $\hat{\xi^\prime}$
$$
\hat{\xi^\prime}^2 = 1/4 .
$$
Then the wave function is regarded as a column
\begin{equation}\plabel{Psicol}
\Psi_a= \left(\matrix{ \phi (\xi) \cr
\psi (\xi) \cr}\right)
\end{equation}
and the quantum counterpart of the first class constraint
\p{Azeta}
\begin{equation}\plabel{hatA}
\hat{{\cal A}} \equiv
(\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi })
\tau^\prime + \tau \qquad
\end{equation}
should be imposed on the wave function
\begin{equation}\plabel{APsi=0}
\hat{{\cal A}}_{ab}\Psi_b \equiv
[(\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi })~
\tau^\prime_{ab} + \tau_{ab}]\Phi_b (\xi) = 0 . \qquad
\end{equation}
In \p{hatA} and \p{APsi=0} the second $2 \times 2$
matrix
\begin{equation}\plabel{tau'}
\tau^\prime_{ab} = \left(\matrix{ * & * \cr
* & * \cr}\right),
\qquad (\tau^\prime)^2=I
\end{equation}
was introduced.
It is required to ensure the anticommutativity of the Grassmann and
Clifford part of the first class constraint \p{APsi=0}.
Indeed,
let us calculate the square of the
quantum constraint \p{hatA}
\begin{equation}\plabel{hatA20}
\hat{{\cal A}}^2
\equiv {1 \over 2}\{ \hat{{\cal A}}, \hat{{\cal A}}\} =
\tau ^2 + (\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi })^2 (\tau^\prime)^2 +
(\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi })
\{ \tau^\prime , \tau\} . \qquad
\end{equation}
Since
\begin{equation}\plabel{op2}
(\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi })^2=
{1 \over 2} \{ (\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi }),
(\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi }) \} = -1
\end{equation}
and
$$
\tau^2 = I = (\tau^\prime)^2,
$$
one easily finds that the first two terms in \p{hatA20} cancel and
arrives at
\begin{equation}\plabel{hatA2}
\hat{{\cal A}}^2 =
(\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi })
{1 \over 2} \{ \tau^\prime , \tau\} . \qquad
\end{equation}
The last input vanishes if and only if
$\{ \tau^\prime , \tau\}=0$.
This result can not be reached if one chose $ \tau^\prime$
to be the unit matrix. $ \tau$ and $ \tau^\prime$ can be chosen to be
two
Pauli matrices.
Let us stress that the necessity to introduce the second matrix
$ \tau^\prime$ is a peculiarity of the quantization of the odd number
of Clifford variables. $ \tau^\prime$ can be the unit matrix in the
case of
even number of Clifford variables
(see e.g. \cite{even} and references therein).
To fix the representation for the matrices $\tau$ and $\tau^\prime$ one
has to
note that the conservation of the Grassmann parity in the form of the
first
class constraint \p{APsi=0} requires that
\begin{itemize}
\item The components $\phi (\xi)$ and $ \psi (\xi)$
of
\p{xitau} must have {\sl different Grassmann parity}. For instance, if
we choose $\phi (\xi)$ to be bosonic superfield then $\psi (\xi)$
is fermionic.
\item If the diagonal representation is chosen for one of the
matrices,
say
$\tau^\prime$, then another matrix $\tau$ is antidiagonal.
\end{itemize}
Taking these in mind we choose
\begin{equation}\plabel{taurep}
\tau^\prime = \tau_3 \equiv \left(\matrix{ 1 & 0 \cr
0 & -1 \cr}\right),
\qquad
\tau = \tau_1 \equiv \left(\matrix{ 0 & 1 \cr
1 & 0 \cr}\right).
\qquad
\end{equation}
Then the quantum constraints
\p{APsi=0} acquire the form
\begin{equation}\plabel{hatAPsi=0}
\hat{{\cal A}}_{ab}\Psi_b \equiv
\left(\matrix{ (\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi })~ & 1 \cr
1 & - (\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi })
\cr}\right)
\left(\matrix{ \phi (\xi) &\cr
\psi (\xi)& \cr}\right)_b =
\left(\matrix{ (\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi }) \phi (\xi)
+ \psi (\xi) \cr
\phi (\xi) - (\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi
})
\psi (\xi) \cr}\right) = 0 , \qquad
\end{equation}
which splits into two equations
\begin{equation}\plabel{eqs}
(\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi }) \phi (\xi)
=- \psi (\xi) , \qquad
\end{equation}
$$
\phi (\xi) = (\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi })
\psi (\xi)
$$
Using \p{op2}, we notice that the second
equation is a consequence of the first one.
The first equation
\begin{equation}\plabel{eq}
(\xi - {\partial \over \partial \xi }) \phi (\xi)
=- \psi (\xi) \qquad
\end{equation}
expresses the fermionic superfield through the bosonic one.
I.e. if we write $\phi (\xi)$ in components
$$
\phi (\xi) = \phi_0 + i \xi \psi_1,
$$
then from eq. \p{eq} it follows that
$$
\psi (\xi) = i \psi_1 - \xi \phi_0.
$$
Thus, we can represent the spectrum of states carrying
one Clifford degree of freedom
by one (either bosonic or fermionic) superfield $\phi (\xi)$
depending on the single {\sl Grassmann} variable $\xi$
$$
\xi^* = \xi, \qquad \xi^2 = 0. \qquad
$$
This result is in accordance with that of Subsection 3.1.4
(see also \cite{Sorokin87}),
and both methods of quantizing a single fermionic variable
result in the same field content of quantum states
(one boson and one fermion).
\subsection*{A2. Quantization of the high-dimensional model with the
use of conversion}
Here we present some details of getting the wave function \p{Psisol}
from the converted system of constraints
\p{tPhi}, \p{tD} and \p{tPl}
describing the high-dimensional generalization of
the first--quantized $a=1$ model.
Let us choose the (super)coordinate
representation for supercoordinates and bosonic spinors
\begin{equation}\plabel{hatP}
\hat{P}_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} = - i
{\partial \over \partial X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}}, \qquad
\hat{P}^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}_{(\tilde{\l}) }= - i
{\partial \over \partial \tilde{\l}^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{hatpi}
\hat{\pi}_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon} = i
{\partial \over \partial \Theta^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}}
\end{equation}
and use the $2\times 2$ matrix representation
\begin{equation}\plabel{xitauD}
\hat{\xi}= {1 \over 2} \tau_2 =
\left(\matrix{ 0 & 1 \cr
1 & 0 \cr}\right),
\quad
\{ \hat{\xi}, \hat{\xi}\} = {1 \over 2}.
\end{equation}
for the Clifford variable $\xi$.
Then the the wave function is a column
\begin{equation}\plabel{wfD}
\Psi_a = \Psi_a (X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}, \tilde{\l}_\b)
=
\left(\matrix{ \phi (X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}, \tilde{\l}_\b, \tilde{\rho}_\g) \cr
\psi (X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}, \tilde{\l}_\b) \cr}\right)
\end{equation}
with the elements carrying opposite Grassmann parity
(e.g. $\phi$ is bosonic and $\psi$ is fermionic)
and the
quantum first class constraints \p{tPhi}, \p{tD}, \p{tPl}
should be taken in the form
\begin{equation}\plabel{qtildePhi}
\hat{\tilde{\Phi}}_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b} =
- i (\partial_{\b\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}- i \tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon \tilde{\l}_\b)~I
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\plabel{qtildeD}
\hat{\tilde{D}}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon = \hat{{D}}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon + \tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon \hat{\xi} =
i (\partial_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon - i \Theta^\b \partial_{\b\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon}) \tau_3
+ \tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon \tau_2).
\end{equation}
The incorporation of the $\tau_3 $ matrix
is necessary to provide the properties of the first class constraints
to form the closed algebra
\begin{equation}\plabel{qDbr}
\{ \hat{\tilde{D}}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon, \hat{\tilde{D}}_\b \} =
- 2i \hat{\tilde{\Phi}}_{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\b}.
\end{equation}
This is a peculiarity of the quantization of the models with odd number
of phase space Grassmann variables
(see section A1. of this Appendix).
\bigskip
The further steps of the quantization procedure exactly repeat
the steps of the $D=4$ case (see Section 4).
The wave function describing the spectrum of the quantum states is
\begin{equation}\plabel{Psisolc}
\tilde{\Psi_a}= e^{{i \over 2} \tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon\tilde{\l}_\b X^{\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon \b}}
\left(\matrix{ \Psi (\tilde{\l}_a, \Theta}\def\th{\theta}\def\om{\omega}\def\Om{\Omega}\def\G{\Gamma\l ) \cr
-i \left(\partial_\chi + \chi\right) \Psi (\tilde{\l}_a, \Theta}\def\th{\theta}\def\om{\omega}\def\Om{\Omega}\def\G{\Gamma\l ).
\cr}\right)\end{equation}
As the second element in the column is expressed through the first one,
we can describe the spectrum of the quantum states by the single superfield
\p{Psisol} depending on bosonic
$\tilde{\l}_\alpha}\def\b{\beta}\def\g{\gamma}\def\d{\delta}\def\e{\epsilon$ and fermionic $\chi= (\Theta}\def\th{\theta}\def\om{\omega}\def\Om{\Omega}\def\G{\Gamma\l)$.
|
\section{Introduction}
The observation of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECR) with energies
above $10^{11} \, \text{GeV}$\cite{Haya94,Bird94} poses a serious challenge to
the particle acceleration mechanisms so far proposed. This fact has
motivated the search for non-acceleration models, in which the high
energy cosmic rays are produced by the decay of a very heavy
particle. Topological defects are attractive candidates for this
scenario. Due to their topological stability these objects can retain
their energy for very long times and release quanta of their
constituents, typically with GUT scale masses, which in turn decay to
produce the UHECR.
Various topological defect models and mechanisms have been studied by
numerous authors\cite{Pijus98}. In this paper we investigate two
different scenarios involving the annihilation of
monopole-antimonopole pairs. We first discuss standard magnetic
monopole pair annihilation \cite{Hill83,Bhatta95}, paying particular
attention to the kinetics of monopolonium formation. We find that, due
to the inefficiency of the pairing process, the density of
monopolonium states formed is many orders of magnitude less than the value
required to explain the UHECR events.
We then present a different scenario in which very massive monopoles
($ m \sim 10^{14} \, \text{GeV}$) are bound by a light string formed at
approximately $100\, \text{GeV}$. These monopoles do not have the usual
magnetic charge, or in fact any unconfined flux. Gravitational
radiation is the only significant energy-loss mechanism for the
bound systems.\footnote{Such systems were studied in a different context
by Martin and Vilenkin\cite{Martin:1997cp}.}
Their lifetimes can then be comparable with the age
of the universe, and their final annihilation will then contribute
to the high energy end of the cosmic ray spectrum.
\section{Required monopolonium abundance.}
What density of decaying monopolonium states is required to produce the
observed cosmic rays? The monopolonium will behave as a cold dark
matter (CDM) component and will cluster in the galactic halo,
producing a high energy spectrum of cosmic rays without the
Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) cutoff\cite{Greisen,Zatsepin}. Since
the observational data does not seem to show any such cutoff, this is
an advantage of such topological defect models \cite{Bere97,Bere98}.
For a given monopole mass, we can set the lifetime of the monopolonium
at least equal to the age of the universe, and obtain the required
density of monopolonium in the halo by normalizing the flux to the
observed high energy spectrum\cite{Bere97}. The required number
density decreases with the monopole mass, so as a lower limit we can
take the required density corresponding to
$m_M =10^{17}\, \text{GeV}$\cite{Bere97},
\begin{equation}
N^{h} _{M \bar M} (T_0) > 6\times 10^{-27} \, \text{cm}^{-3}\,.
\end{equation}
Since the different components of the CDM cluster in the same way we
can use this halo density to get the mean density in the universe,
by computing,
\begin{equation}
N_{M \bar M} = {{N^h_{M \bar M} \, \Omega_{CDM} \,
\rho_{cr}}\over {\rho^{h}_{CDM}}}.
\end{equation}
For $\Omega_{CDM} h^2 = 0.2$, $\rho^{h}_{CDM}= 0.3\, \text{GeV}$
$\text{cm}^{-3}$, and $\rho_{\text{cr}} = 10^4 h^2\,\text{eV cm}^{-3}$,
we get
\begin{equation}
N_{M \bar M} (T_0) > 10^{-32} \, \text{cm}^{-3}\,.
\end{equation}
\label{sec:needed}
We will work with a comoving monopolonium density
$\Gamma = N_{M\bar M}/s$ where $s$ is the entropy density, currently
$s \approx 3 \times 10^{3} \, \text{cm}^{-3}$, so that we require
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Gammaneeded}
\Gamma > 10^{-35}
\end{equation}
to explain the observed UHECR.
\section{Magnetic monopole states}
\subsection{Introduction}
Monopolonium states are expected to have been formed by radiative
capture if there was a non-zero density of free monopoles in the early
universe. They will typically be bound in an orbit with a large
quantum number, so we can treat them as classical objects emitting
electromagnetic radiation as they spiral down to deeper and deeper
orbits, until they annihilate in a final burst of very high energy
particles.
The electromagnetic decay of monopolonium was analyzed by
Hill\cite{Hill83} using the dipole radiation formula. The rate of
energy loss is\footnote{Here and throughout we use units where $\hbar
= c = k_B = 1$.}
\begin{equation}
{{dE}\over{dt}} = {{64 \, E^4}\over{3 \, g_M^2 m_M^2}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $g_M$ is the magnetic charge.
From this expression, the lifetime of monopolonium with radius $r$ and
binding energy $E = g_M^2/2r$ is\cite{Hill83}
\begin{equation}
\tau_E \sim {m_M^2 \, r^3\over {8 g_M^4}}\,.
\end{equation}
For $m_M = 10^{16}\, \text{GeV}$, $g_M = 1/(2e) \approx\sqrt {34}$, and
an initial radius of $r= 10^{-9} \, \text{cm}$, this gives
$\tau_E\sim 10^{18} \, \text{sec}$, comparable to the age of the universe.
Bhattacharjee and Sigl\cite{Bhatta95} used a thermodynamic equilibrium
approximation to estimate the monopolonium density and argued that the
late annihilation of very massive magnetic monopoles could explain the
UHECR events observed. Here we recalculate the density of monopolonium
states, taking into account the kinematics of formation and the
frictional energy loss of monopolonium formed at early times.
\subsection{Friction}
Before electron-positron annihilation, monopoles interact with a
background of relativistic charged particles. These interactions produce a
force which, for a non-relativistic monopole is given by \cite{Kolb81}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:F}
F = {\pi\over 18}N_c T^2 v
\int^{b_{\text{max}}}_{b_{\text{min}}} {db\over b}
\end{equation}
where $N_c$ is the number of species of charged particles, $v$ the
velocity of the monopole with respect to the background gas of charged
particles and $b$ the impact parameter of the incident particles.
Since we are interested in the friction that a monopole feels in a
bound state orbit of monopolonium, we will not consider the
interaction of charged particles with impact parameter greater than
the radius of the monopolonium, so $b_{\text{max}} \approx g_M^2
E^{-1}$. Initially, the monopoles are bound with energy $E\sim T$, so
$b_{\text{max}}\approx g_M^2T^{-1}$. Equation (\ref{eqn:F}) is
derived using the approximation that each charged particle is only
slightly deflected. This approximation breaks down for impact
parameters that are too small, so we should cut off our integration at
\cite{Kolb81} $b_{min} \approx T^{-1}$. Using $N_c = 2$ and $g_M^2
\approx 34$, we get
\begin{equation}
F \approx 1.22 \, T^2 v
\end{equation}
so the energy loss rate due to interactions with charged particles in
the background is
\begin{equation}
{{dE}\over{dt}} \approx 1.22 \, T^2 v^2.
\end{equation}
Taking the system to be bound in a circular orbit, we have
\begin{equation}
m_M v^2 \sim E
\label{eqn:e}
\end{equation}
so we can write
\begin{equation}
{{dE}\over{dt}} \approx 1.22 \, T^2 \, {E\over {m_M}}
\label{eqn:dedtf1}
\end{equation}
The time scale for this process is
\begin{equation}
\tau_F={E\over dE/dt} \approx {{m_M}\over {1.22 \, T^2}}
\end{equation}
If we compare it with the Hubble time,
\begin{equation}
\tau_H =\sqrt {90\over 8\pi^3 g_*} m_{pl} T^{-2}\approx 0.184 m_{pl} T^{-2}\,,
\label{eqn:time}
\end{equation}
where $m_{pl}$ is the Planck mass, and $g_*$ is the number of effectively
massless degrees of freedom, $g_* = 10.75$, we get
\begin{equation}
{{\tau_F}\over {\tau_H}} \approx 0.15 \, {{m_M}\over {m_{pl}}} \ll 1.
\end{equation}
Thus, we see that the damping of the monopolonium energy due to
friction is very effective in this regime, and the monopoles spiral
down very quickly.
When the distance between monopoles becomes small
as compared to $T^{-1}$, the effect of friction is reduced and Eq.\
(\ref{eqn:F}) is no longer accurate. However, even for $T =
1 \, \text{MeV}$, the radius has been reduced about two orders of
magnitude to $r\sim 2\times 10^{-11}\, \text{cm}$, and the
electromagnetic lifetime has been reduced by about six orders of
magnitude. Thus only monopolonium states formed after electron-positive
annihilation can live to decay in the present era.
After electron-positron annihilation the number of charged particles in the
thermal background has decreased by a factor $\sim 10^{-9}$ so
$\tau_F/\tau_H\gg 1$ and the monopolonium is little affected by
friction.
\subsection{Formation rate}
We can obtain an upper limit for the monopolonium density by solving
the Boltzmann equation,
\begin{equation}
{dN_{M \bar M}\over{dt}} = \langle \sigma_b v \rangle n_{M}^2 -
3 \, H\, N_{M \bar M},
\end{equation}
where $n_M$ denotes the free monopole density, $N_{M \bar M}$
the monopolonium density, $H$ the Hubble constant, and
$\langle \sigma_b v \rangle$ the average product of the binding
cross section times the thermal velocity of the monopoles.
With the comoving monopole density $\gamma = n_{M}/s$,
we can rewrite the equation above as
\begin{equation}
{{d \Gamma}\over{dt}} = \langle \sigma_b v \rangle {\gamma} \,
n_{M} = \langle \sigma_b v \rangle \gamma^2 s \,.
\end{equation}
Using the approximation for the classical radiative capture cross
section of monopoles with thermal velocities given by \cite{Dicus82},
\begin{equation}
\langle \sigma_b v \rangle \approx {{\pi^{7/5}}\over 2} \, {{{g_{M}}^4}\over {{m_M}^2}}
{\left({{m_M}\over T}\right)}^{9/10}\,,
\label{eqn:radiative}
\end{equation}
and with
\begin{equation} s ={2\pi^2\over 45} g_{*S} T^3\,,
\end{equation}
where $g_{*S}$ is the number of degrees of freedom contributing to the
entropy, we get
\begin{equation}
{{d \Gamma}\over{dt}} = {{\pi^{17/5}}\over 45}
{g_{M}^4 \gamma^2 \over m_M^2}
{\left({{m_M}\over T}\right)}^{9/10}
g_{*S} T^3\,.
\end{equation}
Since we are interested in the evolution of the monopolonium density
after electron-positron annihilation, we will take a constant value
$g_{*S}\approx 3.91$ to get
\begin{equation}
{{d \Gamma}\over{dt}} \approx 4.25 {g_{M}^4 \gamma^2 \over m_M^2}
{\left({{m_M}\over T}\right)}^{9/10} T^3\,.
\label{eqn:dgdt}
\end{equation}
As we will see, only a tiny fraction of the monopoles will ever be
bound, so we can consider the comoving number of monopoles $\gamma$ to
be constant. To integrate Eq (\ref{eqn:dgdt}), we will make a change
of variable
\begin{equation}
t =\sqrt {90\over 32\pi^3 g_*} m_{pl} T^{-2}\approx 0.164m_{pl} T^{-2}\,,
\end{equation}
appropriate to times after electron-positron annihilation,
to get
\begin{equation}
{{d \Gamma}\over{dT}} \approx -1.34 {g_{M}^4 m_{pl} \gamma^2 \over m_M^2}
{\left({{m_M}\over T}\right)}^{9/10}\,.
\end{equation}
and thus
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_f \approx 13.4 g_M^4 \left({{m_{pl}}\over {m_M}}\right)
{\left({{T_i}\over {m_M}}\right)}^{1/10} {\gamma}^2\,.
\end{equation}
We now take $T_i \sim 1 \, \text{MeV}$ and $g_M^2=34$, and note
that to produce the observed UHECR, we must have
$m_M > 10^{11}\, \text{GeV}$, so that for a fixed
monopole comoving density $\gamma$, we have the bound,
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_f < 4\times 10^6 {\gamma}^2\,.
\label{eqn:Gammaf}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Monopole density bound}
The formation of magnetic monopoles via the Kibble
mechanism\cite{Kibble76} is inevitable in all GUT models of the early
universe, and annihilation mechanisms are not efficient in a
rapidly expanding background\cite{Zeldovich78,Preskill79}, so that the
typical initial density of monopoles produced at a GUT phase
transition will very soon dominate the energy density of the universe.
The most attractive solution for this problem is the inflationary
scenario\cite{Guth81}. In standard inflation, the exponential expansion
of the universe reduces the monopole density to a completely negligible value.
However, it is possible for new monopoles to be formed at the end of
inflation\cite{Turner82,Shafi:1984tt,Shafi:1984bd,Kuzmin99,Tkachev:1998dc}.
The exact relic abundance of monopoles created in this period
is very model dependent, but its value is constrained by the
Parker limit \cite{Parker70}: To prevent the acceleration of
monopoles from eliminating the galactic magnetic field, the monopole
flux into the galaxy must be limited by
\begin{equation}
F < 10^{-16}\, \text{cm}^{-2} \, \text{s}^{-1} \, \text{sr}^{-1}\,.
\end{equation}
Assuming a monopole velocity with respect to the galaxy of $ \sim
10^{-3}c$, we can translate this bound into a limit on the monopole
density,
\begin{equation}
n_{M} < 10^{-23} \, \text{cm}^{-3}\,,
\end{equation}
and thus $\gamma < 10^{-26}$.Then, from Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:Gammaf}) we have
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_f < 10^{-45}\,.
\end{equation}
Since this conflicts with Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:Gammaneeded}) by 10 orders of
magnitude, we conclude that primordial bound states of magnetic
monopoles cannot explain the UHECR.
We note that we have used several approximations which overstate the
possible value of $\Gamma_f$: First, we have considered the total
classical radiative capture cross section. This takes into account
not only the monopolonium formed with the right energy to decay at
present, but all the possible binding energies, clearly overestimating
the value of ${\Gamma}_f$. Second, it has been argued that the
classical cross section given in Eq (\ref{eqn:radiative})
overestimates its real value due to photon discreteness
effects\cite{Dicus82}. Finally, some of the monopolonium will have
decayed before the present time, reducing the value of $\Gamma$. All
of these effects make the conflict above more serious.
\section{Monopoles connected by strings.}
We present now a different scenario for the formation and annihilation
of monopole-antimonopole bound states. The main problem in explaining
the UHECR by the conventional magnetic monopolonium system is the
inefficiency of the binding mechanism. This can be solved if we
assume that all the monopoles get connected by strings in a later
phase transition. Since the U(1) symmetry of the monopoles would be
broken by the second phase transition, this U(1) must be a field other
than the usual electromagnetism.\footnote{This is different from the
Langacker-Pi scenario\cite{Langacker:1980kd}, where electromagnetism
is broken and then restored at a lower temperature, and monopoles
do feel large frictional forces.} We furthermore assume that these
monopoles will not have any other unconfined charge, so that they will
feel almost no frictional force moving in a background of
particles.
We take the comoving density of bound monopole systems $\Gamma$ to be
constant. With a monopole mass of $10^{14}\, \text{GeV}$ the calculation of
Sec.\ \ref{sec:needed} gives $\Gamma\sim 10^{-33}$, and with all
monopoles bound, $\gamma = 2\Gamma$. The proper density at the time
of string formation is then
\begin{equation}
n_M (T_s) =\gamma s ={2\pi^2\over 45} g_{*S} T_s^3 \gamma\sim 10^{-32}
T_s^3\,.
\end{equation}
We can then compute the mean separation between monopoles at the time
the string is formed,
\begin{equation}
L_i \sim {\left[n_{M}(T_s)\right]}^{-1/3}\,.
\end{equation}
If we take $T\sim 100\, \text{GeV}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
L_i \sim 10^{-6} \, \text{cm},
\end{equation}
which is much smaller than the horizon distance, $d_H \sim 3$ cm at
$T\sim 100\, \text{GeV}$. We will assume that there are no light ($m\sim T_s$
or less) particles that are charged under the string flux. This means
that there will be no charged particles that interact with the
monopoles and cause the system to lose energy, so that gravitational
radiation will be the only energy loss mechanism. When the strings
are formed they may have excitations on scales smaller than the
distance between monopoles, but these will be quickly smoothed out by
gravitational radiation, leaving a straight string. The energy stored
in the string is then $\mu L_i$, where $\mu \sim {T_s}^2$ is the
energy per unit length of the string. This is smaller than the
monopole mass by the ratio
\begin{equation}
{{\mu L_i}\over {m_M}} \sim 10^{-2}
\end{equation}
so the monopoles will move non-relativistically.
In order to estimate the radiation rate we can assume that the
monopoles are moving in straight lines. In fact, at the time of
string formation the monopoles will have thermal velocities, so that
in general the system will be formed with some non-zero angular
momentum. However, in general this will be small compared to the
linear motion due to the string tension, so we will ignore it, except
to note that the monopoles will pass by without collision. The half
oscillation of one monopole is parameterized by
\begin{equation}
x(t) = (2 a L)^{1/2} t - {1\over 2} a t^2
\end{equation}
with $a = \mu / m_M$ and $0 < t < (8L/a)^{1/2}$. Using the
quadrupole approximation,\footnote{The fully relativistic situation
was considered in \cite{Martin:1997cp}.} the rate of energy loss of
the system is
\begin{equation}
{{dE}\over{dt}} = {288 \over 45} G \mu^2 \left({{\mu L}\over {m_M}}\right)
\end{equation}
Since $\mu L$ is the energy in the string, we can integrate this
equation to obtain
\begin{equation}
L = L_i e^{- t/\tau_g}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:tau}
\tau_g = {45 \over 288} {m_M \over G \mu^2 } =
{45\over 288}{m_{pl}^2 m_M \over T_s^4}\,.
\end{equation}
The lifetime of the state will thus be $\tau_g\ln (L_i/r_M)$, where
$r_M\sim m_M^{-1}$ is the radius of the monopole core. For $T\sim
100 \, \text{GeV}$ and $m_M\sim 10^{14} \, \text{GeV}$, Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:tau}) gives
$\tau_g\sim 10^{17}\, \text{sec}$,
comparable with the age of the universe.
This suggests that the bound system formed by a monopole-antimonopole pair
connected by a string can slowly decay gravitationally, and release
the energy stored in the monopole in a final annihilation
when the two monopole cores become close enough.
\section{Conclusions}
We have shown that is not possible to construct a consistent model for
the origin of the UHECR based on the electromagnetic decay and final
annihilation of magnetic monopole-antimonopole bound states formed in the
early universe. We have obtained an upper limit for the monopolonium
density today, taking into account its enhancement in the galactic halo
and the maximum average free monopole density consistent with the Parker
limit. Due to the small radiative capture cross section for the monopoles
and the rapid expansion of the universe, the maximum density of
monopolonium is many orders of magnitude below the
concentration required to explain the highest energy cosmic ray events.
We then proposed a different scenario in which the monopoles are connected
by strings that form at a relatively low energy. This mechanism solves
the problem of the inefficiency of the binding process, since every
monopole will be attached to an antimonopole at the other end of the
string. Due to the confinement of the monopole flux inside of the
string , the main
source of energy lose for these bound systems will be gravitational radiation.
If we assume a monopole mass of $10^{14}\, \text{GeV}$ and a string
energy scale of the order of $100 \, \text{GeV}$, the lifetime of
the bound states would be comparable with the age of the universe,
making them a possible candidate for the origin of the
ultra-high-energy cosmic rays.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Alex Vilenkin for suggesting this line of work,
and Xavier Siemens and Alex Vilenkin for helpful
conversations. This work was supported in part by funding provided by
the National Science Foundation. J. J. B. P. is supported in part by the
Fundaci\'on Pedro Barrie de la Maza.
|
\section{Correction for PSF Anisotropy}
\label{sec:anisotropy}
In the foregoing we have computed how the shape polarization
$q_\alpha$ responds to a shear. This allows us to correctly
calibrate the circularizing effect of seeing. In general, asymmetry of the
PSF will also introduce spurious systematic
shape polarization $\langle q_\alpha \rangle$ in (\ref{eq:gammaestimator}), and it is
crucial that this be measured and corrected for.
As discussed in \S\ref{sec:introduction}, for unweighted second moments,
the effect of PSF anisotropy is rather simple since the
(flux normalized) final second moment $q_{lm}$ is the sum of the
intrinsic second moment and that of the instrument, so the anisotropic
parts of the instrumental second moment $q_\alpha = M_{\alpha l m} q_{lm}$
can be measured from stars, and subtracted from those observed.
For weighted or isophotal moments things are more complicated, and depend on how the
anisotropy is generated. KSB considered
a simple model in which the final PSF is the convolution of some
circularly symmetric PSF with a small, but highly asymmetric
`anisotropizing kernel' $k(r)$.
In \S\ref{subsec:convolutionmodel} we will further explore this
`convolution model', the attempts that have been made to implement
this perturbative approach, and estimate the error in this method.
In \S\ref{subsec:recircularisation} we show that the convolution
model is quite inappropriate when applied to diffraction limited seeing
and we develop a more general technique for correcting PSF anisotropy.
Finally, in \S\ref{subsec:noisebias}
we draw attention to a type of noise related bias that affects
shear estimators, but which has hitherto been overlooked, and
we show how this can be dealt with.
The artificial polarization produced by PSF anisotropy is an effect
which is present in the absence of any gravitational shear. Thus at
leading order in $\gamma$ we can set $\gamma = 0$. This effectively
decouples the computation and correction of the PSF anisotropy
from the shear-polarization calibration problem considered above.
It also means that in this section we can assume that the intrinsic shapes of
galaxies are statistically isotropic.
\subsection{The Convolution Model}
\label{subsec:convolutionmodel}
KSB computed the effect of a PSF anisotropy under the assumption
that this can be modeled as the convolution of a perfect circular
PSF with some compact kernel $k(r)$.
This would be a good model, for instance, for
observations primarily limited by atmospheric turbulence
with seeing disk of radius $r_g$,
but with very small guiding or registrations errors or optical
aberrations with extent
$\delta r \ll r_g$, and the KSB analysis gives a correction to
lowest order in $\delta r$.
In this model, the
effect of `switching on' the anisotropy is the
transformation on the observed image, which is smooth on scale $\sim r_g$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fobstaylorexpansion}
f_{\rm o}(r) \rightarrow f_{\rm o}'(r) = \int d^2 r' \; k(r') f_{\rm o}(r - r')
= f_{\rm o}(r) - k_i \partial_i f_{\rm o}(r) + {1 \over 2} k_{ij} \partial_i \partial_j f_{\rm o}(r)
- {1 \over 6} k_{ijk} \partial_i \partial_j \partial_k f_{\rm o}(r) + \ldots
\end{equation}
where we have Taylor expanded $f_{\rm o}(r - r')$ and where
$k_i \equiv \int d^2 r r_i k(r)$, $k_{ij} \equiv \int d^2 r r_i r_j k(r)$ etc.
Taking the kernel to be centered, we have $k_i = 0$, and to lowest non-vanishing order
the effect on the polarization is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ksbpolarisability1}
q_\alpha' = \int d^2 r \; w_\alpha(r) f_{\rm o}'(r) = q_\alpha +
{1\over 2} k_{ij} \int d^2 r\; f_{\rm o}(r) \partial_i \partial_j w_\alpha(r)
\end{equation}
where $w_\alpha \equiv M_{\alpha l m} w(r) r_l r_m$ and we have integrated by parts.
The induced stellar polarization is linear in $k_{ij}$ and therefore
scales as the square of the extent of the convolving kernel since
$k_{ij} \sim \delta r^2$. Performing the decomposition $k_{ij} = k_A M_{Aij}$
we find that an individual galaxy's polarization $q_\alpha$ will depend on both
the trace $k_0$ and the trace-free parts $k_\alpha$ of $k_{ij}$. The
{\sl average} induced polarization, however, only depends on $k_\alpha$
and we have $\langle q_\alpha \rangle = k_\beta P^{\rm sm}_{\alpha \beta} $ with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ksbpolarisability2}
P^{\rm sm}_{\alpha \beta} = {1\over 2} M_{\alpha l m} M_{\beta ij}
\int d^2 r\; \langle f_{\rm o} \rangle \partial_i \partial_j (w(r) r_l r_m).
\end{equation}
To lowest order in the PSF anisotropy we can use the KSB polarizability (\ref{eq:ksbpolarisability2})
to infer $k_\alpha$ from the shapes of stars, and then correct the weighted second moments
or the galaxies. At the same level of precision
one can convolve one's image with a small kernel designed to nullify
the anisotropy. \citeN{ft97} have presented a $3 \times 3$ smoothing kernel
which does this. In the typical situation, the shapes are measured from an average of
numerous images taken with a pattern of shifts, and which are co-registered to fractional
pixel precision, and a simpler but equally effective approach is then to average over pairs of
images which have been deliberately displaced from the true solution
by the small displacement vector
$\pm \delta r = \sqrt{|k_A|}\{\cos(\theta), \sin(\theta)\}$ with $\theta = \tan^{-1}(k_2/k_1)/2 + \pi / 2$.
What is the error in this linearized approximation? To answer this we must
consider higher terms in the expansion (\ref{eq:fobstaylorexpansion}).
The next order correction to $q_\alpha$ involves $k_{ijk}$ which,
unlike the centroid $k_i$ cannot be set to zero, so for a given
object the fractional error in the KSB correction is on the order of
$\delta r / r_0 \sim \sqrt{e_\alpha}$. Galaxies, however,
are randomly oriented on the sky,
so the average change in $q_\alpha$ for a galaxy of
some arbitrary morphology but averaged over all position angles
at this order in $\delta r / r_0$ is
\begin{equation}
\langle \delta q_\alpha \rangle \sim
k_{ijk} \int d^2 r\; \langle f_{\rm o}(r) \rangle \partial_i \partial_j \partial_k w_\alpha(r).
\end{equation}
This vanishes since $\langle f_{\rm o}(r) \rangle$ is an even
function while $\partial_i \partial_j \partial_k w_\alpha(r)$ is odd, provided we take $w(r)$ to be
circularly symmetric at least, which we will assume is the case.
The effective net fractional error in the
KSB approximation is therefore on the order of $(\delta r / r_0)^2$, or
typically on the order of the induced stellar ellipticity.
\subsection{General PSF Anisotropy Correction}
\label{subsec:recircularisation}
In principle, one can develop a higher order correction
scheme within the context of this model, but this
does not seem to be particularly promising; it is not clear that
the result will be sufficiently robust and accurate for even for ground based
observations --- in very good seeing conditions the PSF anisotropy
from aberrations
becomes large, and the perturbative approach will break down.
Moreover, for observations with telescopes in space, the model of the
PSF as a convolution of a perfect circular PSF with a
kernel, small or otherwise, is wholly unfounded.
The instantaneous OTF is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:diffotf}
\tilde g(k) = \int d^2r \; A(r) A(r + k D \lambda / 2 \pi)
\exp(i[\varphi(r) - \varphi(r + k D \lambda / 2 \pi)])
\end{equation}
where $A$ is the real transmission function of the telescope input pupil,
$D$ is the focal length, and
$\varphi(r)$ is the phase error due to mirror aberrations and the atmosphere.
It is often said that the general OTF factorizes into a set of terms describing
the atmosphere; the telescope aperture; and aberrations, and this would
seem to justify the convolution model discussed above. For atmospheric
turbulence, and for aberrations arising from random
small scale mirror roughness this is correct. This is because the
average of the complex exponential term in (\ref{eq:diffotf}) depends only on
$\delta r = k D \lambda / 2 \pi$ and is independent of $r$, and
(\ref{eq:diffotf}) then factorizes into two independent terms, and
the PSF is then the convolution of two completely independent and
non-negative functions, but this is not the case in general.
To be sure, one can write the combined aperture and
aberration OTF as a product of some `perfect' OTF with some
other function (the true OTF divided by the perfect one) but quite unlike the
case for random turbulence and mirror roughness, this function
is neither independent of the shape of the pupil, nor is it
positive; if you compute this function for a telescope subject to a
low order aberration from figure error, for instance, you will find that the this
function is strongly oscillating and is just as extended as the true PSF.
Consider the situation
in WFPC2 observations, for example, where the
PSF anisotropy has important contributions from both
from asymmetry of the pupil $A(r)$ and from phase errors,
though with the former tending to dominate (though not enormously so) for long wavelengths
and far off axis with the WFPC2.
The aperture function for the lower left corner of chip 2 computed from
the Tiny-Tim model
\cite{krist95} is shown in figure \ref{fig:wfpc2pupilandphase}.
The off-axis pupil function is approximately that on-axis minus
a disk of some radius $r_1$
at some distance $\Delta r$ off-axis. If we let the radius of the
primary be $r_0$ and define a disk function
$D_{r_0}(r) = \Theta(r / r_0 - 1)$ then on computing
the electric field amplitude $a(x)$ and
squaring we find that
the on-axis PSF is of course given by the Airy disk: $g \simeq \tilde D_{r_0}^2$
while the off axis PSF $g'$ is given by
$g'(x) \simeq g(x) - \tilde D_{r_1} \tilde D_{r_0} \cos(2 \pi x \Delta r / D \lambda)$.
For $r_1 \ll r_0$, $\tilde D_{r_1}$ is relatively slowly varying and close to unity,
in which case
the extra off-axis obscuration introduces a perturbation which is
proportional to the
product of $D_0$ and a planar wave, or essentially an asymmetric modulation of the
side lobes of the on-axis PSF (see LH panel of figure \ref{fig:gcircplot}).
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering\epsfig{file=pupilphase.ps,width={1.0 \linewidth},angle=0}
\caption{The panel on left shows the WFPC2 pupil function and
phase error from Krist's Tiny Tim model for an off-axis point on the
focal plane.
The phase is given in radians for a wavelength of 800 nm.
The panel on the right shows the modulation transfer function
(the real part of the OTF).
}
\label{fig:wfpc2pupilandphase}
\end{figure}
In general then, and especially for diffraction limited observations,
the perturbative convolution model cannot be trusted.
Luckily, at least in the context of the shear estimators discussed
here, a simple solution clearly presents itself:
Since to compute the polarizability requires that
one generate a rather detailed model of the PSF, and that
we probably want to apply some kind of
re-convolution $f_{\rm o} \rightarrow f_s = g^\dagger \otimes f_{\rm o}$
to obtain a well behaved shear response, we might
as well use the opportunity to choose $g^\dagger(r)$ in order to
re-circularize the PSF exactly.
For example, from the observed PSF, one can compute the
OTF $\tilde g(k)$ and then form the circularly symmetric function $\tilde g_{\rm min}(k)$
being the greatest real function which lies everywhere below $|\tilde g(k)|$.
The function $g^\dagger(r)$ with
transform
\begin{equation}
\tilde g^\dagger(k) = \tilde g_{\rm min}(k)^2 / \tilde g(k)
\end{equation}
both guarantees a well defined shear polarizability and gives
a perfectly circular resulting total PSF.
This is illustrated in figure \ref{fig:gcircplot}.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering\epsfig{file=gcircplot.ps,width={1.0 \linewidth},angle=0}
\caption{HST WFPC2 PSF from Tiny Tim and re-circularizing filter
computed as described in the text.}
\label{fig:gcircplot}
\end{figure}
In some situations the PSF may have near 180 degree symmetry, in
which case a good approximation
is to re-convolve with a PSF which has been rotated through 90 degrees.
Since the PSF is real, the OTF must satisfy the symmetry
$\tilde g(k) = \tilde g^*(-k)$.
In the absence of aberrations, a diffraction
limited telescope has OTF $\tilde g = A \oplus A$
which is real and so has exact symmetry under rotation by $\pi$,
a property which is shared the PSF, so $R_\pi g = g$.
If one convolves with $g^\dagger = R_{\pi/2} g$ then the
resulting total PSF $g^\dagger \otimes g$ is symmetric under 90 degree
rotations (proof: $R_{\pi/2} \tilde g_{\rm tot} =
R_{\pi/2} (R_{\pi/2} \tilde g \tilde g) = R_\pi \tilde g
R_{\pi/2} \tilde g = \tilde g R_{\pi/2} \tilde g = \tilde g_{\rm tot}$).
For a galaxy of given form, the average PSF induced polarization is
\begin{equation}
\langle q_\alpha \rangle =
\int d^2 r \; \langle g_{\rm tot} \otimes f \rangle w_\alpha =
[\langle g_{\rm tot} \otimes f\rangle \otimes w_\alpha]_{r = 0}
= \int {d^2 k \over (2 \pi)^2} \langle \tilde f \rangle
\tilde g_{\rm tot} \tilde w_\alpha
\end{equation}
where $w_\alpha = M_{\alpha l m} w(r) r_l r_m$.
But $ \langle \tilde f \rangle $ is circularly symmetric and
$\tilde w_\alpha$ is anti-symmetric under 90 degree
rotations, so $\langle q_\alpha \rangle = 0$.
Other situations where this would work would be ground
based observations but with large amplitude telescope oscillations,
and in fast guiding.
In general, however, aberrations from figure errors will introduce both real
and imaginary contributions to the OTF and the latter will
destroy the exact 180 degree symmetry of the PSF. This is
certainly the case for the WFPC2 PSF at optical wavelengths.
In the linearized approximate schemes described earlier, the PSF anisotropy
is entirely characterized by the two coefficients $k_\alpha$. In general,
these will vary substantially with position on the image, but
this can be treated by modeling $k_\alpha$ as some smoothly
varying function of image position $R$ such as a low order polynomial.
In the
scheme proposed here we need to be able to generate not just these
two coefficients, but the full two dimensional
PSF $g(r, R)$ (being the
intensity at distance $r$ from the centroid of a star at position $R$).
A simple practical approach is to solve for a model
$g(r,R) = \sum_I g_I(r) f_I(R)$, with $f_I(R)$ being some
set of polynomial or other basis functions.
A least squares fit for the image valued mode coefficients is
$g_I(r) = m_{IJ}^{-1} G_J(r)$ with
$m_{IJ} = \sum_{\rm stars} f_I(R) f_J(R)$; $G_I(r) = \sum_{\rm stars} f_I(R) g_{\rm obs}(r)$.
Armed with the image valued coefficients one can then, for example,
compute the convolution $f_s = g \otimes f_{\rm o}$ as
$f_s(r) = \sum_I f_I(r) (g_I \otimes f_{\rm o})$, that is we convolve
the source image with each of
components $g_I(r)$ and then combine with spatially varying coefficients
$f_I(R)$.
\hide{This is only valid if the scale length for changes of the PSF greatly
exceeds its own width, but that is usually an excellent approximation.}
Non-linear functions of the PSF such as the
re-circularizing kernel
$g^\dagger$ are easily generated by making realizations of the PSF models
on say a coarse grid of points covering the source image, and from each of these computing the
desired function, and then fitting the results to a low order polynomial
just as for $g(r,R)$.
The approach described here lends itself very nicely to observations
with large mosaic CCD cameras, in which misalignment of the chip surfaces
and the focal plane coupled with telescope aberrations can give rise to
a PSF which varies smoothly across each chip, but which changes discontinuously
across the chip boundaries. This results in a very complicated PSF pattern
on the final image obtained by averaging over many dithered images. It
is a good deal simpler to re-circularize each of the contributing
images. We still need to generate a spatially varying model of the
final $g(r)$, $g^\dagger(r)$ in order to compute the polarizability, but
if we fail to model these exactly, it will only introduce a relatively
minor error in the shear-polarization calibration.
\input noisebias.tex
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
We have considered the problem of how to estimate weak gravitational
shear from observations which have been degraded by atmospheric and/or
instrumental effects. Previous analyses of this problem have made
simplifying assumptions which render the results inaccurate.
A major result of the paper is the finite resolution
shear operator (\ref{eq:fobsoperator}) which gives the response of
an observed image to a gravitational shear applied before smearing with
the PSF. This result can be used to properly calibrate the effect of
any shear estimator, and is valid for arbitrary PSF, be it turbulence
or diffraction limited.
We then focused on the application to
weighted moment shear estimators. We have computed the response of
individual objects to a shear in \S\ref{subsec:individualresponse},
and the response of the population of background galaxies
with given photometric properties in \S\ref{subsec:populationresponse}, and
from this we have devised an optimal weighting scheme
\S\ref{sec:optimisation}.
In the last section we have considered the correction for
PSF anisotropy. While there are still some approximations in the
present analysis, we feel that they place the techniques of
shear measurement on a much firmer footing than before.
\section{Acknowledgements}
I wish to acknowledge helpful discussions with
Malcolm Northcott, Francois and Claude Roddier, John Tonry, Ger Luppino,
Pat Henry, Ken Chambers, Jeff Kuhn and Christ Ftaclas.
\subsection{Atmospheric Dispersion}
Variation of the refractive index of the atmosphere with wavelength will cause
images to be dispersed into spectra, and the consequent elongation of
images was estimated by KSB, who pointed out that this could potentially
cause problems when using PSF's of stars to correct the shapes of
galaxies, since the elongation depends on the
spectrum of the object; an object with a line-like spectrum,
or one with a sharp-edged absorption band which falls within
the bandpass, will of course be less dispersed than a continuum object.
Here we will make this more quantitative.
Weak-shear measurements are usually made on images composed from
multiple exposures taken at a range of air masses and which are
co-registered using centroids of foreground stars. The astrometric
solution obtained using stars of a variety of spectra will be a compromise.
Assuming, as
is usually the case, that one has many more stars at ones disposal
than the number of coefficients of the transformation one is
trying to solve for (typically a low order polynomial), then
the solution obtained by minimising least squared residuals will be
one which correctly maps surface brightness at some wavelength
$\lambda_0$ determined by the average properties of the foreground
stars, but with photons at other wavelengths displaced by an
amount proportional to $\lambda - \lambda_0$. The
sum of a set of $N$ such images is
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm tot}(r, \lambda) =
\sum\limits_{I=1}^N f(r + \alpha_I (\lambda - \lambda_0), \lambda)
\end{equation}
where $f(r, \lambda)$ is the image seen at zenith.
The 2-vector $\alpha_{Ii}$ has
$|\alpha_I| = (\Theta_0 / \lambda_0) (\partial \ln \Theta / \partial \ln \lambda)
\tan z_I$, with $z_I$ the zenith
distance, and $\hat \alpha_I$ is directed towards the horizon.
Tables of the
refraction angle $\Theta(\lambda)$ are given by \citeN{allen73}.
A star with SED $f_\lambda$, and therefore with photon distribution
function $S(\lambda) d \lambda \propto \lambda f_\lambda d \lambda$,
gives, in a photon counting system, a response at
zenith $f(r,\lambda) = \delta(r) S(\lambda)$, and the summed image
of such a star is then
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm tot}(r) = \int d \lambda f_{\rm tot}(r, \lambda)
= \sum\limits_{I=1}^N\int d\lambda \delta(r - \alpha_I (\lambda - \lambda_0))
S(\lambda)
\end{equation}
The centroid of a star in the image $f_{\rm tot}(r)$ is an
average of the centroids that
would be obtained from each of the contributing images. Consider
the $I$'th image, and rotate the coordinate system so that $\alpha_I$
lies along the $x$-axis. The centroid for this component is
$\overline r_I = ({\overline x}_I, 0)$ with
\begin{equation}
{\overline x}_I = {
\int dx \int dy \int d\lambda \;
x \delta(x - \alpha_I(\lambda - \lambda_0)) \delta(y) S(\lambda)
\over
\int dx \int dy \int d\lambda \;
\delta(x - \alpha_I(\lambda - \lambda_0)) \delta(y) S(\lambda)
}
= {\alpha_I \int d\lambda\; (\lambda - \lambda_0) S(\lambda)
\over \int d\lambda\; S(\lambda)}
= \alpha_I ({\overline \lambda} - \lambda_0)
\end{equation}
from which it follows that the $\lambda_0$ which minimises
$\langle \overline x_I^2 \rangle$, being
the average over the stars used for registration of the
squared displacement, is $\lambda_0 = \langle \overline \lambda \rangle
= {1 \over n_{\rm stars}} \sum \overline \lambda$, i.e.~simply the
average over the registration stars of their mean wavelength.
The centroid for the summed image is
\begin{equation}
\overline r_i = ({\overline \lambda} - \lambda_0) \langle \alpha_i \rangle_I
\end{equation}
where $\langle \alpha_i \rangle_I \equiv {1 \over N} \sum \alpha_{Ii}$.
Similarly, the central second moment is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pijdispersion}
p_{ij} =
{\int d^2 r \; (r_i - \overline r_i)(r_j - \overline r_j)f_{\rm tot}(r)
\over
\int d^2 r
f_{\rm tot}(r)}
= \overline{(\lambda - \lambda_0)^2}
\langle \alpha_i \alpha_j \rangle_I
- (\overline \lambda - \lambda_0)^2
\langle \alpha_i \rangle_I
\langle \alpha_j \rangle_I
\end{equation}
Note that since, for any sensible zenith angle, the width of the spectrum
is tiny compared to that of the PSF, this unweighted second moment
fully characterises the effect of dispersion.
Consider, for illustration, the case of an equatorial field observed
with a telescope near the equator, and for a range of
zenith angle $|z| < z_{\rm max}$. In this case $\sum \alpha_I = 0$, so
the second term in (\ref{eq:pijdispersion})
vanishes (this is not a particularly unusual special case;
for a number of observations spread over a range of zenith
angles, one would generally expect the second term here to
become relatively small).
When we solve for the PSF from the shapes of foreground stars of
various types we are effectively
averaging over a mix of SED's appropriate for a low
redshift spiral galaxy. The average PSF moment obtained from the
stars can, for the equatorial case, then be written as
\begin{equation}
\langle p_{xx} \rangle =
(\langle \overline{\lambda^2} \rangle -
\langle \overline \lambda \rangle^2) \langle \alpha^2 \rangle_I
\end{equation}
where by $\langle \alpha^2 \rangle_I =
(\Theta_0 / \lambda_0)^2 (\partial \ln \Theta / \partial \ln \lambda)^2
{1\over N} \sum_I \tan^2 z_I$, and the SED dependent
coefficient of $\langle \alpha^2 \rangle_I$ is the
mean of the dispersions of the stars plus the
dispersion of the means of the stars. For the equatorial
case this is the same as the
second moment for a single point like object with an SED
like the average SED of the registration stars. This is not
strictly true in general, but the difference is probably
a minor one, and it then follows that
if the faint galaxies have SED's such that their
$\overline{(\lambda - \lambda_0)^2}$
differs systematically from
that for a low redshift spiral then the PSF correction will
be systematically in error.
Figure \ref{fig:dispersion} quantifies the importance of this
effect, by using redshifted galaxy SED's of various types from
\citeN{cww80}.
The panel on the left shows the displacement of the centroid of
galaxies of the various indicated types as their spectra
are red-shifted, and the right hand panel shows the variation of the
second moment of the PSF. We find that the I-band second moment is
very stable, with peak fluctuations $\delta p_{lm} \sim 300
{\rm mas}^2$ for these parameters, and with little systematic
difference from a low spiral redshift galaxy if we integrate
over a range of redshifts. For
illustration, if we take the systematic change in
polarisation to be say $\delta p_{lm} \sim 100 {\rm mas}^2$ and
a Gaussian profile galaxy, this corresponds to a shear of
$\gamma \simeq 1.38 \delta p_{lm} / {\rm FWHM}^2 \simeq
6 \times 10^{-4} (0''.5 / {\rm FWHM})^2$.
In the V-band the polarisation fluctuations are
larger by a factor 2-3, but even then, and even for
marginally resolved objects in excellent seeing the effect is
at or below the sensitivity for current and near future
surveys. The effect scales as $\langle \tan^2 z \rangle$ however, so
observations at $z \gg 1 $ should be avoided. This would also
become more of an issue with fast guiding, where we can hope
to resolve much smaller objects. The effect is also dependent on the
details of the system response function; the CFH12K system having
a particularly broad I-band response which exacerbates the effect.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering\epsfig{file=disperse.ps,width={1.0 \linewidth},angle=0}
\caption{Atmospheric dispersion. Left hand panels show the
angular displacement due to changes in the SED for galaxies
at a range of redshifts. A zenith angle of 45 degrees was
assumed, and upper and lower panels show the deflection for
the I-band and V-band system response functions for the
CFH12K camera.
More concretely, the quantity plotted is the mean
wavelength
$\overline \lambda - \lambda_0 = \int d \lambda \; (\lambda - \lambda_0)
\lambda f_\lambda R(\lambda)
/ \int d \lambda \; \lambda f_\lambda R(\lambda)$ where
$f_\lambda$ is the SED, $R(\lambda)$ the system response,
$\lambda_0$ was taken to be $820$nm, and
$\overline \lambda - \lambda_0$ was
converted to angle as described in the text, and assuming
a 4000m observatory altitude.
The V-band plot has been limited to $z < 1.5$ since the
CWW SED's are limited to proper wavelength $\lambda > 200$nm and
redshift past the $V$-band at around $z = 1.5$.
The plots shows that the shifts due to SED variation are typically
on the order of $20$mas in the I-band, but somewhat larger in V.
The elliptical/S0 SED shows a somewhat
greater excursion at high redshift, but this it caused by the
SED red-shifting right out of the filter band, so one
would not expect to find many such objects in flux limited samples.
The panels on the right show how the width of the
spectrum, and hence the PSF polarization,
varies with redshift and galaxy type. Here the
quantity plotted is
$ \overline{(\lambda - \lambda_0)^2}
= \int d \lambda \; (\lambda - \lambda_0)^2 \lambda f_\lambda R(\lambda)
/ \int d \lambda \; \lambda f_\lambda R(\lambda)$,
again converted to angle, here assuming $\langle \tan^2 z \rangle = 1$.
}
\label{fig:dispersion}
\end{figure}
In the foregoing we assumed that the foreground stars used for
registration were numerous and well mixed. With a finite number of
stars there will be some additional color dependent error in the registration
which, if uncorrected, would give rise to artificial field
distortion. However, we have found from simulations
\hide{The relative shift of centroids of stars according to their colors
can also cause artificial distortion in the image registration.
At a zenith distance of 45 degrees (air-mass
of 1.414), for instance, and for standard broadband
colors we find that centroids shift by about 10mas
per magnitude in $V-I$ color, and }
using the USNOA
catalog as the astrometric reference system that this introduces
artificial shear at around the $10^{-4}$ level, which is
negligibly small for present and near future surveys.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Weak lensing provides a probe of the dark matter distribution on
a range of scales from galaxy halos, through clusters of
galaxies, to large-scale-structure (see e.g.~the recent review of
\citeN{mellier99}, and references therein).
In the weak lensing or thin lens approximation,
the effect of gravitational lensing on the image of
a distant object is a mapping of the surface brightness:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lensmapping}
f'(r_i) = f((\delta_{ij} - \psi_{ij}) r_j)
\end{equation}
where the 2-vector $r_i$ is the angular position on the sky
measured relative to the center of the image,
$f$ is the intrinsic surface brightness that would be
seen in the absence of lensing, and the symmetric `distortion
tensor' $\psi_{ij}$ is an integral along the line of sight of the transverse
second derivatives of the gravitational potential $\Phi$ \cite{gunn67}.
In an open cosmology,
for instance, the distortion for an object at conformal distance $\omega_s$
can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:psifromphi}
\psi_{lm} = 2 \int d \omega {\sinh \omega \sinh (\omega_s - \omega) \over
\sinh \omega_s} \partial_l \partial_m \Phi
\end{equation}
(\citeNP{barkana96}; \citeNP{k98})
where $\partial_i \equiv \partial / \partial x_i$ and $x_i = \theta_i
\sinh \omega$ with $\theta_i$ being a 2-component Cartesian vector in the
plane of the sky and where the potential is
related to the density contrast by $\nabla^2 \Phi = 4 \pi G \delta \rho$,
the Laplacian here being take with respect to proper spatial coordinates.
Equation (\ref{eq:psifromphi}) can be generalized to deal
with sources at a range of distances, and with either accurately
known redshifts or partial
redshift information from broadband colors.
The distortion will, in general, change both the shapes and sizes,
and hence luminosities, of distant objects. Any component of the
distortion which is coherent over large
scales --- larger than the typical angular separation of background galaxies ---
is therefore potentially observable as a relative modulation of the counts of objects
or as a statistical anisotropy of the galaxy shapes, and this allows one
to constrain the fluctuations in the total density $\delta \rho$ on the corresponding
scales.
Here we will focus on analysis of shape anisotropy, or `image shear',
though the methodology is readily
extendible to include the effects of magnification.
While the effect of a shear on the sky surface brightness (\ref{eq:lensmapping})
is rather simply stated, no completely satisfactory method for
estimating the distortion has yet emerged. Perhaps ideally one would
attack this problem using likelihood; that is, one would ask: what is the probability
to observe a given set of background galaxy images given that they are drawn from
some statistically isotropic unlensed parent distribution,
as a function of the parameters
$\psi_{lm}$.
Unfortunately, this does not
seem to be a particularly tractable problem. Also, the problem is further complicated by
the finite resolution of real observations, and by noise in the images. Instead, what
has been done is to adopt some plausible shape statistic --- typically some kind of
central second moment --- and then compute how this responds to a gravitational
shear. We will now review the
various
different shear estimators that have been proposed, how they relate
to one another, and what their limitations are.
\subsection{Projection Matrices and the Shear Operator}
As a preliminary, we now
introduce some mathematical formalism which will simplify the analysis.
Symmetric $2 \times 2$ tensors like $\psi_{lm}$ feature
prominently in what follows. Such tensors have 3 real degrees of freedom. For instance,
it is conventional to
parameterize the three real degrees of freedom of $\psi_{lm}$ by the
triplet comprising the convergence
$\kappa$ and the shear $\gamma_\alpha$, $\alpha = 1,\;2$ with
\begin{equation}
\psi_{ij} = \left[\matrix{
\kappa + \gamma_1 & \gamma_2 \cr
\gamma_2 & \kappa - \gamma_1
}\right]
\end{equation}
A simple way to convert between triplet and tensor components is to use
the three constant $2 \times 2$ `projection
matrices':
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Mdefinition}
M_{0ij} =
\left[
\matrix{
1 & 0 \cr
0 & 1
}
\right]
\quad\quad\quad\quad
M_{1ij} =
\left[
\matrix{
1 & 0 \cr
0 & -1
}
\right]
\quad\quad\quad\quad
M_{2ij} =
\left[
\matrix{
0 & 1 \cr
1 & 0
}
\right]
\end{equation}
The symmetrized products of pairs of these matrices
$[M_A M_B] \equiv {1\over 2} (M_{A l m} M_{B m n} + M_{A n m} M_{B m l})$
have multiplication table
\begin{equation}
[M_A M_B]
=
\left[\matrix{
M_0 & M_1 & M_2 \cr
M_1 & M_0 & 0 \cr
M_2 & 0 & M_0
}\right]
=
\delta_{AB} M_0 +
(\delta_{A0} \delta_{B\alpha} + \delta_{A\alpha}\delta_{B0}) M_\alpha
\end{equation}
from which follow the useful identities that the contractions of
products and triple products are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:traceMAMB}
M_{Alm} M_{Bml} & = & 2 \delta_{AB} \\
\label{eq:traceMAMBMC}
M_{Alm} M_{Bmn} M_{Cnl} & = &
2(\delta_{BC} \delta_{A0} + \delta_{AC} \delta_{B0} + \delta_{AB} \delta_{C0}).
\end{eqnarray}
Any symmetric tensor $t_{lm}$ can be written as a linear combination of
projection matrices with coefficients $t_A$, that is, $t_{lm} = t_A M_{Alm}$,
and using (\ref{eq:traceMAMB}) we have
$M_{Blm}t_{lm} = M_{Blm} M_{Alm} t_A = 2 \delta_{AB} t_A$, so
$t_A = {1\over 2} M_{Alm} t_{lm}$.
In this language the convergence and the shear are the three components of
the triplet representation of the distortion tensor:
$\kappa = {1 \over 2} M_{0lm} \psi_{lm} = \psi_0$ and
$\gamma_\alpha = {1 \over 2} M_{\alpha lm} \psi_{lm} = \psi_\alpha$, $\alpha = 1,2$.
We will adopt the convention that upper case Roman indices range over $0,1,2$
while lower case Greek symbols range over $1,2$ and that repeated indices are
to be summed over.
A two component `polar'
$t_\alpha$ transforms under rotations as $t_\alpha \rightarrow R_{\alpha \beta}(2 \theta) t_\beta$
while $t_0$ transforms as a scalar under rotations.
An alternative and widely used formalism \cite{sef92}
is to regard $\gamma_1,\;\gamma_2$ as the real
and imaginary parts of a complex shear, but we shall not adopt that
approach here.
It is also convenient to define a `shear operator' $S_\gamma$,
which generates the mapping (\ref{eq:lensmapping}).
\begin{equation}
f' = S_\gamma f
\end{equation}
At linear order in $\gamma$, which will be valid for sufficiently weak
shear, one can perform a first order Taylor expansion
of the RHS of (\ref{eq:lensmapping}) and $S_\gamma$ becomes the differential operator
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:linearshearoperator}
S_\gamma = 1 - \gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha i j} r_i \partial_j
\end{equation}
where $\partial_j \equiv \partial / \partial r_j$.
This operator is rather similar to a rotation operator. An important question
is what is the domain of validity of (\ref{eq:linearshearoperator}).
The answer depends on the content of the image to which it is applied.
For an image containing information only at spatial frequencies below some upper limit $k_{\rm max}$
this will be a good approximation provided
$r \ll 1 / (\gamma k_{\rm max})$, so for finite shear
(\ref{eq:linearshearoperator}) will not apply for
spatial frequencies $\gtorder 1 / (\gamma r)$. The limit here is that
combination of frequency and distance from the origin that
a shear of strength $\gamma$ corresponds to a local translation of
about an inverse wavenumber.
We would however expect
(\ref{eq:linearshearoperator}) to correctly describe the effect of shear on the
low frequency behavior of an image, in the sense that if applied to an
image which has had the high frequency information removed, then the result
will be essentially identical to the low-frequency content of an
exactly sheared image.
\subsection{Second Moment Shear Estimators for Perfect Seeing}
A pure shear will cause a circular object to become elliptical,
and will change the ellipticities of non-circular objects.
Following \citeN{vjt83} a
natural choice of statistic to measure such a distortion
is the second central moment or quadrupole moment
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:secondmomentdefinition}
q_{lm} = \int d^2 r \; r_l r_m f(r)
\end{equation}
where we will assume that the total flux, which is
unaffected by a pure shear, has been normalized such that
$\int d^2 r \; f(r) = 1$, and
where the origin of coordinates has been taken such that the dipole
moment $d_l = \int d^2 r \; r_l f(r)$ vanishes.
The triplet coefficients of the symmetric matrix $q_{lm}$ are
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pdefinition}
q_A = {1 \over 2} M_{Aij} q_{ij}
=\left[\begin{matrix}{
(q_{xx} + q_{yy})/2 \cr
(q_{xx} - q_{yy})/2 \cr
q_{xy}
}\end{matrix}\right]
\end{equation}
The first component $q_0$ is a measure of the size, or area,
of the object, while the latter two $q_\alpha$ are a measure of the eccentricity of the
object --- they vanish for a circular object --- which
we will refer to as the `polarization'.
We can compute how the quadrupole moment is affected by a shear
by applying (\ref{eq:linearshearoperator}) to $f$ in (\ref{eq:secondmomentdefinition}) to find
\begin{equation}
q'_{lm} = q_{lm} - \gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha i j}
\int d^2 r \; r_l r_m r_i \partial_j f
= q_{lm} + 2 \gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha l i} q_{im}
\end{equation}
where we have integrated by parts and invoked the symmetry
($M_{\alpha i j} = M_{\alpha j i}$) and
tracelessness ($M_{\alpha i i} = 0$) of the matrices $M_1$, $M_2$.
With $q_{im} = M_{Bim} q_B$ etc., and using(\ref{eq:traceMAMBMC}), we find
\begin{equation}
\delta q_A = {1\over 2} M_{\alpha l m} (q'_{lm} - q_{lm}) =
\gamma_\alpha M_{Alm} M_{\alpha l i} M_{Bim} q_B =
2 \gamma_\beta(\delta_{A0} q_\beta + \delta_{A\beta} q_0)
\end{equation}
or equivalently
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:deltap}
\begin{matrix}{
q'_\alpha = q_\alpha + 2 \gamma_\alpha q_0 \cr
q'_0 = q_0 + 2 \gamma_\alpha q_\alpha
}\end{matrix}
\end{equation}
A weak gravitational shear therefore causes a change in the
the
polarization
$\delta q_\alpha = 2 q_0 \gamma_\alpha$,
which is proportional to the area $q_0$,
and it also induces a change in the area
$\delta q_0$ which is proportional to the eccentricity.
For intrinsically randomly oriented galaxies the average intrinsic
polarization
$\langle q_\alpha \rangle$ vanishes by symmetry, so
$\langle q'_\alpha \rangle = 2 \langle q_0 \rangle \gamma_\alpha $
and $\langle q'_0 \rangle = \langle q_0 \rangle$ and therefore
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:simpleshearestimate}
\gamma_\alpha = \langle q'_\alpha \rangle / 2 \langle q'_0 \rangle
\end{equation}
which
which one can use to estimate the shear on a patch of the sky
by replacing the averaging operator $\langle \ldots \rangle$ by
a summation: $\sum \ldots / N$.
This type of shear estimator was first introduced and used by \citeN{vjt83}
in their search for large scale shear.
The averages of $q_\alpha$ and $q_0$ here are heavily
weighted towards larger galaxies, which
is not ideal.
More commonly, what has been done (e.g.~\citeNP{tvjm84}) is to
normalize the polarization by the trace of the second moments
and define the `ellipticity vector'
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:naiveshearestimator}
e_\alpha = q_\alpha / q_0
\end{equation}
which depends only on the galaxy shape, and
whose expectation value is
\begin{equation}
\langle e'_\alpha \rangle = \left\langle {q_\alpha + 2 \gamma_\alpha q_0 \over
q_0 + \gamma_\beta q_\beta} \right\rangle
\simeq 2 \gamma_\alpha -2 \gamma_\beta \langle q_\alpha q_\beta / q_0^2 \rangle
= 2 \gamma_\alpha (1 - \langle e^2 \rangle / 2)
\end{equation}
and where we have kept only terms up to linear order in the shear
(\citeNP{ksb95}, hereafter KSB).
An alternative \cite{bm95} is to normalize
the second moments by the square-root of the determinant of $q_{lm}$
rather than by the trace:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:BMshearestimator}
e^{\rm BM}_\alpha = {q_\alpha \over \sqrt{|q_{lm}|}}
= {q_\alpha \over \sqrt{q_0^2 - q_\alpha q_\alpha}}
\end{equation}
which, again at first order in $\gamma$, has expectation value
\begin{equation}
\langle e^{\rm BM}_\alpha \rangle = 2 \gamma_\alpha
\left\langle \sqrt{1 + ( e^{\rm BM}_\alpha )^2}\right\rangle.
\end{equation}
Yet another possibility is
to use only the information in the position angle $\theta =
(\tan^{-1} q_2 / q_1) / 2$ \cite{kochanek90}, or equivalently in the
unit shear vector $|e_\alpha|$,
and there are numerous other similar statistics one could use.
These formulae for the response of the polarization statistics should be
used with caution. While formally correct, the averages
here must be taken in an unweighted manner over all galaxies.
This is generally neither possible
nor particularly
desirable, as there are detection limits, and one would
ideally like to estimate the shear as some optimally weighted combination of
polarizations of galaxies of different fluxes and sizes, and these simple
relations no longer hold.
We will return to this later. First, however, let us consider the
effect on these estimators of a finite point spread function,
which is well illustrated by the simple estimator
(\ref{eq:simpleshearestimate}).
\subsection{Second Moment Shear Estimators for Finite Seeing}
In real
observations, some or all of atmospheric turbulence,
optical aberrations; aperture size; guiding or registration
errors; atmospheric dispersion; finite pixel size;
scattering etc.~will combine to
give an observed surface brightness
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fobsdefinition}
f_{\rm o}(r) = \int d^2 r'\; g(r') f(r - r') \equiv g \otimes f
\end{equation}
where $g(r)$ is the point spread function (PSF). The
combined effect of gravitational shearing followed by instrumental
and atmospheric seeing is the transformation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fobsprimedefinition}
f_{\rm o}' = g \otimes S_\gamma f
\end{equation}
Circular seeing will tend to reduce the ellipticity
while departures from circularity will introduce an artificial
polarization.
To make accurate shear measurements we need to correct for the latter and calibrate the
former.
For
estimators like
(\ref{eq:simpleshearestimate}),
which are computed from moments $q_{lm}$
as defined in (\ref{eq:secondmomentdefinition}),
the effect of the PSF is rather simple
since, as noted by \citeN{vjt83},
the second central moment of a convolution of two
normalized functions is just the sum of the
second central moments:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:momentsum}
q_{lm}(f_{\rm o}) = q_{lm}(f) + q_{lm}(g)
\end{equation}
and this additive property is shared by the independent
components $q_A$. Thus
one can recover the second moments $q_A(f)$ that would be measured
by a large perfect telescope in space from the observed moments $q_A(f_{\rm o})$
simply by subtracting the moments of the PSF
$q_A(f) = q_A(f_{\rm o}) - q_A(g)$.
These may be measured from shapes of foreground
stars in the image, or, in the case of diffraction limited
seeing, computed from the
telescope design.
In terms of observed moments,
the shear estimator
(\ref{eq:simpleshearestimate}) becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:calibratedsimpleestimator}
\hat \gamma_\alpha = {\langle q_\alpha - q^\ast_\alpha \rangle \over
2 \langle q_0 - q_0^\ast \rangle }
\end{equation}
where superscript $\ast$ denotes the value for a stellar object.
This
procedure --- using (\ref{eq:momentsum}) to correct the
measured moments of the PSF
--- simply and rather elegantly compensates for both the circularizing
and distorting effects of realistic seeing.
\subsection{Weighted Moment Shear Estimators}
Unfortunately, while very simple to analyze,
the shear estimator constructed from the second moments
as defined in (\ref{eq:secondmomentdefinition})
is not at all useful when applied to real data. For one thing,
photon counting noise introduces an uncertainty
in the moments which diverges as the square of the radius out
to which one integrates, and the effect of neighboring objects
will similarly grossly corrupt the signal. There is also the
problem that for the kinds of PSFs that arise in real telescopes,
the second moment is not well defined.
To obtain a practical estimator, it is necessary to
truncate the integral in (\ref{eq:secondmomentdefinition}). This can be done in
various ways; the approach implemented in the FOCAS software
package \cite{jt81} and also the Sextractor package
\cite{ba96} is to
truncate the integral at some isophotal threshold $f_{\rm crit}$ and
compute moments of the non-linear function
$F(f_{\rm o}) = \Theta(f_{\rm crit} - f_{\rm o}) f_{\rm o}$,
where $\Theta(f)$ is the Heaviside function. In fact, isophotal moments
are most commonly computed from an image which has been
smoothed with some kernel --- usually an approximate model of the PSF itself ---
in order that the isophotal boundary be well defined.
An alternative, as advocated by \citeN{bm95} and by KSB,
is to limit the range of integration with a
user supplied weight function $w(r)$ and define
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:weightedmomentdefinition}
q_{lm} \propto \int d^2 r\; w(r) r_l r_m f_{\rm o}(r).
\end{equation}
Another possibility is to define a polarization vector in
terms of the second derivatives of a smoothed image
$f_s = w \otimes f$ as
\begin{equation}
q_{lm} \propto \partial_l \partial_m \int f_s
\end{equation}
evaluated at the peak of $f_s$.
For a Gaussian weight function $w(r)$, however, this is essentially equivalent to
the weighted second moment (\ref{eq:weightedmomentdefinition}).
As we shall see, the weighted moment statistics,
being linear in the surface brightness, offer significant advantages
over the isophotal threshold method,
but in either case, the simple relation (\ref{eq:momentsum})
between observed and intrinsic second moments
no longer holds, and compensating for the effects
of the PSF becomes considerably more complicated than
equation (\ref{eq:calibratedsimpleestimator}).
A partial solution to this problem has been offered by KSB, who
computed the response of shear estimators like (\ref{eq:naiveshearestimator})
to an anisotropy of the PSF under that assumption that this can be modeled
as the convolution of a circular PSF $g_{\rm circ}(r)$ with some compact
but possibly highly anisotropic function $k(r)$. This would be a reasonable
approximation for example for the case of atmospheric seeing
in the presence of small amplitude guiding errors.
They found that such a PSF anisotropy would introduce an artificial ellipticity
$\delta e_\alpha = P^{\rm sm}_{\alpha\beta}(f_{\rm o}) p_\beta$
where $p_\beta \equiv M_{\beta l m} \int d^2r \; r_l r_m k(r)$
is the unweighted polarization of $k(r)$
(though see \citeN{hfks98} who corrected a minor error in the analysis).
The `smear polarizability' $P_{\alpha\beta}^{\rm sm}$
is a combination of weighted moments of $f_{\rm o}$,
and is essentially a measure of the inverse area
of the object. An interesting feature of this analysis is that only the
second moment of the convolving kernel appears here; all other details
of $k(r)$ are irrelevant, and it is relatively straightforward to determine
$p_\alpha$ from observed stars, set up a model for how this two-vector field
$p_\alpha(r)$ varies across the field, and then correct, at linear order
at least, the ellipticities to what would have been measured by a telescope
with a perfectly circular PSF.
KSB also computed the response of the ellipticity to a shear applied to $f_{\rm o}$
{\sl after\/} smearing with the PSF and found
$\delta e_\alpha = P^{\gamma}_{\alpha\beta}(f_{\rm o}) \gamma_\beta(q)$
where $P^\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ is another combination of moments of $f_{\rm o}$ .
This of course is
not what one wants, as one really needs the response to a shear applied
before smearing with the PSF, and they suggested that one use
deep images from the Hubble Space Telescope to empirically deduce a
correction for finite seeing.
\hide{
There are various ways one can proceed. One possible
approach for calibrating
ground based observations is to take , subject these to an
artificial shear and then degrade the observations to simulate ground-based
seeing, as was done by \citeN{ksb95}.
By measuring how the shapes respond to the
input shear one can empirically determine a response function or
`shear polarizability'
$P^\gamma = \partial \langle q \rangle / \partial \gamma$
which gives the desired calibration factor.
The main limitation of this approach is the paucity of
deep HST fields, which makes it hard to obtain a truly representative
sample of objects.
Another problem is that this procedure cannot
be used to calibrate HST observations themselves, and additionally,
there may be slight problems in calibrating ground-based observations
due to differences in the filter transmission functions.
}
A related approach, suggested by \citeN{wcf96a}
is to iteratively deconvolve
the images, apply a shear and then re-convolve and
again use the change in the polarization with applied shear to
calibrate the relation between $\gamma$ and the polarization measured
from the original images.
\citeN{lk97} have used a somewhat different approach. They
noted that the real operation (\ref{eq:fobsprimedefinition}) can be written as
$g \otimes S_\gamma f = S_\gamma((S_\gamma^{-1} g) \otimes f)$
i.e.~applying a shear before smearing is equivalent to smearing with
an anti-sheared PSF $S_\gamma^{-1} g$ and then shearing. Now if the PSF is Gaussian,
applying a weak shear to it is
precisely equivalent to smearing it with another
small but anisotropic Gaussian, so the effect of this can therefore be computed using
the smear polarizability of KSB, and
it then follows that for a nearly circular Gaussian PSF, the operation
(\ref{eq:fobsprimedefinition})
will cause a response
\begin{equation}
e_\alpha \rightarrow e_\alpha' = e_\alpha + \delta e_\alpha
= e_\alpha + P^\gamma_{\alpha\beta} \gamma_\beta
+ P^{\rm sm}_{\alpha\beta} p_\beta(S_\gamma^{-1} g)
\end{equation}
where $p_\beta(S_\gamma^{-1} g)$ is the unweighted polarization of the
anti-sheared PSF and is of first order in $\gamma$.
One can most easily infer the value of $p_\beta(S_\gamma^{-1} g)$ from the
values of the shear and smear polarizabilities for
a stellar object: shearing a point source has no
effect, so for a star we must have
$p_\alpha = - (P^\gamma(g) / P^{\rm sm}(g)) \gamma_\alpha$
where we have suppressed the indices on the stellar polarizabilities
--- for a nearly circular PSF these are approximately diagonal ---
and hence the net effect of a real shear in this approximation is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lkpolarisability}
\delta e_\alpha = (P_{\alpha\beta}^\gamma(f_{\rm o}) -
(P^\gamma(g) / P^{\rm sm}(g)) P_{\alpha\beta}^{\rm sm}(f_{\rm o})) \gamma_\beta.
\end{equation}
This is nice, as it expressed the linear response of the
polarization $e_\alpha$
to a shear entirely
in terms of the observables $f_{\rm o}$ and $g$, but it
rests somewhat shakily on the assumption that shearing
a realistic PSF can indeed be modeled as smearing
it with some compact kernel. For a Gaussian PSF this is exact,
but this is a rather special, and unfortunately unrealistic, case.
One indication that (\ref{eq:lkpolarisability}) cannot apply
for a general PSF comes from considering the factor
$(P^\gamma(g) / P^{\rm sm}(g))$. At no point have we specified
the scale of the weighting function $w(r)$, so this
factor must be invariant to choice of scale length. For a Gaussian
PSF this is indeed the case, but for a PSF generated by
atmospheric turbulence for instance this is not the case,
and (\ref{eq:lkpolarisability}) is then inconsistent.
Similarly, the factor
$q_\alpha(g) / P^{\rm sm}(g)$ appearing
in the KSB correction for PSF anisotropy
is, in general, dependent on the scale of the window used to
measure the PSF properties.
\citeN{hfks98} have found from analysis of simulated images
that for the
HST WFPC2 instrument one can adjust the scale of the weight
function for the stars to render the calibration (\ref{eq:lkpolarisability})
and the KSB anisotropy correction reasonably
accurate, but
it is not clear that this will apply in general.
Indeed, for diffraction limited seeing, the inadequacy of the
KSB formalism has a deeper root. While the
assumption that the real PSF can be modeled as
a convolution of a circular PSF with some compact kernel $k(r)$ may be
a good approximation for atmospheric turbulence seeing with
small amplitude guiding errors and such-like, as we shall see,
this is not the case in general.
The current situation is therefore somewhat unsatisfactory.
In this paper we will develop an improved method of shear estimation
which does not suffer from the inadequacies noted above
and works for a PSF of essentially arbitrary form.
The layout of the paper is as follows:
In \S\ref{sec:operators} we construct an operator which
generalizes (\ref{eq:linearshearoperator}) to finite size PSF and which
generates the effect of a gravitational shear on the observed
(i.e.~post-seeing) surface brightness $f_{\rm o}$.
We first show that, quite generally,
the effect on $f_{\rm o} = g \otimes f$ of a shear
applied to $f$ is equivalent to a shear applied directly to $f_{\rm o}$
plus a `commutator' term which is a convolution
of $f_{\rm o}$ with a kernel $\gamma_\alpha H_\alpha(r)$
where $H_\alpha(r)$ may be computed from the PSF $g$.
We explore the properties of this kernel for various types and
PSF.
\hide{ and find, for instance, that for seeing arising from
atmospheric turbulence the kernel is not compact, thus invalidating
the calibration procedure using (\ref{eq:lkpolarisability}).
}
The kernel $H_\alpha$ involves $\ln \tilde g$ (where the tilde
denotes the Fourier transform), which appears,
particularly in the case of
diffraction limited seeing, to be formally ill defined since $\tilde g$ vanishes
at finite radius. We show however, that the operator which
generates the effect of a shear on a filtered
image which has had frequencies close to the diffraction limit
attenuated does not suffer from this problem.
In \S\ref{sec:estimators}
we specialize to
weighted second moments, and compute their response to shear,
both for individual
objects \S\ref{subsec:individualresponse} and for the population of galaxies
of a given flux, size and shape \S\ref{subsec:populationresponse}.
In \S\ref{sec:optimisation} we show how to optimally combine estimates of the
shear from galaxies of various different types. The method is tested using
simulated mock images.
In \S\ref{sec:anisotropy} we discuss the correction for
PSF anisotropy,
and
propose a new technique involving measuring shapes from images which have
been convolved with a re-circularizing PSF.
We draw attention to a hitherto ignored noise related bias
and show how this can be analyzed and corrected for.
\hide{In \S\ref{sec:acf} we show how these results can be
extended to calibrate shear estimators
derived from the auto-correlation function
of the sky brightness.}
In \S\ref{sec:discussion} we summarize the main results, and outline
how they can be applied to real data.
In the analysis here we will draw heavily on the
properties of real physical PSFs, and we include
as an appendix a brief review of basic PSF theory and discussion
of PSF properties as they relate to weak lensing observations.
\subsection{Noise Bias}
\label{subsec:noisebias}
In the absence of noise, the recircularization procedure exactly annuls any PSF
anisotropy; the {\sl signal\/} content of the image is exactly statistically isotropic.
The {\sl noise\/} component in the images (which in the original images is incoherent
Poisson noise) will however be correlated with an anisotropic two-point function -- the
peaks and troughs of the noise will appear as ellipses with correlated position
angles. For a given object, the noise is equally likely to produce a positive
or negative fluctuation in the polarization $q_\alpha$, and the effects
cancel out on average. Due to the nature of faint galaxy counts, however, objects of a
given observed flux are more likely to be intrinsically fainter objects which have been
scattered upward in flux than intrinsically brighter objects which have been
scattered down, and there will therefore be
a tendency for faint objects to be aligned like the
re-circularizing PSF; i.e.~oriented opposite to the PSF. We will refer to
this as `noise-bias'.
It should noted that an analogous effect is present in the old
KSB anisotropy correction scheme. In that case the noise is isotropic, but
objects are detected as peaks of a smoothed image and there is then
a tendency for the galaxies close to the threshold for detection to be
aligned like the PSF. In the context of perturbative schemes as described
in \S\ref{subsec:convolutionmodel} there are other unevaluated
errors in the correction which are typically of similar order
to the noise bias effect, which goes some way to explain why it has
been ignored in the past. In the improved
PSF anisotropy correction method proposed here
it is the leading source of error and it behooves us to analyze
and correct for it.
Noise will affect the photometric parameters like $q_\alpha$ in
two ways; in addition to a straightforward additive noise term, noise
will also affect the object detection, and will shift the centroid
about which we measure the centered second moments, for instance.
In fact, the de-centering effect is quite weak. To see why,
consider the following simple (though actually quite practical
and realistic) model for the detection and measurement
process in which we take the
re-circularized image $f_s$ and define objects as peaks of the
field $F(r) = w \oplus f_s$ where $w$ is a some smooth, circularly symmetric
weight function (we typically use a compensated `Mexican hat' filter),
and the object moments $q_A$ are the value of the field
$q_A(r) = w_A \oplus f_s$ evaluated at the peak location.
Let us assume that there exists some object which, in the absence of noise,
would lie at the origin, so for this object we would have
\begin{equation}
\begin{matrix}{
F = F(0) = \int d^2r \; w(r) f_s(r) \cr
0 = d_i(0) = \int d^2r \; (\partial_i w) f_s(r) \cr
q_A = q_A(0) = \int d^2r \; w_A(r) f_s(r)
}\end{matrix}
\end{equation}
where the condition that the object be a peak of $F$
is expressed as the vanishing of the dipole-like quantity
$d_i(r) = \partial_i F$.
If we now add noise, and let $f_s \rightarrow f_s + f_n$,
where $f_n(r)$ is
the noise component of the re-circularized image,
all of the photometric fields
$F(r)$, $d_i(r)$, $q_A(r)$ will change to
$F' = F + \delta F = F + w \oplus f_n$ etc. The dipole
$d_i$ will no longer vanish at the origin, but will have some
value $d_i(0) = \int d^2r\; (\partial_i w) f_n$, and the
peak of $F(r)$ will have moved to some position $r_{\rm pk} \ne 0$.
In the vicinity of the peak we have
$d_i(r) \simeq 0 + (r - r_{\rm pk})_j \times
\partial_j d_i(r)$ and hence, to first order in the
noise amplitude, the peak location is
\begin{equation}
r_{i,\rm pk} = - (\partial_j d_i)^{-1} \delta d_j
= - \left[\int d^2 r\; \partial_i \partial_j w f_s \right]^{-1}
\int d^2r\; \partial_j w f_n
\end{equation}
The shift of the peak has no effect on $F$ at first order (because
$F$ is stationary) but is does affect the central moments $q_A$ and we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:deltaFqnoise}
\begin{matrix}{
\delta F = \int d^2r \; w(r) f_n(r) \cr
\delta q_A = \int d^2 r
\left[w_A(r) - v_{Aj} \partial_j w\right] f_n
}\end{matrix}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
v_{Ai} = \left[ \int d^2r \; (\partial_i \partial_j w) f_s \right]^{-1}
\int d^2 r \; (\partial_i w_A) f_s
\end{equation}
Thus, in general, the first order change in the second moments $q_A$
depends not just on the noise and the kernel $w_A$, but on the
form of the underlying noise-free image $f_s$ through the term involving $v_{Aj}$.
There is good reason to think
that this form dependence is weak for real objects; the function
$\partial_i w_A$ is an odd function, so the extra term vanishes if the galaxy
is symmetric under 180 degree rotations. Also, it is hard to see
why the presence of this term would cause a systematic polarization; the
change in the polarization $\delta q_A$ associated with the centroid
shift is proportional to the vector $v_{Aj}$ which, being a function of the
re-circularised image $f_s$ is equally likely to be positive or negative.
For each galaxy that, for a given realisation of noise, suffers a
certain $\delta q_A$ there is a 180 degree rotated clone which has
precisely the same weighted flux, polarization etc.~(these being
even functions) but which suffers a $\delta q_A$ of opposite sign.
The kind of effect envisioned in the leading paragraph of this sub-section
arises if there is a correlation between fluctuations in the polarisation
and the flux $F$, coupled with a gradient of the density of objects
$n(F)$. The first term in $\delta q_A$ in (\ref{eq:deltaFqnoise})
does, as we shall see, indeed correlate with
$\delta F$, but, when we average over orientation of the underlying
noise-free galaxies, the second does not. Unfortunately, we
have not been able to rigorously demonstrate that the
centroid shift term vanishes. Nonetheless,
in what follows
we will assume that
this term is negligible. This should certainly be adequate in order to
estimate the magnitude of the effect, and is probably sufficiently accurate to
give a useful correction, though the results should strictly be
regarded as only approximate.
Let us now assume one has measured a set of $n$ photometric parameters
$p_i$ for a galaxy which, like $F$, $q_0$, $q_\alpha$, are linear
functions of the
brightness $f_{\rm o}$ and of the form $p_i = \int d^2r \; K_i(r) f_{\rm o}(r)$.
The effect of noise in the images will be to introduce
a perturbation in these parameters $\delta p_i$. These perturbations have
zero mean, $\langle \delta p_i \rangle = 0$, and
since there are typically
a very large number of photons (noise plus signal) contributing to the
parameters $p_i$, the central limit theorem dictates that the $\delta p_i$
will have a multivariate Gaussian distribution:
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\delta p) d^n\delta p = ((2 \pi)^n |C|)^{-1/2}
\exp(- \delta p_i C^{-1}_{ij} \delta p_j / 2)
d^n \delta p
\end{equation}
where the covariance matrix is $C_{ij} = \langle \delta p_i \delta p_j \rangle$
and is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:covariance}
C_{ij} = \int d^2 r \; K_i (K_j \otimes \xi_n)
\end{equation}
where $\xi_n(r) = \langle f_n(r') f_n(r' + r) \rangle$ is the 2-point
function of the noise $f_n(r)$,
and which may be computed as described in appendix \ref{sec:PSFtheory}.
For objects which are detected at a fairly high level of significance $\nu \gg 1$,
the noise will cause a small modification of the underlying distribution
function: $n(p) \rightarrow n'(p)$,
which we can compute in a perturbative manner:
\begin{equation}
n'(p) = \int d^n \delta p \; n(p - \delta p) \sigma(\delta p)
= n(p) - {\partial n \over \partial p_i} \langle \delta p_i \rangle
+ {1\over 2} {\partial^2 n \over \partial p_i \partial p_j} \langle \delta p_i \delta p_j \rangle
+ \ldots
\end{equation}
Since $\sigma(p)$ is an even function, all the odd terms in this expansion
vanish, and we have $n'(p) = n(p) + {1\over 2} C_{ij} \partial^2 n / \partial p_i \partial p_j$
at leading order.
Let us specialize now to the $n=4$ dimensional case: $p_i = F, q_0, q_\alpha$
and compute the mean polarization for galaxies of given $F$, $q_0$
with some weight function $W(q = |q_\alpha|)$:
\begin{equation}
\langle q_\alpha \rangle_{F, q_0} =
{\int d^2q \; W(q) q_\alpha n'(F, q_0, q_\alpha)
\over \int d^2q \; W(q) n'(F, q_0, q_\alpha)} \simeq
{\int d^2q \; W(q) q_\alpha \delta n(F, q_0, q_\alpha)
\over \int d^2q \; W(q) n(F, q_0, q_\alpha)}
\end{equation}
where $\delta n(F, q_0, q_\alpha) = {1\over 2} C_{ij} \partial^2 n / \partial p_i \partial p_j$. Since $q_\alpha$ is an
odd function and $W(q)$, $n(F, q_0, q_\alpha)$ are even,
the only terms which contribute to the integral in the numerator are
those involving a single derivative with respect to polarization:
$\partial^2 n /\partial F \partial q_\beta$ and $\partial^2 n /\partial q_0 \partial q_\beta$ and,
on integrating by parts, we have
\begin{equation}
\langle q_\alpha \rangle =
{- {1\over 2} \int d^2q \;
\left(\langle \delta F \delta q_\beta \rangle {\partial n \over \partial F} +
\langle \delta q_0 \delta q_\beta \rangle {\partial n \over \partial q_0}\right)
{\partial W(q) q_\alpha \over \partial q_\beta}
\over \int d^2q \; W(q) n(F, q_0, q_\alpha)}
\end{equation}
Using
$\partial(W(q) q_\alpha) / \partial q_\beta = \delta_{\alpha \beta} W(q)
+ q_\alpha \hat q_\beta dW / dq$, integrating over angle
and converting from $n(F, q_0, q_\alpha)$ to
$n'(F, q_0, q) = 2 \pi q n(F, q_0, q_\alpha)$ and dropping the prime we have
\begin{equation}
\langle q_\alpha \rangle =
{-{1\over 2} \int dq \;
\left(\langle \delta F \delta q_\alpha \rangle {\partial n \over \partial F} +
\langle \delta q_0 \delta q_\alpha \rangle {\partial n \over \partial q_0}\right)
(W(q) + {1\over 2} q W'(q))
\over \int dq \; n W(q)}
\end{equation}
and letting $W(q)$ become a delta-function to isolate a single value of $q$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noisebias}
n \langle q_\alpha \rangle = - {1\over 2}
\left(\langle \delta F \delta q_\alpha \rangle {\partial n \over \partial F} +
\langle \delta q_0 \delta q_\alpha \rangle {\partial n \over \partial q_0}\right)
\end{equation}
Thus, as anticipated, there is a net induced polarization if
there is a non-zero correlation between the polarization fluctuation
$\delta q_\alpha$ and $F$ and/or $q_0$, and also significant gradients
of the distribution function with respect to $F$ or $q_0$.
The effect
on the re-scaled polarization of the first term in (\ref{eq:noisebias}) is
$\langle q'_\alpha \rangle =
\langle q_\alpha \rangle / F = -({1\over 2} \langle \delta F \delta q_\alpha \rangle
/ F^2)
\partial \ln n / \partial /ln F$ and
is second
order in the inverse significance:
$\langle q'_\alpha \rangle \propto \nu^{-2}$, where $\nu^2 = F^2 / \langle \delta F^2 \rangle$ and
rapidly becomes small for well observed objects.
Thus it should be possible to set a sensible limit on the significance
of object detection, and, if necessary, use
(\ref{eq:noisebias}) together with (\ref{eq:covariance}) for
$\langle \delta F \delta q_\alpha \rangle$ etc.~to correct for this.
The error in
this linearized approximation is of fourth order in the inverse
significance.
As a simple illustrative example consider a Gaussian galaxy
of scale $r_G$, a Gaussian
window function $w$ with scale $r_w$, and a Gaussian ellipsoid
PSF $g = \exp(-(x^2 / r_a^2 + y^2 / r_b^2)/2)$ with
$r_a = r_g(1 + \epsilon / 2)$, $r_b = r_g (1 - \epsilon / 2)$.
A suitable recircularising kernel is then
$g^\dagger = \exp(-(x^2 / r_b^2 + y^2 / r_a^2)/2)$ and
the normalised two point function of the noise is then
\begin{equation}
\xi_n(r) = {1 \over \pi r_a r_b} e^{-(x^2 / 2 r_b^2 + y^2 / 2 r_a^2)/2}
\end{equation}
The expectation averages are, to first order in $\epsilon$,
$\langle \delta F^2 \rangle = 2 (r_w^2 + r_g^2)$;
$\langle \delta q_1 \delta F \rangle = r_w^4 (r_a^2 - r_b^2) / (r_w^2 + r_g^2)
= 2 \epsilon r_w^4 r_g^2 / (r_w^2 + r_g^2)$, and so
taking only the first term in (\ref{eq:noisebias})
for simplicity
\begin{equation}
\langle \delta q_1' \rangle
\equiv {\langle \delta q_1 \rangle \over F}
= - {1\over 2}
{\partial \ln n \over \partial \ln F} {1 \over \nu^2}
{\langle \delta q_1 \delta F \rangle \over \langle \delta F^2 \rangle}
\simeq {1\over 2} {\epsilon \over \nu^2} r_w^4 r_g^2 / (r_w^2 + r_g^2)
\end{equation}
using $\partial \ln n / \partial \ln F \simeq 1$ as observed.
A shear of strength $\gamma$ applied to the Gaussian galaxy
produces a polarisation
\begin{equation}
\langle \delta q_1' \rangle = 4 \gamma r_w^4 r_G^2 / (r_G^2 + r_w^2 + r_g^2)
\end{equation}
therefore a PSF anisotropy of strength $\epsilon$ is equivalent
to an effective shear
\begin{equation}
\gamma = {\epsilon \over 8 \nu^2} {r_g^2 \over r_G^2}
{(r_w^2 + r_g^2 + r_G^2)^2 \over (r_w^2 + r_g^2)^2}
\end{equation}
or, for $r_w = r_G = \sqrt{2} r_g$ say, $\gamma = 25 \epsilon / 144 \nu^2$, which for
$\nu = 6$ and PSF asymmetry $\epsilon = 0.3$, which is a reasonable value
for off-axis points on the CFHT in good seeing,
gives a shear of around $1.4\%$.
This is a sizable effect, and should therefore be corrected for.
\section{Finite Resolution Shear Operator}
\label{sec:operators}
We now consider how the shear operator (\ref{eq:linearshearoperator}) is modified
by finite resolution arising either in the atmosphere, telescope optics
or detector.
Let the unperturbed surface brightness (i.e.~that which would have been
observed in the absence of lensing) be
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm o} = g \otimes f
\end{equation}
so the perturbed surface brightness is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:perturbedsb}
f_{\rm o}' = g \otimes S_\gamma f
\end{equation}
Fourier transforming, and using the result that, at linear order
in $\gamma$,
applying a shear in real space is
equivalent to applying a shear of the opposite sign in Fourier space
(i.e.~if $a = S_\gamma b$ then $\tilde a = S_{-\gamma} \tilde b$,
where $\tilde F (k)\equiv \int d^2 r \; F(r) e^{ik\cdot r}$),
we have
\begin{equation}
\tilde f_{\rm o}' = \tilde g S_{-\gamma} \tilde f =
\tilde f_{\rm o} - \tilde g \delta S_{\gamma}(\tilde f_{\rm o} / \tilde g)
\end{equation}
where $\delta S_\gamma \equiv S_\gamma - 1$.
Since $\delta S_\gamma$ is a 1st order differential operator
we have $\delta S_\gamma(\tilde f_{\rm o} / \tilde g) = \tilde g^{-1}
\delta S_\gamma f_{\rm o} - \tilde g^{-2} \tilde f_{\rm o} \delta S_\gamma \tilde g$,
and $\tilde g^{-1} \delta S_\gamma \tilde g = \delta S_\gamma \ln \tilde g$.
Consequently, to first order in $\gamma$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:deltatildefobs}
\tilde f_{\rm o}' = \tilde f_{\rm o} - \delta S_\gamma \tilde f_{\rm o} +
\tilde f_{\rm o} \delta S_\gamma \ln \tilde g
\end{equation}
or, in real space,
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm o}' = f_{\rm o} + \delta S_\gamma f_{\rm o} - (\delta S_\gamma h) \otimes f_{\rm o}
\end{equation}
where $h$ is the inverse transform of
$\tilde h \equiv \ln \tilde g$, i.e.~the logarithm of the optical transfer function
(OTF).
Invoking the definition of the shear operator
(\ref{eq:linearshearoperator}), we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fobsoperator}
f_{\rm o}' = f_{\rm o} - \gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha i j}
(r_i \partial_j f_{\rm o} - (r_i \partial_j h) \otimes f_{\rm o}).
\end{equation}
Note that the PSF is a real function so $\tilde g(-k) = \tilde g^*(k)$,
and this symmetry is shared by $\ln \tilde g$, so
$h$ is also real.
The finite resolution shear operator (\ref{eq:fobsoperator})
is then $f_{\rm o}' = S_\gamma f_{\rm o} - (\delta S_\gamma h) \otimes f_{\rm o}$,
that is, it is the regular
shear operator $S_\gamma$ applied to the post-seeing image $f_{\rm o}$ plus
a `commutator term' $g\otimes S_\gamma f - S_\gamma(g \otimes f)$
which is a correction for finite PSF size and which is a
convolution of $f_{\rm o}$ with a kernel
$\gamma_\alpha H_\alpha(r) = \gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha i j} r_i \partial_j h = \delta S_\gamma h$
which one can compute
from the PSF $g$. This seems quite promising; the effect of the
first term on the polarization of an object is just $\gamma_\alpha$ times the KSB
post-seeing shear polarizability. The response of the polarization to the second term
should also be calculable; if the kernel is very compact then the
response will be given by the KSB linearized smear polarizability,
but even if it is not,
(\ref{eq:fobsoperator}) should still allow one to compute the
polarization response since it expresses the change in $f_{\rm o}$,
and therefore in the polarization, or indeed any other statistic
computable from $f_{\rm o}$,
directly in terms of the observed
surface brightness $f_{\rm o}$ itself.
The finite resolution shear operator involves the function $h(r)$ which is the
transform of the logarithm of the OTF. Since the OTF becomes exponentially
small or may vanish, two questions immediately arise: Is the function $h(r)$
mathematically well defined? and can it be reliably computed from
PSFs measured from real stellar images? To address these questions we
now explore the form of
this `commutator kernel' $H_\alpha(r)$ for various types of PSF.
\subsection{Gaussian Ellipsoid PSF}
\label{subsec:gaussianshearoperator}
Consider first the simple though unrealistic
case of a Gaussian ellipsoid PSF:
$g(r) = (2 \pi)^{-1} |m|^{-1/2} \exp(-r_i m_{ij}^{-1} r_j / 2)$,
where $m_{ij} = \langle r_i r_j \rangle$ is the matrix of
central second moments.
In this case,
$\ln \tilde g(k) = -k_i m_{ij} k_j/ 2$, and so
$\delta S_\gamma \ln \tilde g(k) =
\gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha i m} m_{mj} k_i k_j$
and on transforming this we find that the kernel is the
operator
$H_\alpha = M_{\alpha i m} m_{mj} \partial_i \partial_j$
(in which case the function $H_\alpha(r)$ can
be realized, for example, as the contraction of the
constant matrix $\gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha i m} m_{m j}$ with
the limit as $\sigma \rightarrow 0$ of the matrix of second partial
derivatives of a Gaussian ball $(2\pi \sigma^2)^{-1} \exp(- r^2 / 2
\sigma^2)$), and therefore
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:GaussianPSFoperator}
f_{\rm o}' = f_{\rm o} - \gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha i j}
(r_i \partial_j f_{\rm o} + m_{il} \partial_l \partial_j f_{\rm o}).
\end{equation}
So, for a Gaussian PSF, the finite resolution shear operator is
well defined and is a purely
local differential operator.
Gaussian PSF's are, however unphysical, and do not
arise in real instruments.
\subsection{Atmospheric Turbulence}
\label{subsec:atmosphericshearoperator}
Now consider atmospheric turbulence limited seeing. As reviewed in appendix \ref{sec:PSFtheory},
in that case
$\tilde g(k) = \exp(- S(k D \lambda / 2 \pi)/2)$ where
for fully developed Kolmogorov turbulence the structure function is
$S(r) = 6.88 (r / r_0)^{5/3}$ with $r_0$ the Fried length, so in this case
$\tilde h \propto \ln \tilde g \propto - k^{5/3}$. The commutator kernel
therefore involves the transform of this power-law, which diverges strongly
at high $k$, so how do we make sense of this?
Dimensional
analysis would suggest
that $h(r) = \int d^2k \; k^{5/3} e^{ik \cdot r}$
be a power law with
$h(r) \propto r^{-11/3}$.
The same argument, however, applied to a Gaussian
would suggest $h(r) \propto r^{-4}$, which we know to be
false as
we have just shown that
in that case $h(r)$ is just the second derivative of a
$\delta$-function and has no extended tail.
To clarify the situation, and to verify the validity of the
power-law form for $h(r)$ for atmospheric seeing,
consider the function $h(r;R)$ which is
the transform of
$k^{5/3}$ times an exponential cut-off function $\exp(-kR)$, that is
\begin{equation}
h(r; R) \propto \int d^2 k k^{5/3} e^{-kR} e^{ik \cdot r}
\end{equation}
so $h(r)$ is the limit as $R \rightarrow 0$ of $h(r;R)$.
If we write this as an integral with respect to
rescaled wavenumber $y = kR$ it becomes clear that
$h(r;R)$ obeys a self-similar scaling with respect to choice of $R$ and
can be expressed in terms of some universal function $F(y)$ such
that $h(r;R) = R^{-11/3} F(r/R)$. If we postulate that
$h(r;R)$ tends to some $R$-independent limit for finite
$r$ as $R \rightarrow 0$
then that limit must be a power law with $F(z) \propto z^{-11/3}$
so $h(r)$ must be proportional to $r^{-11/3}$.
This argument does not indicate the coefficient multiplying the power law which,
for a Gaussian, happens to vanish.
The value of $h$ at the origin is $h(0;R) = 2 \pi R^{-11/3} \Gamma(8/3)$,
i.e.~on the order of the value of the $r \gg R$ power law asymptote extrapolated to
$r \sim R$ (note that for the Gaussian the analogous gamma function
is not defined).
A numerical integration for various values of $R$ is shown
in figure \ref{fig:turbulenthkernel}. This shows that as
we decrease $R$, the function $h(r;R)$ does indeed tend to
a $r^{-11/3}$ power law with finite non-zero $R$-independent amplitude,
but that the power law breaks (with a change of sign) at $r \sim R$
and becomes asymptotically flat for $r \ll R$.
For finite $R$ this
function is well characterized as a positive `softened $\delta$-function'
core with width $\sim R$, central value $\sim R^{-11/3}$ and therefore with
weight proportional to $R^{-5/3}$, surrounded by a negative power
law halo with $h \propto r^{-11/3}$. In the limit $R \rightarrow 0$, the
core shrinks and becomes negligible, leaving only the power law halo.
This power law has the same slope as
the well known large angle
$g(r) \propto r^{-11/3}$ form
of the PSF, but the PSF departs from this law at angular scale $r_g \sim \lambda / r_0$ corresponding
to the Fried length, whereas $h(r)$ is a
perfect power law and shows no features at the Fried scale.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering\epsfig{file=hkernel.ps,width={0.8 \linewidth},angle=0}
\caption{Numerical calculation of
$h(r; R) = \int d^2 k \; k^{5/3} \exp(-kR + i k \cdot r)$
for a range of $R$ values increasing by factors of 2. Also shown
is a pure $r^{-11/3}$ power law.
}
\label{fig:turbulenthkernel}
\end{figure}
The function $h(r)$ diverges strongly at the origin and the same is
true of the kernel $H_\alpha = M_{\alpha i j} r_i \partial_j h$, so
$H_\alpha = - 11/3 r^{-11/3} \{\cos 2 \varphi, \sin 2 \varphi\}$.
This does not give rise to any inconsistency with
(\ref{eq:fobsoperator}) however. The observed sky $f_{\rm o}$ is coherent on the scale
of the PSF $r_g$, so in computing the contribution to the commutator term
\begin{equation}
\delta f_{\rm o} = \gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha i j} \int d^2r' \; r'_i r'_j (r')^{-17/3}
f_{\rm o}(r - r')
\end{equation}
at small $r' \ll r_0$,
we can perform a Taylor expansion of $f_{\rm o}$, and we find that the
first non-vanishing term is the second order term
$\delta f_{\rm o} \sim (\partial_i \partial_j f_{\rm o})_r
\int d^2r'\; r'_i r'_j (r')^{-11/3}$ which has no physical divergence at $r' = 0$.
Somewhat unfortunately perhaps, the same line of argument shows that the commutator
term cannot in this case be assumed to be a convolution with
some compact function $k(r)$.
A necessary condition for this to be valid is that
the unweighted second moment of the kernel
$p_\alpha = M_{\alpha l m} \gamma_\beta \int d^2r\; r_l r_m H_\beta(r)$ should
be well defined and tend to a finite limit within some
small radius $\ll r_g$, the characteristic width of the PSF.
But this is the same integral as above, which
does not tend to any well defined value, but rather diverges as the
$1/3$ power of the upper limit on the integration radius.
Thus while the $h(r) \propto r^{-11/3}$ asymptote
is quite steep, it is not sufficiently steep to render the
$p_\alpha$ value well defined.
This strictly invalidates the
approximation of \citeN{lk97} for turbulence limited seeing.
The Kolmogorov law is only expected to apply over a finite range
of scales. The structure function will fall below the
$r^{5/3}$ form at the `outer scale', which recent measurements
at La Silla suggest to
be typically on the order of 20m (\citeN{mtz+98}, though see also the review
of earlier results in \citeN{azb+97}).
Fast guiding (often referred to as `tip-tilt' correction) would also
effectively reduce the structure function
at these frequencies, and such effects act in a similar
manner to the simple exponential cut-off we have assumed. To compute the
OFT properly, one should include the effect of the aperture.
The detailed form
of $h(r)$ at very small $r$ will be sensitive to the detailed form of the
outer scale cut-off and/or aperture, but
provided these lie at scales much greater than the
Fried length (which is the case for large aperture telescopes at good sites)
the effect on the commutator term should be almost independent of the
cut-off because any signal at the relevant spatial frequencies
will have been attenuated by a large factor.
There will also be deviations from Kolmogorov structure function
law at small separation;
diffusion will damp out fine scale turbulence, and mirror roughness
will add additional high spatial frequency phase errors.
These effects will modify the $h \propto r^{-11/3}$ halo
at large $r$, just as they modify the large-angle $g \propto r^{-11/3}$
form of the PSF. These effects may profoundly influence the
behavior of $h$, $H_\alpha$ at large angle, but
have little impact on the type of shape statistics considered here,
where the large-angle contribution to the polarization is suppressed
by the weight function or the isophotal cut-off.
\subsection{Diffraction Limited Seeing}
\label{subsec:diffractionshearoperator}
Let us now consider
diffraction limited observations.
In this case the OTF $\tilde g$
falls to zero at finite spatial frequency --- the diffraction
limit --- and so $\ln \tilde g$ diverges as one approaches the diffraction
limit from below and is not defined
for higher frequencies.
\hide{This divergence is similar to that which afflicts the deconvolution
operator $\tilde g^{-1}$, and immediately raises worries about
whether convolution with $H$ would be well defined and the
possibility of amplification of noise.}
It is easy to understand how this divergence arises physically.
As noted above, applying a weak shear in real space is equivalent
to applying a shear of the
opposite sign in Fourier space. Thus the information in some Fourier
mode of the sheared image comes from a slightly displaced mode
in the unsheared image. If the OTF $\tilde g$
is finite and continuous,
as is the case for atmospheric turbulence limited
seeing, then the image $f_{\rm o}$ contains all of the information required
to predict $f_{\rm o}'$. For diffraction limited seeing however,
and for observations through a narrow band filter,
the OTF has a well defined edge, so the information contained in $f_{\rm o}$ for
spatial frequencies just inside the cut-off may lie outside the cut-off
in $f_{\rm o}'$ and so will be missing. For a finite band pass the form of the OTF
will be modified, but must still fall to zero at the diffraction limit for the
highest frequencies passed by the
filter and $\ln \tilde g$ is still formally divergent.
Thus, in general, from knowledge of $f_{\rm o} = g \otimes f$, it is
strictly speaking not possible to say how $f_{\rm o}$ would change in
response to a small but finite shear applied before seeing;
there are Fourier modes within a distance $\delta k \sim \gamma k_{\rm max}$ of
the diffraction limit that one cannot predict. As an extreme example,
imagine we have a pure sinusoidal ripple on the sky which lies just outside
the diffraction limit and which is therefore invisible.
Applying an appropriate shear can bring that mode inside the
limit and the ripple will appear as if from nowhere.
As applied to real signals, however,
this formally divergent behavior does not
present a serious problem. First, if we observe
galaxies of overall extent $r_G$, which is typically not much larger than the
seeing disk, then the transform must vary smoothly with
coherence scale $\delta k \sim 1/ r_G$
which, for sufficiently small $\gamma$ will greatly exceed
$\gamma k_{\rm max}$; this rules out the possibility of
isolated spikes lurking just beyond the diffraction limit as in the example.
Also, for filled aperture optical telescopes
the marginal modes are quite
strongly attenuated, and, for any finite measurement
error from e.g.~photon counting statistics, will contain very little
information. The situation here is similar to that encountered
in analyzing atmospheric turbulence PSF; there, while the very small scale details
of $h(r)$ are sensitive to the aperture or outer scale cut-off, when applied to
real data they have essentially no effect. Similarly, if one can generate
a function which accurately coincides with $\tilde h = \log \tilde g$ where
$g(k)$ exceeds some small value, but which tapers off smoothly at larger
frequencies (rather than diverging at $k_{\rm max}$), then this should
have a well defined transform and should give what is, for all practical
purposes, a good approximation to the true finite resolution shear
operator.
One way to explicitly remove the divergence is to compute
shapes from an image which has had the marginally detectable modes
attenuated.
If one re-convolves the observed field $f_{\rm o}$ with some filter function
$g^\dagger(r)$ to make
a smoothed image $f_{\rm s} = g^\dagger \otimes f_{\rm o}$ then in Fourier space we have
\begin{equation}
\tilde f_{\rm s}' = \tilde f_{\rm s} - \tilde g^\dagger \delta S_\gamma \tilde f_{\rm o} +
\tilde f_{\rm o} \tilde g^\dagger \tilde g^{-1} \delta S_\gamma \tilde g
\end{equation}
so provided $\tilde g^\dagger$ falls off at least as fast as $\tilde g$ as one approaches the
diffraction limit this operator
is well defined. In real space the corresponding operator is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fsoperator0}
f_{\rm s}' = f_{\rm s} - \gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha i j} (g^\dagger \otimes ( r_i \partial_j f_{\rm o})
- g^\dagger \otimes (r_i \partial_j h) \otimes f_{\rm o})
\end{equation}
\hide{
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm s}' = f_{\rm s} - \gamma_\alpha (g^\dagger \otimes (M_{\alpha i j} r_i \partial_j f_{\rm o})
- H_\alpha \otimes f_{\rm o})
\end{equation}
}
so now the commutator term is the
convolution of $f_{\rm o}$ with $ H_\alpha = M_{\alpha i j} g^\dagger \otimes (r_i \partial_j h)$.
In principle one can design $g^\dagger$ such that $f_{\rm s}$ is essentially
identical to $f_{\rm o}$; simply set $\tilde g^\dagger$ to unity for all modes
within some tiny distance of the diffraction limit
and zero otherwise. However,
this may not be a very good idea; the sharp edge of
such a filter function in $k$-space will result in
ringing in real space, both in the filter $g^\dagger(r)$ and especially in $H_\alpha(r)$.
These extended wings have no effect on real signal, but will
couple to the incoherent noise in the images, whose spectrum does
not fall
to zero as one approaches
the diffraction limit.
\hide{
There are two possible resolutions to this
obstacle. First, rather than trying to compute the polarizability
of every object individually, one can average the polarization
of galaxies binned by by flux, size and eccentricity say, and
also compute the polarizability for the mean profile, thus
effectively avoiding problems with correlated noise.
}
To ameliorate these problems one
can choose $\tilde g^\dagger$ to have a soft roll-off as one
approaches $k_{\rm max}$ to counteract the divergence
of $1/\tilde g$.
\hide{The optimal choice of filter $\tilde g^\dagger$ must
necessarily depend on the type of signal one is dealing with,
but we suspect that in most cases it corresponds to a smoothing
quite similar to the PSF itself. }
One simple option
is to set $g^\dagger = g$; i.e.~to re-convolve with the
PSF itself. In this case $H_\alpha(r)$ will be about
as compact as the PSF,
and we then have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fsoperator1}
f_{\rm s}' = f_{\rm s} - \gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha i j} (g \otimes (r_i \partial_j f_{\rm o}) -
(f_{\rm o} \otimes (r_i \partial_j g))
\end{equation}
or equivalently
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fsoperator2}
f_{\rm s}' = f_{\rm s} + \gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha i j}
(2 (r_i \partial_j g) \otimes f_{\rm o} - r_i (\partial_j g \otimes f_{\rm o}))
\end{equation}
where we have integrated by parts to avoid explicitly
differentiating the image $f_{\rm o}$.
To summarize, we have shown in (\ref{eq:fobsoperator}) that
the effect on the observed sky $f_{\rm o}$
of a weak shear applied before seeing
can be written as a shear applied after seeing plus a convolution
with some kernel which
is the sheared transform of the logarithm of the OTF, which
can be computed from the
PSF. We have explored the form of this kernel for both Gaussian and
more realistic models for the PSF. For atmospheric turbulence limited
seeing the kernel is a power law $H \sim r^{-11/3}$.
For diffraction limited seeing the shear operator appears formally ill-defined
but this is not a serious problem when applied to
real data and that one can, for example, compute the operator for a slightly
smoothed sky $f_s = g^\dagger \otimes f_{\rm o}$ in a divergence free manner.
We have presented the shear operator for the case where $g^\dagger = g$.
This could potentially be used to compute the response of
the shape statistics measured by the FOCAS and/or Sextractor
packages, as these are measured from just such a re-convolved image,
but we will not pursue this here.
\section{Properties of Optical Point Spread Functions}
\label{sec:PSFtheory}
Here we shall briefly review and derive some properties of
telescope point spread functions
which are used above. For more detailed background the reader should
consult (\citeNP{roddier81}; \citeNP{beckers93}) and references therein.
We will highlight
the wavelength or color dependence of the various
sources of PSF anisotropy, which may
be crucially important for weak lensing searches for large-scale structure
and galaxy-galaxy lensing.
According to elementary diffraction theory \cite{bw64}
the complex electromagnetic field
amplitude $a(x)$ due to a distant source at position $x_{\rm phys}$ on the focal plane
(we will suppress polarization subscripts
for clarity) is given as an integral over the input pupil
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fresnelintegral}
a(x_{\rm phys}) = \int d^2r \; A(r) C(r) e^{2 \pi i x_{\rm phys} r / L \lambda}
\end{equation}
where $A(r)$ is the `pupil function' describing the aperture transmission,
$C(r)$ is the complex electric field amplitude of the incoming
wave,
$\lambda$ is the wavelength of the radiation and $L$ is the
focal length.
The field amplitude $C(r)$ will incorporate any random amplitude and
phase variations of the
incoming wavefronts due to atmospheric turbulence,
whereas constant wavefront distortions due to aberrations in the optical
elements of the telescope are incorporated as a complex factor
in $A$. Thus $a(x)$ is the Fourier
transform of $AC$, evaluated at wave-number $k = 2 \pi i x / D \lambda$. The
PSF $g$ is the square of the field amplitude and
in rescaled
coordinates $x = 2 \pi x_{\rm phys} / L \lambda$, is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:PSF1}
g(x) = |a(x)|^2 = \int {d^2z \over (2 \pi)^2} e^{-ix\cdot z} \tilde g(z)
\end{equation}
where the OTF is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:OTF1}
\tilde g(z) = \int d^2r C(r) C^*(r+z) A(r) A^*(r + z).
\end{equation}
For very short ground-based observations
the atmospheric rippling is frozen and the PSF consists of speckles.
For long exposures we are taking the time average
of the OTF and can replace $C(r) C^*(r+z)$ by its
time average $\langle C(r) C^*(r+z) \rangle = \xi_C(z)$. This
is independent of $r$, so the OTF factorizes into two independent
functions
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:OTF2}
\tilde g(z) = \xi_C(z)
\int d^2 r A(r) A^*(r + z)
\end{equation}
and the same is true for random small scale amplitude or phase
fluctuations introduced by e.g.~random fine scale mirror roughness.
\subsection{Atmospheric Turbulence}
Ground based observations on large telescopes are usually limited by
atmospheric seeing arising from inhomogeneous random
turbulence, and it is a good
approximation to ignore the finite size of the entrance aperture and set
the factor involving $A$ in (\ref{eq:OTF2}) to unity.
In the `near field' immediately behind the turbulent layer,
the effect on the incoming wave
is a pure phase shift
$C(r) = e^{i\varphi(r)}$
where $\varphi = 2 \pi i d(r) / \lambda$ and $d(r)$ is the
vertical displacement of the wavefront due to turbulence.
The displacement $d$ is nearly independent of wavelength, so
$\varphi(r) \propto 1/ \lambda$.
At greater depths this phase shift evolves into a combination of
amplitude and phase variations, but the 2-point
function $\langle C(r) C^*(r+z) \rangle$ remains invariant
(\citeNP{fried66}; \citeNP{roddier81})and
the `natural seeing' OTF is
\begin{equation}
\tilde g(z) = \langle e^{i(\varphi(r) - \varphi(r + z))} \rangle.
\end{equation}
For steady turbulence and long integrations the central limit
theorem guarantees that the phase error $\psi =
\varphi(r) - \varphi(r + z)$ will have a Gaussian probability distribution
$p(\psi) = (2 \pi \langle \psi^2 \rangle)^{-1/2} \exp(- \psi^2 / 2 \langle \psi^2 \rangle)$
and so the time average of the complex exponential is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:expavg}
\langle e^{i \psi} \rangle = \int d\psi \; p(\psi) e^{i \psi} =
\exp(-\langle \psi^2 \rangle / 2) = \exp(-S_\varphi(r) / 2)
\end{equation}
where the `phase structure function' is
\begin{equation}
S_\varphi(\Delta r) \equiv \langle (\varphi_1 - \varphi_2)^2 \rangle.
\end{equation}
There are strong theoretical \cite{tatarski61}
and empirical reasons to believe that
on scales much less than some `outer scale' the turbulence will
have the Kolmogorov $n = -11/3$ spectrum, for which $S_d(r) \propto r^{5/3}$. The
structure function for the phase is conventionally written as
$S_\phi(r) = 6.88 (r/r_0)^{5/3}$ where
$r_0$ is the `Fried length' \cite{fried66} being on the order of tens of cm for
typical observing conditions (an $r_0$ of 20cm gives a FWHM = $0''.5$ at
$\lambda = 550$ nm). The rms phase difference rises with separation
as $r^{5/6}$ in the `inertial range' delimited at the upper end by the
outer scale, set by the width of the mixing layer, which recent
estimates (\citeNP{azb+97}; \citeNP{mtz+98}) find to be around $10-20$m
and much larger than $r_0$. The on-axis OTF computed from stars in deep CFHT imaging
agrees quite well with the theoretical expectation.
The inertial range is limited at the low end by diffusion, but at scales
much smaller than $r_0$, so little error is incurred in ignoring
this; in real telescopes mirror roughness and other effects modify the
OTF at small scales. These effects dominate the PSF at very large radii, but are
unimportant for weak lensing observations.
The optical transfer function is
$\tilde g(k) = \exp(-S_\phi(k D \lambda / 2 \pi) / 2)$ and
is real and positive. The PSF is the transform of $\exp(-6.88(z/r_0)^{5.3})$
with width which scales as $R_{\rm FWHM} \propto \lambda^{-1/5}$
which again is found to apply quite well in practice.
This very weak dependence on
wavelength is a blessing in weak lensing since one uses stars to
measure the PSF for the galaxies, yet the stars and the galaxies may
have different colors.
The atmospheric PSF is expected to be isotropic.
At large angles the PSF has profile $g \propto x^{-11/3}$ so the
unweighted second moment of the PSF is not well defined.
For Kolmogorov turbulence the log of the OTF is just proportional
to $k^{5/3}$ and is well defined for all $k$.
\subsection{Fast Guiding}
According to the Kolmogorov law, the rms wave-front tilt, averaged over scale
$r$ varies as $r^{-1/6}$, which suggests that even for telescopes with
reasonably large $D/r_0$ there may be useful gain in image quality
from fast guiding, and experience with HRCAM on CFHT \cite{mgr+89}
would seem to support this, though part of the dramatic improvement
is likely due to inadequacy of the existing slow guiding system.
A technological advance which may have implications for weak lensing is the
advent of on-chip fast guiding \cite{tbs97} with OTCCD chips. With a mosaic camera
composed of such devices it should be possible to obtain
partial image compensation over a large angular scale,
with one or more guide stars for each `isokinetic'
patch.
The theoretical fast guiding PSF was first explored by \citeN{fried66}
who argued that the OTF should take the form of the natural seeing
or uncompensated OTF times an `inverse Gaussian' $\exp(+\alpha k^2)$,
with scale factor $\alpha$ given in terms of $D$ and $r_0$.
This is a physically reasonable picture, since it implies that the
natural PSF is the convolution of the corrected PSF with a Gaussian
to describe the distribution of tilt,
but is only an approximate result. Modified forms of the `Fried
approximation' have been explored by \citeN{young74} and \citeN{jenkins98}, and
the fast guiding OTF has been simulated by \citeN{christou91}.
It can be shown that in the near-field limit the exact fast-guiding OTF is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fastguiding1}
\tilde g(z) = \int d^2 r\; A(r) A(r + z) \exp(- \langle \psi(r,z)^2 \rangle /2)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fastguiding2}
\langle \psi(r,z)^2 \rangle =
S({\bf z}) + z_i [(W_i \otimes S)_{\bf r} - (W_i \otimes S)_{{\bf r} + {\bf z}}]
- {1\over 2} z_i z_j \int d^2r' \; W_i({\bf r}') (W_j \otimes S)_{{\bf r}'}
\end{equation}
and where $W_i \equiv \partial_i A^2$. Examples are shown in
figure \ref{fig:fastguiding}. These plots show that the impact of
fast guiding on the atmospheric PSF for large telescopes will be rather
modest, at least if current, rather low, estimates of the
outer scale are correct. Fast guiding may, however, yield dramatic improvements
for small ($\sim 1$m diameter) telescopes.
How well this would work depends largely on the altitude of the
turbulent layer. The isokinetic patch size (over which stars
move coherently) is $\sim D / h$ so for $h = 10$km and $D=1$, say,
this is on the order of $20''$, the motion needs to be sampled at
a rate $\gtorder v / D$ reflecting the relatively high wind speed at
high altitude,
and it may then be difficult to
find bright enough guide stars.
There are strong indications (\citeNP{cr85}; \citeNP{tbs97}; \citeNP{mfa+91})
that centroid motions are coherent over much larger angular scales than this,
indicating that much of the image degradation arises from
low-altitude turbulence,
and this greatly improves the outlook as one can determine the
local motion by averaging a number of stars, and one can afford to sample at a lower rate.
A collection of
small telescopes equipped with wide angle OTCCD cameras could be a formidable
instrument for weak lensing or other projects requiring
high resolution imaging over wide fields.
Fast guiding, while offerering important resolution gains, will also
present its own challenges since
one expects the PSF to become sytematically anisotropic
depending on location with respect to the guide stars
for the reasons described by \citeN{mfa+91}.
Also, fast guiding does not cure PSF anisotropies from telescope aberrations.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering\epsfig{file=fastguiding.ps,width={1.0 \linewidth},angle=0}
\caption{Optical transfer functions and corresponding PSFs given by
equations (\ref{eq:fastguiding1}, \ref{eq:fastguiding2})
for a range of telescope aperture diameters:
$1.0$m solid;
$1.5$m dash;
$2.2$m dot-dash;
$3.6$m dotted;
$\infty$ dot-dot-dot-dash.
A von Karman turbulence spectrum
with outer scale of 20m and Fried length $r_0 = 0.2$m were assumed,
and the telescope was assumed to be operating at a wavelength
$\lambda = 550$nm.
}
\label{fig:fastguiding}
\end{figure}
\input dispersion.tex
\subsection{Aberrations}
Aberrations of the optical elements of the telescope can be a significant
contribution to the anisotropy of the PSF.
These can be analyzed in
the same manner as the wavefront deformation due to the atmosphere, but
with a couple of distinctive features: First, for low-order `classical'
aberrations where the phase error varies smoothly,
and for ground based observing conditions, if an aberration is an
important factor then
it's contribution to the OTF will be nearly achromatic.
This is because if there is a smooth variation of the wavefront error
(rather than a Gaussian random field with power at all scales
as in atmospheric turbulence)
amounting to $N \gg 1 $ wavelengths, then the PSF will be very
well approximated by its
geometric optics limit with shape defined
by the pattern of caustics (though for a narrow band filter,
the PSF would actually be found on close examination to be composed of
a set of speckle sized patches
concentrated along the lines where the classical caustics form \cite{bu80}).
The wavefront deformation can
be measured directly from out of focus images \cite{rr93} so this contribution
to the PSF can be directly predicted.
\subsection{Diffraction Limited Seeing}
Truly diffraction limited seeing arises when the rms phase error
across the aperture (due to the atmosphere and/or aberration of the
optical elements of the telescope) is much less than unity. In this case the optical
transfer function $\tilde g(k)$ is, to a good approximation, just the auto-correlation of the aperture
$A\oplus A$ at lag $\Delta r = k D \lambda / 2 \pi$, and
must therefore vanish for spatial frequencies $k > 2 \pi / (f \lambda)$,
where $f$ is the ratio of the aperture diameter to the
focal length.
The log of the OTF becomes ill
defined as one approaches the diffraction limit.
From (\ref{eq:OTF2}) we see that
this cut-off is also present in the case of turbulence dominated
seeing, but it occurs at a high frequency where the the optical
transfer function has already become exponentially small due to
atmospheric effects, and has little impact.
In the absence of aberrations, the OTF for diffraction limited
seeing is real and non-negative. The OTF is symmetric under rotations
of 180 degrees, and so any quadrupole anisotropy of the PSF
can be anulled simply by re-convolving one's image with
a 90 degree rotated PSF.
For diffraction limited seeing the size of the PSF scales as the
inverse of the wavelength, a fact which can be incorporated in
empirical or theoretical \cite{krist95} modeling of the PSF.
In the HST WFPC2, figure errors are not negligible. The imaginary
part of the OTF is excited to the degree that re-convolution with
a 90-degree PSF still leaves non-negligible PSF anisotropy.
The phase errors are not large --- the telescope is nearly
diffraction limited --- so this means that the wavelength
dependence could be quite complicated. The systematic error
arising from differences between faint galaxy and foreground
star SED's can be estimated much as we did for atmospheric
dispersion.
\subsection{Guiding Errors, Pixellisation, and Detector Effects}
\label{subsec:pixellisation}
So far we have considered the continuous distribution of
intensity on the focal plane $f_{\rm o}(r)$. In real
detectors we sample the image with a grid of pixels.
The response of a pixel in not uniform and has been directly
measured for front-illuminated EEV devices by
scanning a small spot of light across the CCD
(\citeNP{jdo93}, \citeNP{jdo94}).
They found very little `leakage' of electrons across pixel boundaries, but
according to the \citeN{krist95} this is a substantial effect for the
WFPC2 instrument on HST; a photon landing in one pixel has a
non-negligible probability of being detected by a neighboring pixel
instead. Such effects are expected, and found, to depend on wavelength.
The value of a pixel is a sample of the convolution of the sky surface
brightness with the `pixel function' $p(r)$.
In many real systems the pixel spacing $d$ is not much less than the
instrumental resolution and
images from single exposures
are quite badly under-sampled. For this and other reasons,
images are typically constructed from a series of exposures with
either systematically (in the case of HST) or
randomly (for terrestrial observations) staggered positions
on the sky. Each image gives a 2-dimensional
grid of samples of $p \otimes f_{\rm o}$, and a piecewise
continuous function $f_I$ can be constructed by shifting the
grid of delta-functions into an absolute astrometric coordinate system
and convolving with some interpolation function $p_{\rm interp}$.
One can incorporate the effect of guiding errors on a
single exposure as a convolution with the pixel function.
If we average a set of $N$ such images the result is
\begin{equation}
F(r) = {1\over N}\sum_I [(f_{\rm o} \otimes p). c_{\Delta_I}] \otimes p_{\rm interp}
\end{equation}
where $c_\Delta(r)$ is a 2-dimensional comb function with
spatial offset (in units of the pixel spacing) $\Delta$:
\begin{equation}
c_\Delta(r) = \sum\limits_{i_x, i_y = -\infty}^{\infty} \delta (r - (i + \Delta))
\end{equation}
The form of $p_{\rm interp}$ depends on the type of interpolation used.
For `nearest pixel' interpolation $p_{\rm interp}$ is just a
uniform box of side $d$, but if one linearly interpolates between the pixel samples,
for example, then $p_{\rm interp}$ will be a more extended, but again readily
computable, function.
The transform of $F(r)$ is
\begin{equation}
\tilde F(k) = \tilde p_{\rm interp}
\sum \limits_{m_x, m_y = -\infty}^{\infty} (\tilde f_{\rm o} \tilde p)_{k - 2 \pi m / d}
{1\over N} \sum_I \exp(2 \pi i m\cdot \Delta_I)
\end{equation}
The $m_x=m_y=0$ term in the first sum here is just the
ideal image $f_{\rm o}$ convolved with $p$ and with $p_{\rm interp}$, while the
higher order terms represent aliasing.
The transform $\tilde F(k)$ being $p_{\rm interp}$ times the superposition of a grid of
images of $\tilde p \tilde f_{\rm o}$ with spacing $2 \pi / d$. Since
$\tilde p$ is a fairly compact function the dominant aliasing comes
from the low-order images $m = \pm 1$.
Aliasing is most severe
for a single exposure since the low-order aliased images contribute with unit
weight.
If we average $N$ randomly shifted images then the
strength of the $m \ne 0$ terms is reduced by a factor $\sim 1 / \sqrt{N}$,
aliasing is greatly reduced, and to a good approximation
the field $F(r)$ is simply the convolution of $f_{\rm o}$ with
$p \otimes p_{\rm interp}$. With systematically staggered
images, as is possible with HST and potentially with fast on-chip
guiding,
one can do even better; with a uniform $M \times M$ grid of offsets
covering the unit pixel, the nearest, and therefore most
problematic, modes $m_x, m_y = \pm 1$ are then zero and the
modes remain small until we get to a multiple of $2 M$ times the
Nyquist frequency.
This assumes that the transformation from detector to sky
coordinates is determined and applied accurately. If we make
finite errors $\delta \Delta$ in registration,
the resulting image will be the
convolution of the ideal PSF with
a highly compact cluster of delta-functions, and the optical transfer function
$\tilde g$ will be the product of the atmospheric, telescope
transfer functions with the Fourier transform of this pattern.
In practice, one can typically register images to a small
fraction of a pixel (say $\ltorder 0.05$ pixels),
and the effect of inaccuracy
at this level will have negligible effect on the final PSF.
Noise in the images, assumed to be incoherent Poisson noise in
the source images, can be analyzed in a similar manner and
we find that the two-point function of the noise is
just the convolution of $p_{\rm interp}$ with itself, and the
two-point function of the noise in re-circularized images can
be obtained by convolving the raw noise ACF with $g^\dagger$ twice.
\section{Weighted Moment Shear Estimators}
\label{sec:estimators}
We now specialize to weighted quadrupole moments as defined in
(\ref{eq:weightedmomentdefinition})
and compute how these respond to shear.
We first compute the response of the moments of an individual
object, and we then compute the conditional mean response for a population
of objects having given flux, size etc.
This will allow us to compute an optimal weight function for
combining shear estimates from galaxies of a different fluxes, sizes
and shapes.
\subsection{Response of Weighted Moments for Individual Objects}
\label{subsec:individualresponse}
Consider again for illustration the case of a Gaussian ellipsoid PSF
$g(r) \propto \exp(-r_i m^{-1}_{ij} r_j/2)$ and moments
$q_{lm} = \int d^2r \; f_{\rm o}(r) w(r) r_l r_m$. From
(\ref{eq:GaussianPSFoperator}), (\ref{eq:weightedmomentdefinition})
we have $q'_{lm} = q_{lm} + \delta q_{lm}$ with
\begin{equation}
\delta q_{lm} = - \gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha i j}
\int d^2r\; w r_l r_m (r_i \partial_j f_{\rm o} + m_{ip} \partial_p \partial_j f_{\rm o})
\end{equation}
Integrating by parts to replace derivatives of $f_{\rm o}$ with
derivatives of $wr_l r_m$
we find the linear response of $q_A \equiv {1 \over 2} M_{Alm} q_{lm}$
to a shear can be written
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:weighteddeltap}
\delta q_A = P_{A\beta} \gamma_\beta
\end{equation}
with `shear polarizability'
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:polarisability}
P_{A\beta} = \int d^2 r \; {\cal P}_{A\beta}(r) f_{\rm o}(r)
\end{equation}
and where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Pdefinition}
{\cal P}_{A\beta}(r) = {1\over 2} M_{Alm} M_{\beta ij} [r_i \partial_j w r_l r_m - m_{ip} \partial_p \partial_j
w r_l r_m]
\end{equation}
For the special case of $w = 1$, i.e.~unweighted moments, we find
${\cal P}_{\alpha\beta}
= \delta_{\alpha\beta}(r_i r_i - m_{ii})$
and hence $\delta q_\alpha = \gamma_\alpha (q_{ii} - m_{ii})
= 2 \gamma_\alpha (q_0 - m_0)$
in accord with the result
obtained in the Introduction. In this case, $P_{\alpha\beta}$
is a combination of zeroth and second moments of $f_{\rm o}$.
For a general PSF and for moments measured from a filtered field
$f_s = g^\dagger \otimes f_{\rm o}$ as
a weighted moment
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:polarisationfromfs}
q_A = {1\over 2} M_{Alm} \int d^2r \; w(r) r_l r_m f_s(r)
\end{equation}
we find
using (\ref{eq:fobsoperator}) that the response $\delta q_A$ can be cast in the same
form, but now with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Pab1}
{\cal P}_{A \beta}(r) ={1\over 2} M_{Alm} M_{\beta ij}
[r_i ( g^\dagger \oplus (\partial_j \omega r_l r_m))
- (r_i h) \oplus g^\dagger \oplus (\partial_j \omega r_l r_m)]
\end{equation}
where we have defined the correlation operator
$\oplus$ such that $(a \oplus b)_r \equiv \int d^2 r'
a(r') b(r' + r)$.
If the moments are measured directly from the unfiltered images $f_{\rm o}$ then one
can replace $g^\dagger(r)$ with a Dirac $\delta$-function to obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Pab2}
{\cal P}_{A \beta}(r) ={1\over 2} M_{Alm} M_{\beta ij} [r_i \partial_j w r_l r_m + (hr_i) \oplus
(\partial_j w r_l r_m)]
\end{equation}
whereas for the special case $g^\dagger = g$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Pab3}
{\cal P}_{A \beta}(r) = {1 \over 2} M_{Alm} M_{\beta ij}
[2 r_i (g \oplus \partial_j(w r_l r_m)) - g \oplus
(r_i \partial_j(w r_l r_m)) ].
\end{equation}
The function ${\cal P}_{\alpha\beta}(r)$
is shown in figure \ref{fig:PSFkernel}
for a turbulence limited PSF and for a Gaussian window function $w(r)$.
Note that (\ref{eq:Pab1}) and (\ref{eq:Pab3}) are well defined continuous functions even in the
limit that the weight function becomes arbitrarily small; i.e.~$w(r) \rightarrow \delta(r)$.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering\epsfig{file=kernel_turb.ps,width={1.0 \linewidth},angle=0}
\caption{The panels on the left show the pair of
functions $w_1$, $w_2$ with
$w_\alpha(r) = {1 \over 2} M_{\alpha l m} w(r) r_l r_m$ which
when multiplied by $f_s$ and integrated give the polarization statistic
$q_\alpha$.
The four panels on the right show the components of the polarizability
kernel ${\cal P}_{\alpha\beta}(r)$ which when multiplied by $f_{\rm o}$ and
integrated yields the polarizability $P_{\alpha\beta}$.
The PSF was computed from a turbulence limited
OTF $\tilde g = \exp(-0.5(kr_*)^{5/3})$, and the smoothing kernel
was $w(r) = \exp(-0.5(r/r_*)^{2})$ with scale length $r_*$ equal to
one eighth of the box side.
}
\label{fig:PSFkernel}
\end{figure}
Equation (\ref{eq:weighteddeltap}), along with the appropriate expression
for $P_{A \beta}(r)$
tells us how the polarization statistic
for an individual object
formed from weighted quadrupole moments responds to
a gravitational shear. This is an essential ingredient in
calibrating the shear-polarization relation for a population
of galaxies. As we shall see in the next section, there are some
subtleties involved, but for now we note that if we
simply average (\ref{eq:weighteddeltap}) over all galaxies on
a patch of sky we have
\begin{equation}
\langle q'_\alpha \rangle - \langle q_\alpha \rangle =
\langle P_{\alpha \beta} \rangle \gamma_\beta
\end{equation}
so an estimate of the net shear is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gammaestimator}
\hat \gamma_\alpha =
\langle P_{\alpha \beta} \rangle^{-1} (\langle q'_\beta \rangle - \langle q_\beta \rangle)
\end{equation}
Which is the generalization of (\ref{eq:calibratedsimpleestimator})
to weighted moments.
The term $\langle q'_\beta \rangle$
in (\ref{eq:gammaestimator}) is the
averaged observed polarization. The term $\langle q_\alpha \rangle$
is the mean polarization generated by anisotropy
of the PSF, and we will show how this can be dealt with below.
Ideally, in averaging polarizations, one should
apply weight proportional to the square of the signal to
noise ratio, which one would expect to be a function of the flux,
size, eccentricity etc.~of the objects. If the shape is measured
with some fairly compact window function $w(r)$,
then the total flux, which may be dominated by the profile of the object at
considerably larger radius, is probably not ideal and one will
likely obtain better
performance if one takes the weight function to be a function of
$q_0$, $q^2 \equiv q_\alpha q_\alpha$ and a weighted flux
\begin{equation}
F = \int d^2r \; w(r) f_s(r).
\end{equation}
The response of $F$ can be computed in much the same
way as $q_A$, and we find from (\ref{eq:fsoperator0})
$\delta F = R_\alpha \gamma_\alpha$ with $R_\alpha =
\int d^2 r \; {\cal R}_\alpha f_{\rm o}(r)$ with
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}_\alpha(r) = M_{\alpha i j}
[r_i (g^\dagger \oplus \partial_j w) - (r_i h) \oplus g^\dagger \oplus \partial_j w)]
\end{equation}
or, for the case $g^\dagger = g$,
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}_\alpha(r) = M_{\alpha i j}
[2 r_i (g \oplus \partial_j w) - g \oplus \partial_j w r_i)].
\end{equation}
In the foregoing we have implicitly assumed that applying
a shear does not affect the location of an object. This is
not necessarily the case. If objects are detected as peaks of
the surface brightness $f_{\rm o}$ smoothed with some detection
filter $w_d$, that is as peaks of $f_d = w_d \otimes f_{\rm o}$, then
for an object which in the absence of shear lies at the origin,
we have $d_i(0) = \partial_i (w_d \otimes f_{\rm o})_0 =
\int d^2 r \; \partial_i w_d(r) f_{\rm o}(r) = 0$ while after applying
a shear we have $d_i(0) = \gamma_\alpha M_{\alpha l m}
\int d^2 r \; \partial_i w_d [r_l \partial_m f_{\rm o} - (r_l \partial_m h) \otimes f_{\rm o}]$.
This will not, in general, vanish, implying that the peak location will
have shifted, and consequently the central second moments should
be measured about the shifted peak location, whereas in the above
formulae we have computed the change in the moments without
taking the shift into account. One could incorporate this effect,
but at the expense of considerable complication of the results.
There is some reason to think that this effect is rather weak.
In particular, if the galaxy is symmetric under rotation by
180 degrees, so $f_{\rm o}(r) = f_{\rm o}(-r)$, then the shift in the
centroid vanishes. In general this is not the case, and
the formulae above should be considered only an approximation.
\subsection{Response of the Population}
\label{subsec:populationresponse}
Equation (\ref{eq:gammaestimator}) above gives a properly calibrated estimate of the
gravitational shear. It is, however, less than ideal as
the polarization average is taken over all galaxies with equal weight.
This is neither desirable
nor is it achievable in practice due to selection limits,
and what one would rather have is an expression for the
average induced polarization for all galaxies in some cell of
flux, size and shape space, which we parameterize by
$F$, $q_0$, and $q^2 \equiv q_\alpha q_\alpha$. One can
then average appropriately weighted combinations of the
average shear estimate for each cell. The mean induced
polarization for such a cell depends not only on the polarizabilities
of the objects contained therein, but also on the gradient of the
mean density of objects as a function of
the photometric parameters $F$, $q_0$, $q_\alpha$. Consider
a slice through this 4-space at constant $F$, $q_0$. A shear will
induce a general flow of particles in this space in
the direction $\hat q_\alpha = \hat \gamma_\alpha$.
The mean polarisation for a cell in $F-q_0-q^2$
is the average around an annulus in $q_\alpha$ space, and
depends quite sensitively on the local slope of the
distribution of particles in $|q_\alpha$.
These factors can have a profound influence on the
weighting scheme; for a distribution which is flat near the
origin in $q_\alpha$ space, like a Gaussian for example, nearly circular
objects have no response and should therefore receive no weight.
For a randomly oriented distribution of circular disk galaxies,
in contrast, the distribution in $q_\alpha$-space has a cusp
at the origin; the response becomes asymptotically infinite, and
these objects dominate the optimally weighted combination.
These examples are both idealized, but underline the importance of
computing the population response in order to obtain
optimal signal to noise.
Let us first compute the conditional mean polarization for
galaxies of a given flux and size:
$\langle q_\alpha \rangle_{F,q_0}$.
The mapping of the photometric parameters $F$, $q_0$, $q_\alpha$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Fq0qmapping}
\begin{matrix}{
F' = F + R_\beta \gamma_\beta\cr
q'_0 = q_0 + P_{0\beta} \gamma_\beta \cr
q'_\alpha = q_\alpha + P_{\alpha \beta} \gamma_\beta
}\end{matrix}
\end{equation}
so we need to consider the distribution of galaxies in
$F,\;q_0,\;q_\alpha,\;R_\alpha,\;P_{0\alpha},\;P_{\alpha \beta}$ with
lensed and unlensed distribution functions related by
\begin{equation}
n'(F', q'_0, q'_\alpha, R'_\alpha, P'_{0\alpha}, P'_{\alpha \beta})
dF' dq'_0 d^2 q' d^2 R d^2 P'_0 d^4 P' =
n(F, q_0, q_\alpha, R_\alpha , P_{0\alpha}, P_{\alpha \beta})
dF dq_0 d^2 q d^2 R d^2 P_0 d^4 P.
\end{equation}
Multiplying by $W(F', q'_0) q'_\alpha$, where
$W$ is some arbitrary
function,
and integrating over all variables we have
\begin{equation}
\int dF' dq'_0 d^2 q' d^2 R d^2 P'_0 d^4 P' n' W(F', q'_0) q'_\alpha
= \int dF dq_0 d^2 q d^2 R d^2 P_0 d^4 P n
W(F + \delta F, q_0 + \delta q_0) (q_\alpha + \delta q_\alpha).
\end{equation}
Now to zeroth order in $\gamma$ this vanishes because of statistical
anisotropy of the unlensed population, so using (\ref{eq:Fq0qmapping}) for $\delta F$ etc.~and
performing a Taylor expansion
of $W(F + \delta F, q_0 + \delta q_0)$ and integrating by parts we have
\begin{equation}
\int dF'
\hide{dq'_0 d^2 q' d^2 R' d^2 P'_0}
\ldots d^4 P' \; n' W(F', q'_0) q'_\alpha
= \gamma_\beta \int dF
\hide{dq_0 d^2 q d^2 R d^2 P_0}
\ldots d^4 P \;
W(q_0) \left(n P_{\alpha \beta} - P_{0\beta} q_\alpha {\partial n \over \partial q_0}
- R_\beta q_\alpha {\partial n \over \partial F} \right).
\end{equation}
To first order in $\gamma$ we can replace unprimed by primed
quantities throughout the integral on the RHS since we need to
compute this only to zeroth order accuracy. We now have a relation between the
mean value of the observed polarization on the LHS
and some other observable, again
integrated over the distribution of observed galaxy properties (rather than of the unlensed parent
distribution).
Since $W(q_0)$ is arbitrary, and dropping primes, this implies
\begin{equation}
\int d^2 q d^2 R d^2 P_0 d^4 P n q_\alpha
= \gamma_\beta \int \cdots \int d^2 q d^2 R d^2 P_0 d^4 P
\left(n P_{\alpha \beta} - P_{0\beta} q_\alpha {\partial n \over \partial q_0}
- R_\beta q_\alpha {\partial n \over \partial F} \right)
\end{equation}
or equivalently, that the conditional average polarization is
\begin{equation}
\langle q_\alpha \rangle_{F, q_0} = \gamma_\beta
\left[\langle P_{\alpha \beta} \rangle - {1 \over n} {\partial n \langle P_{0\beta} q_\alpha \rangle \over \partial q_0}
- {1 \over n} {\partial n \langle R_{\beta} q_\alpha \rangle \over \partial F}
\right]_{F, q_0}
\end{equation}
where $n = n(F, q_0)$.
Thus, as expected, the shear induced shift in the mean polarization for
galaxies of a given size and flux
differs from the mean of the shift $\delta q_\alpha = P_{\alpha \beta} \gamma_\beta$ for
an individual object. This is because a shear
changes the weighted flux and size of an object in a way which is correlated with its
shape. When we average the
shear for galaxies in some cell in flux-size space we are averaging
over galaxies which have been scattered in size and flux and we obtain
a bias in the net polarization which depends on the gradients of the
distribution function.
We can generalize this to compute the response for galaxies
of given flux $F$, size $q_0$, and rotationally invariant shape parameter
$q^2 = q_\alpha q_\alpha$. To do this, we set
$q_\alpha = q \hat q_\alpha$ with the unit polarization vector
$\hat q_\alpha = \{\cos \varphi, \sin \varphi\}$, so
$d^2q = q dq d\varphi$.
We then have, now for some arbitrary function $W(F, q_0, q^2)$,
\begin{equation}
\int dF' dq'_0 d{q^2}' d\varphi' d^2 R d^2 P'_0 d^4 P' n'
W(F', q'_0, {q^2}') q'_\alpha
= \int dF dq_0 dq^2 d\varphi d^2 R d^2 P_0 d^4 P n
W(F + \delta F, q_0 + \delta q_0, q^2 + \delta q^2)
(q_\alpha + \delta q_\alpha)
\end{equation}
where now $n = n(F, q_0, q^2, \varphi, R_\alpha, P_{0\alpha}, P_{\alpha \beta})$.
Using $\delta F$ etc.~from (\ref{eq:Fq0qmapping}) and $\delta q^2 = 2 q_\eta P_{\eta \beta} \gamma_\beta$
we have
\begin{equation}
\int d\varphi d^2 R d^2 P_0 d^4 P n q_\alpha
= \gamma_\beta \int d\varphi d^2 R d^2 P_0 d^4 P
(n P_{\alpha \beta} -R_\beta q_\alpha \partial n / \partial F - P_{0\beta} q_\alpha \partial n / \partial q_0
- 2 P_{\eta \beta} \partial n q_\eta q_\alpha / \partial q^2)
\end{equation}
or equivalently $\langle q_\alpha \rangle_{F, q_0, q^2} = {\overline P}_{\alpha \beta} \gamma_\beta$
with effective polarizability
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Peff1}
{\overline P}_{\alpha \beta} = \langle P_{\alpha \beta} \rangle
- {2 \over n} {\partial n \langle q_\eta P_{\eta \beta} q_\alpha \rangle \over \partial q^2}
- {1 \over n} {\partial n \langle P_{0\beta} q_\alpha \rangle \over \partial q_0}
- {1 \over n} {\partial n \langle R_{\beta} q_\alpha \rangle \over \partial F}
\end{equation}
where now $n = n(F, q_0, q^2)$, and all averages are at fixed $F, \; q_0, \; q^2$.
The photometric parameters $q_0, q_\alpha$ appearing here are
unnormalized. This is convenient for computing the linear response
functions. It is, however, somewhat awkward here since the distribution
function $n(F, q_0, q^2)$ is highly skewed since $q_0$ and $q^2$ correlate
very strongly with the flux. In computing the effective polarizability
it is more convenient to work with rescaled variables $q_0' = q_0 / F$, and
${q^2}' = q^2 / F^2$. The distribution function in rescaled variables is
\begin{equation}
n'(F, q_0', {q^2}') = F^3 n(F, q_0, q^2).
\end{equation}
If we also re-scale the polarizabilities $R_\alpha' = R_\alpha / F$,
$P_{A\beta}' = P_{A\beta} / F$, ${\overline P}_{A\beta}' = {\overline P}_{A\beta} / F$,
re-express (\ref{eq:Peff1}) entirely in terms of primed quantities and
then drop the primes
we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Peff2}
{\overline P}_{\alpha \beta} = \langle P_{\alpha \beta} \rangle
- {2 \over n} {\partial n \langle q_\eta P_{\eta \beta} q_\alpha \rangle \over \partial q^2}
- {1 \over n} {\partial n \langle P_{0\beta} q_\alpha \rangle \over \partial q_0}
+ {1 \over n} \left[1 - {\partial \over \partial \ln F} + {\partial \over \partial \ln q_0} + 2 {\partial \over \partial \ln q^2}
\right] n \langle R_\beta q_\alpha \rangle
\end{equation}
where we have used the result that for any function
$X(F, q_0', {q^2}')$ the partial derivative WRT $F$ at constant $q_0$, $q^2$ is
$(\partial X(F, q_0', {q^2}') / \partial F)_{q_0,q^2} = \partial X / \partial F - (q_0'/F) \partial X / \partial q_0' -
(2 {q^2}'/F) \partial X /\partial {q^2}'$ to compute the term involving $R_\alpha$.
The rather cumbersome expression (\ref{eq:Peff2}) calibrates
the relation between the shear and the
mean polarization for galaxies in a small cell in flux-size-shape
space. To compute it we need to bin galaxies in this space to
obtain the mean density $n$ and the various averages appearing here,
and then perform the indicated partial differentiation. The form
(\ref{eq:Peff2}) is somewhat inconvenient as the density $n(F, q_0, q^2)$
is asymptotically constant as $q^2 \rightarrow 0$ and one has to
properly deal with the discontinuous
derivative at this boundary. A computationally
more convenient approach is to make one final transformation from
$q^2 \rightarrow q$; since $n(F, q_0, q) = 2 q n(F, q_0, q^2)$ falls to
zero as $q \rightarrow 0$, and there is then no need for any special treatment of the
derivatives at the boundary. With this transformation we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Peff3}
{\overline P}_{\alpha \beta} = \langle P_{\alpha \beta} \rangle
- {1 \over n} {\partial n \langle q_\eta P_{\eta \beta} \hat q_\alpha \rangle \over \partial q}
- {1 \over n} {\partial n \langle P_{0\beta} q_\alpha \rangle \over \partial q_0}
+ {q \over n} \left[1 - {\partial \over \partial \ln F} + {\partial \over \partial \ln q_0} + {\partial \over \partial \ln q}
\right] n \langle R_\beta \hat q_\alpha \rangle
\end{equation}
where now $n = n(F, q_0, q)$.
What about measurement noise?
Let us assume that one has been given an image containing signal and
measurement noise, and that one has detected objects, and measured
quantities like $F$, $q_A$. How would these photometric
parameters change under the influence of a gravitational shear?
The answer is given by (\ref{eq:Fq0qmapping}), but with the
understanding that $R_\beta$, $P_{0\beta}$ etc.~be the
response functions one would measure in the absence of
noise. This means that (\ref{eq:Peff3}) is also applicable
with the same proviso. The major terms in (\ref{eq:Peff3}) are
however invariant of additive noise. The exceptions are
the terms invoving $\langle P_{0\beta} q_\alpha \rangle$ and
$\langle R_\beta q_\alpha \rangle$ which are quadratic
in the sky surface brightness. The measured expectation
values $\langle P_{0\beta} q_\alpha \rangle$ etc.~therefore
exceed the true values, but by an amount one can
calculate from the known properties of the measurement
noise.
Another implicit assumption in the above analysis is that
the objects are actually detected, which restricts
applicability to objects which are detected at a reasonable
level of significance. Aside from this, the results
above should be applicable in the presence of measurement
noise.
To test these claims we have made extensive
simulations with mock data, the details of which are described in
appendix \ref{sec:simulation}.
Figure \ref{fig:Pplot} shows the results of one of these. The actual
polarization agrees quite closely with the effective polarizability,
even for very faint objects. While the differences between the
effective polarizability and that for individual objects is
not very large - typically on the order of 20\% or so - the
effective polarizability clearly describes the true response
more faithfully.
We shall now use (\ref{eq:Peff3}) to construct a minimum variance weighting scheme
for combining shear estimates.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering\epsfig{file=Pplot.ps,width={1.0 \linewidth},angle=0}
\caption{The top panel shows the density of galaxies detected in the simulations
described in appendix \ref{sec:simulation}
as a function of $F$, $q_0$, $|q|$. Each of the sub-plots
shows the density at fixed $F$ with abscissa $|q|$ and
ordinate $q_0$. These sub plots are arranged with flux increasing
from left to right with flux $F$ increasing by a factor 1.43 at
each step. All particles detected with significance level greater
than 4-sigma are shown. The panel below this shows the density of
particles weighted by the individual object polarizability, and
the panel below that shows the density weighted by the effective
polarizability given by (\ref{eq:Peff3}).
The lower plot shows the density of objects weighted
by the actual polarization (divided by the shear applied in the
simulation, or $\gamma = 0.1$ in this case).
}
\label{fig:Pplot}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Optimal Weighting with Flux, Size and Shape}
\label{sec:optimisation}
Armed with the conditional mean polarization
$\langle q_\alpha \rangle_{F, q_0, q^2}$ we can now compute an
optimal weight (as a function of, for example,
flux $F$, size $q_0$, and eccentricity $q^2)$ for combining the
estimates of the shear from galaxies of different types.
Let us assume that one has measured fluxes etc.~for a very large
number of galaxies --- from an entire survey say --- and
that from these data one has determined the mean number density
of galaxies $n(F, q_0, q^2)$ and also the various
conditional averages and gradients
that appear in (\ref{eq:Peff3}). Now consider
a relatively small spatial subsample
of these galaxies and bin these into cells in $F, q_0, q^2$
space, and for each bin compute the occupation number $N$ and
the summed polarization $\sum q_\alpha$.
A shear estimator for a cell which
happens to have occupation number $N$ is
\begin{equation}
\hat \gamma_\beta = {\overline P}^{-1}_{\alpha \beta} \sum q_\alpha / N.
\end{equation}
To simplify matters, let us neglect for now any anisotropy of the
point spread function, in which case we can write
${\overline P}_{\alpha \beta} = {\overline P} \delta_{\alpha \beta}$ where ${\overline P} \equiv {\overline P}_{\eta\eta} / 2$
and we then have
\begin{equation}
\hat \gamma_\beta = {1\over N {\overline P}} \sum q_\beta .
\end{equation}
The expectation value for the variance in $\hat \gamma$ (for a cell which
happens to contain $N$ galaxies) is
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat \gamma^2 \rangle =
\langle \sum q^2 \rangle / (N^2 {\overline P}^2) = q^2 / N{\overline P}^2
\end{equation}
where we have used $\langle (\sum q_\alpha) (\sum q_\alpha) \rangle =
\langle \sum q^2 \rangle$ since, in the limit of weak shear, the
galaxy polarizations are uncorrelated.
As different cells give shear estimates whose fluctuations are
mutually uncorrelated, the optimal way to combine the shear estimates from
all the cells is to average them with weight per cell
$W_{\rm cell} \propto 1 / \langle \hat \gamma^2 \rangle
= N{\overline P}^2 / q^2$ to obtain a final optimized total shear estimate
\begin{equation}
\hat \gamma_\alpha^{\rm total} =
{\sum\limits_{\rm cells} (N {\overline P}^2 / q^2) ({1\over N {\overline P}} \sum q_\alpha ) \over
\sum\limits_{\rm cells} N{\overline P}^2 / q^2}
= {\sum\limits_{\rm galaxies} {\overline P} q_\alpha / q^2 \over
\sum\limits_{\rm galaxies} {\overline P}^2 / q^2}
= {\sum\limits_{\rm galaxies} Q \hat q_\alpha \over
\sum\limits_{\rm galaxies} Q^2}
\end{equation}
where $Q \equiv {\overline P} / q$.
Thus the optimized cell weighting scheme corresponds to averaging the
shear estimates from individual galaxies
$\hat \gamma_\alpha^{\rm galaxy} = q_\alpha / {\overline P}$
(for galaxies of given $F, q_0, q^2$)
with weights $W_{\rm galaxy} = {\overline P}^2 / q^2$.
\hide{Note that while the
estimator (....) for the shear for an individual cell appears to be ill defined
for empty cells, the final result is well defined since the empty cells
receive zero weight.}
The variance in the total shear estimator is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:totalvariance}
\langle \gamma^2 \rangle =
{\sum Q^2 \langle \hat q^2 \rangle \over (\sum Q^2)^2} =
(\sum Q^2)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
The quantity $\sum Q^2$ is extensive with the number of galaxies and
its value, per unit solid angle of sky, provides a useful figure
of merit for weak lensing data. From a 2.75hr I-band integrations
of solid angle $d\Omega = 0.165$ square degrees at CFHT taken
in good seeing ($0''.60$ FWHM) we obtained $\sum Q^2 \simeq 4.7\times 10^4$
\cite{kwl+98} or
$\sum Q^2 / d \Omega \simeq 2.85 \times 10^5 / {\rm sq\; degree}$, so
with data of this quality, the statistical
uncertainty in the net shear (per component) measured over one square degree would
be around $\sigma_\gamma \simeq (2 \times 2.85 \times 10^5)^{-1/2}
= 1.32 \times 10^{-3}$.
This figure of merit allows one to tune the parameters of one's shape measurement
scheme, such as the weight function scale size, in an unbiased and objective
manner.
The weighting scheme derived above is appropriate if the shear is independent
of the measured flux etc. This is the case for lensing by low redshift
clusters where for all relevant values of source redshift the
sources are effectively `at infinity' and the shear has saturated at its value for
an infinitely distant source $\gamma^{\infty}_\alpha$. For high
redshift lenses the shear will vary with source redshift, and if
one has some, perhaps probabilistic, distance information
at one's disposal, then the weighting scheme should be modified.
Let us assume that the measured photometric properties $p_i$ of some
object indicate it has a probability distribution to be at
distance $z$ of $p(z|p_i)$; with high resolution spectroscopy this would be
a delta-function at the measured redshift whereas with only broadband
colors the conditional probability would be smeared out and perhaps
multimodal. The conditional mean shear for this object, for a given
a foreground lens, is proportional to the mean inverse critical
critical surface density, and the optimal estimate for the
shear at infinity is
\begin{equation}
\hat \gamma_\beta^\infty = {1 \over \Sigma_{\rm crit}(\infty)}
{\sum\limits_{\rm galaxies} \langle 1 / \Sigma_{\rm crit}(z) \rangle Q q_\alpha
\over \sum\limits_{\rm galaxies} \langle 1 / \Sigma_{\rm crit}(z) \rangle^2 Q^2 }
\end{equation}
\section{Simulated Data}
\label{sec:simulation}
To test the procedures described here we have generated simulated mock
data and then analysed these. The simulations were made to match
as closely as possible observations of $\sim 3$hr integration
on the CFHT with $0''.6$ seeing.
We first generated a set of 200 mock catalogue of galaxies each
corresponding to a patch of sky of size $2'.56$ on a side. Galaxies were
drawn from a Schechter style luminosity function laid down in
a Poissonian manner in an Einstein de Sitter cosmology. Images with pixel scale
$0''.075$ were then generated by realising the galaxies as
exponential disks
with
random orientations and scale lengths corresponding
to fixed rest frame central surface brightness. The galaxies were modelled as
optically thick, since the optically thin model looks unrealistic
as it has too many very bright edge-on systems as compared to real images.
A number of point-like stars were added to the images, which were then
sheared with $\gamma = 0.1$, convolved with a
Kolmogorov turbulence PSF with $0''.6$ FWHM, and then rebinned to $0''.15$ pixel
scale. When the real data are analysed they are interpolated from the
original $0''.2$ pixel scale to the final $0''.15$ scale with bi-linear
interpolation. This results in a further convolution of the signal and
the noise in the real images, but with slightly different smoothing
kernels. These kernels were computed by modelling the image shifts as
a uniform distribution within the final pixel size; the noise-free mock
images were convolved with the appropriate kernel and then Gaussian
white-noise images were generated to model the sky noise, and were convolved
with the appropriate kernel and then added to the images. A sample
image is shown in figure \ref{fig:cfhvssim_images}, and the
corresponding size-magnitude diagram is shown in figure
\ref{fig:cfhvssim_cats}, from which it is apparent
that the simulated objects have properties very similar
to those detected in the real data.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering\epsfig{file=cfhvssim_images.ps,width={1.0 \linewidth},angle=0}
\caption{Simulated and real image sections $2'.56$ on a side.}
\label{fig:cfhvssim_images}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering\epsfig{file=cfhvssim_cats.ps,width={1.0 \linewidth},angle=0}
\caption{Catalogs from image sections shown in figure \ref{fig:cfhvssim_images}.
}
\label{fig:cfhvssim_cats}
\end{figure}
These data were analysed exactly like the real data. That is,
the objects were detected as peaks of a smoothed image. The stars were
extracted and their shapes fit in the manner described to obtain the PSF.
A smoothed image $f_s = g \otimes f_{\rm o}$ was generated and from this the polarisation
$q_\alpha$ was computed using (\ref{eq:polarisationfromfs}),
and the polarisability for each
object was computed using (\ref{eq:Pab3}).
|
\section{Introduction}
The existence of a galactic population of $\gamma$-ray sources
is known since the days of the COS B experiment (Swanenburg et al. 1981).
Montmerle (1979) showed that about 50 \% of the unidentified COS B
detections lie in regions containing young objects, like supernova remnants
(SNRs)
and OB massive stars. He suggested that the $\gamma$-ray emission could
stem from $\pi^0$-decays resulting from hadronic interactions of high-energy
protons (or nuclei) and ambient matter. These protons would be locally
injected by young stars in the SNR shocks where they would be diffusively
accelerated up to high energies by Fermi mechanism.
Cass\'e \& Paul (1980) argued that particle acceleration at the
terminal shock of strong stellar winds alone could be responsible
for the $\gamma$-ray sources without the mediation of the SNR shock waves
advocated by Montmerle. Gamma-ray production in shocks generated by
massive stars has been discussed since then, and from different points of
view, by V\"olk \& Forman (1982), White (1985), Chen \& White (1991a,b), and
White \& Chen (1992), among others.
Since 1991, with the advent of the Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment
Telescope (EGRET)
onboard the Compton satellite, the observational data on galactic
$\gamma$-ray sources have been dramatically improved. Two of the previously
unidentified COS-B sources, Geminga and PSR 1706-44, are now known
to be pulsars. The detection of pulsed high-energy emission from other
sources (there are seven $\gamma$-ray pulsars so far, see Thompson 1996
for a review) and the identification of Geminga as a radio quiet object
have prompted several authors to explore the possibility that all
unidentified low latitude sources in the Second EGRET (2EG) catalog
(Thompson et al. 1995, 1996) are pulsars (with the
exception of a small extragalactic component which is seen through the
Galaxy). In particular, Kaaret \& Cottam (1996) have used OB
associations as pulsar tracers finding out a significant positional
correlation with 2EG unidentified sources. A similar study,
including SNRs and HII regions (these latter considered as tracers of
star forming regions and, consequently, of possible pulsar concentrations),
has been carried out by Yadigaroglu \& Romani (1997), who concluded
that the pulsar hypothesis for the 2EG sources is consistent with the
available information.
However, recent spectral analyses made by Merck et al. (1996) and Zhang
\& Cheng (1998) clearly show that several 2EG sources are quite at odds
with the pulsar explanation. Time variability in the $\gamma$-ray flux of
many sources also argues against a unique population behind the
unidentified galactic $\gamma$-ray detections (McLaughlin et al. 1996,
Mukherjee et al. 1997).
Sturner \& Dermer (1995) and Sturner et al. (1996) have investigated the
possible association of $\gamma$-sources with SNRs, finding significant
statistical support for the idea that some remnants could be
$\gamma$-ray emitters. Esposito
et al. (1996) have shown that five 2EG sources are coincident with well
known SNRs and, more recently, Combi et al. (1998a) have detected a new
shell-type SNR at the position of 2EGS J1703-6302, as well as an interacting
compact HI cloud, through multiple radio observations, clearly demonstrating,
in this way, that at least some EGRET detections are physically related
to SNRs.
With the publication of the Third EGRET (3EG) catalog of high-energy
gamma-ray sources (Hartman et al. 1999),
which includes data from Cycles 1 to 4 of the space
mission, new and valuable elements become available to deepen the quest
for the nature of the unidentified $\gamma$-ray sources. The new catalog
lists 271 point sources, including 170 detections with no conclusive
counterparts at other wavelengths. Of the unidentified sources, 74 are
located at $|b|<10^o$ (this number can be extended to 81 if we include
sources with their 95 \% confidence contours reaching latitudes $|b|<10^o$).
This means that the number of possible galactic unidentified sources is now
nearly doubled respect to the 2EG catalog.
Can these new sources be associated with pulsars? How many sources could be
ascribed to known SNRs? Is there new statistical evidence for the
identification of some detections in the 3EG catalog with massive stars
that generate very strong winds? In the present paper we investigate these
questions in the light of the new $\gamma$-ray data of the 3EG catalog.
We use numerical simulations (constrained by adequate boundary conditions)
of $\gamma$-ray source populations to weight the statistical
significance of the different levels of positional coincidences determined
for diverse types of candidates such as individual massive stars (Wolf-Rayet
and Of stars with strong stellar winds), SNRs, and OB associations.
The contents of the paper are as follows.
In the next section we describe the numerical procedure implemented for
the analyses. Sections 3, 4, and 5 deal with the possible association of
unidentified 3EG sources with stars, SNRs, and star-forming regions
considered as pulsar tracers, respectively. In Section 6 we present some
further comments and, finally, in Section 7, we draw our
conclusions.
\section{Numerical simulations and statistical results}
With the aim of finding the positional coincidences between 3EG unidentified
sources at $|b|<10^o$ and different populations of galactic objects, we
have developed a computer code that determines the angular distance
between two points in the sky, taking into account the positional
uncertainties in each of them. The code can be used to obtain a list of
$\gamma$-ray sources with error boxes (here assumed as the 95 \%
confidence contours given by the 3EG catalog) overlapping different kinds
of objects, both extended (like SNRs or OB associations) and punctual
(like stars).
We run the code with the 81 unidentified EGRET sources at galactic
latitudes $|b|<10^o$ and
complete lists of Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars, Of stars, SNRs, and OB associations.
These lists were obtained from van der Hucht et al. (1988), Cruz-Gonz\'alez
et al. (1974), Green (1998), and Mel'nick \& Efremov (1995), respectively.
We have found that 6 $\gamma$-ray sources of the 3EG catalog are positionally
coincident with WR stars, 4 with Of stars, 22 with SNRs, and 26 with OB
associations.
In order to estimate the statistical significance of these coincidences,
we have simulated a large number of sets of EGRET detections, retaining for
each simulated position the original uncertainty in its galactic
coordinates. Specifically, in each case we have generated by computer 1500
populations of 81 $\gamma$-ray sources through rotations on the celestial
sphere, displacing a source with original coordinates
$(l,b)$ to a new position $(l^\prime,b^\prime)$.
The new pair of coordinates is obtained
from the previous one by setting $l^\prime=l+ R_1 \times 360^o$.
Here, $R_1$ is a random number between 0 and 1, which
never repeats neither from source to source nor from set to set.
Since we are simulating a galactic source population and not arbitrary
sets at $|b|<10^o$, we impose that the new distribution (i.e. each of the
simulated sets) retains the form of the actual histogram in latitude of
the unidentified 3EG sources, with 1$^o$ or 2$^o$-binning. The histogram,
for 1$^o$-binning, is shown in Figure ~\ref{fig.1}.
In order to accomplish the mentioned constraint, we make
$b^\prime=b + R_2 \times 1^o$, and then, if the integer part of $b^\prime$
is greater than the integer part of $b$ or if the sign of $b^\prime$
and $b$ are different, we replace $b^\prime$ by
$b^\prime - 1^o$. Here, again, $R_2$ is a random number between
0 and 1. This ensures that the new set of artificial positions preserves
the actual histogram in latitude at 1$^o$-binning. Similarly, a
2$^o$-binning distribution can be maintained. Both sets of simulations
provide comparable results.
The unidentified 3EG sources have, additionally, a non-uniform
distribution in galactic longitude, showing a concentration towards
the galactic center. However, when doing the simulations, we imposed no
constraints in longitude because we wanted to consider any kind of
possible galactic populations.
Once we performed 1500 simulations for each type of counterparts (a larger
number of simulations do not significantly modify the results), we
estimated the level of positional coincidences between each simulated
set and the different galactic populations under consideration. From these
results we obtained an average expected value of chance associations and a
corresponding standard deviation. The
probability that the observed association level had happened by chance
was then evaluated assuming a
Gaussian distribution of the outputs. The results of this study are
shown in Table 1, where we list, from left to right, the type of
object under study, the number of actual positional coincidences,
the number of expected chance coincidences according to 1$^o$-binning
simulations, the probabilities that the actual coincidences can be due
to chance, and the similar results for simulations with 2$^o$-binning.
From Table 1, it can be seen that there is a strong statistical correlation
between unidentified $\gamma$-ray sources of the 3EG catalog and SNRs
(at $\sim6\sigma$ level) as well as with OB associations (at
$\sim4\sigma$ level). Regarding the stars, we find that there is a
marginally significant correlation with WR and Of stars
($\sim3\sigma$). Remarkably, the probability of a pure chance association
for SNRs is as low as 5.4$\times10^{-10}$ according to the 2$^o$-binning
simulations ($1.6\times10^{-8}$ for 1$^o$-binning). For the stars, we obtain probabilities in the range
$10^{-2}-10^{-3}$, which are suggestive but not overwhelming.
In the next sections we explore these results in more detail.
\section{Massive stars}
The case for possible association of unidentified EGRET
sources with WR stars was previously presented --using data from
the 2EG catalog-- by Raul \& Mitra (1997). In the former catalog, there are
37 unidentified sources at $|b|<10^o$.
Raul and Mitra proposed, on the basis of
positional correlation, that 8 of these sources could be produced
by WR stars. Their analysis of the possible chance occurrence of these
associations, which was purely analytic and assumed equiprobability for
each position on the sky, yielded an a priori expectation of $\sim 10^{-4}$.
Their results are notably modified when the 3EG catalog is considered.
Changes in position and smaller positional uncertainties reduce the
number of positional coincidences despite the remarkable increment in
the number of sources. Additionally, a more rigorous treatment in the
probability analysis has the effect of significantly enhance the
possibility of chance association (see Table 1).
In Tables 2 and 3 we list the 3EG sources positionally coincident with
WR and Of stars, respectively. As far as we are aware this is the first
time that a statistical study of the correlation between Of stars and EGRET
detections is carried out, despite that the possibility of $\gamma$-ray
production in this kind of objects has been extensively discussed in the
literature (e.g. V\"olk \& Forman 1982). In the tables we provide, from
left to right, the 3EG source name, the measured (summed over Cycles 1 to 4)
$\gamma$-ray flux, the photon spectral index
$\Gamma$ ($N(E)\propto E^{-\Gamma}$), the star name, the angular distance
from the star to the $\gamma$-ray source best position, the distance to the
star, the terminal wind velocity, the mass loss rate, the expected intrinsic
$\gamma$-ray luminosity assuming the star's distance (the minimum one when
there are more than one star in the field) and isotropic emission
with average index $\Gamma=2$, and, in the last column, any other positional
coincidence revealed in our study.
From Table 2, it can be seen that most of the possible associations claimed by
Raul \& Mitra (1997) are no longer viable ones. Just WR stars 37-39, 138, and
142 of their list stay after our analysis.
In order to compare Raul and Mitra's results with our's, it is worth
remembering that when testing against positional coincidences they assumed
an angular uncertainty of 1$^o$ for all EGRET sources.
If we would make such an assumption, we would have found 20 positional
coincidences in the 3EG catalog (i.e. 24.7 \% of the unidentified
low-latitude sources). However, due to the new reduced EGRET
errors, just 7 \% of these sources are now positionally consistent with WR
stars, with a priori probability of $\sim10^{-3}$ of being by chance. In
addition, there are 4 sources with Of stars within their error boxes. The
probability that these latter associations result just by chance is
$\sim10^{-2}$.
Several mechanisms have been proposed to generate $\gamma$-rays in the
vicinity of massive stars with strong winds. A compact $\gamma$-ray source
could be the result of $\pi^0$-decays which occur as a consequence of
hadronic interactions between relativistic protons or nuclei, locally
accelerated by
shocks arising from line-driven instabilities in the star wind, and
thermal ions (White \& Chen 1992). The same embedded shocks can also
accelerate electrons that could provide an additional source of (inverse
Compton) $\gamma$-ray emission through the upscattering of stellar UV
photons (Chen \& Withe 1991a). Synchrotron losses of these energetic
electrons can produce observable nonthermal radio emission, as detected in
several massive stars (e.g. Abbott et al. 1984).
A different region where the $\gamma$-rays might be generated is at the
interface between the supersonic wind flow and the interstellar medium.
There, the terminal shock can reaccelerate ions up to high energies and, if
sufficient concentration of ambient matter is available (e.g. small clouds
or swept-up material), nuclear $\gamma$-rays copious enough to be detected
could be produced (Cass\'e \& Paul 1980). V\"olk \& Forman (1982) have
argued that stellar energetic particles lose too much energy in the
expanding wind to be efficiently accelerated at the terminal shock, in
such a way that local injection (e.g. from a nearby star) is required.
However, White (1985) showed that the shocks embedded in the highly
unstable radiatively driven winds can be responsible for much higher
initial energies and partial reacceleration of the particles during the
adiabatic expansion, so isolated massive stars could be also efficient
$\gamma$-ray emitters if they present sufficiently strong winds.
The a posteriori analysis of our association results show that three stars
are of especial interest as possible counterparts of EGRET sources: WR
140, WR 142, and Cyg OB2 No.5. The first one is a binary system composed of
a WC 7 plus an O4-5 star. The region of stellar wind collision seems to be
particularly suitable for producing high energy emission. Eichler \& Usov
(1993) have studied the particle acceleration in this system concluding that
it should be a strong $\gamma$-ray source. Based on observational data on WR
140, they predicted a $\gamma$-ray luminosity in the range
$5\times10^{32}-2.5\times10^{35}$ erg s$^{-1}$, in well agreement with the
measured EGRET flux from 3EG J2022+4317 and the distance to the system
(see Table 2).
The second promising star, WR 142, is one of the five WR stars which
present strong OVI lines without being associated with planetary nebulae.
The large Doppler broadening of all spectral lines reveals the existence of
a very high wind velocity of $\sim5200$ km s$^{-1}$, which doubles what is
usually observed in WR stars (Polcaro et al. 1991). The identification of
WR 142 with the COS-B source 2CG 075+00 was proposed in Polcaro et al.'s
(1991) paper, where they considered the $\gamma$-ray production in the strong stellar
wind. In the 3EG catalog the star position is consistent with the source
3EG J2021+3716. If the star is responsible for the observed $\gamma$-ray
flux, its intrinsic luminosity would be $\sim3\times10^{34}$ erg s$^{-1}$,
which is of the order of what is expected from White \& Chen's (1992)
hadronic model for isolated stars.
Finally, the binary system Cyg OB2 No.5 seems to be another interesting
candidate for producing $\gamma$-rays. Usually considered as a contact
binary formed by two O7 I stars (e.g. Torres-Dodgen et al. 1991), recent
observations suggest that the secondary star in this system would be of
spectral type B0 V--B2 V (Contreras et al. 1997). Variable radio emission
was detected by several authors (e.g. Persi et al. 1990), with
timescales of $\sim7$ years. A weak radio component of nonthermal
nature has been observed with the VLA at a separation of $\sim0.8''$
from the main radio source, which is thermal and coincident with the
primary optical component (Contreras et al. 1997). The radio
variability in Cyg OB2 No.5 has been interpreted in terms of a colliding
wind model by Contreras et al. (1997), who suggested that the weaker radio
component is not a star but a bow shock produced by the wind collision. In
this shock, electrons can be locally accelerated up to relativistic energies,
yielding the synchrotron radiation that constitutes the secondary nonthermal
source. Additionally, $\gamma$-rays are generated through inverse Compton
losses in the UV radiation field of the secondary (Eichler \& Usov 1993).
The same Fermi mechanism that accelerates the electrons should also
operate on protons, providing a source of energetic ions that could
contribute with higher energy $\gamma$-ray emission, as in the case involving
WR stars. For strong shocks, the test particle theory predicts that the
relativistic protons will have a differential energy spectrum
given by $N(E)\propto E^2$. The $\pi^0$-decay $\gamma$-rays resulting from
$p-p$ collisions should conserve the shape of the original proton spectrum,
in such
a way that at energies above 100 MeV the photon spectral index would be
$\Gamma\sim2$, as observed by EGRET.
\section{Supernova remnants}
Possible correlation between SNRs and unidentified EGRET sources,
on the basis of two dimensional positional coincidence, has been
proposed since the release of the first EGRET (1EG) catalog.
Sturner \& Dermer (1995) suggested that some of the unidentified
sources lying at galactic latitudes $|b|<10^o$ might be associated
with SNRs: of 37 detections, 13 overlapped SNR positions in the 1EG catalog.
However, their own analysis
showed that the statistical significance was not too high as to
provide a strong confidence. Chance association was just 1.8$\sigma$ away
from the obtained result. Using the 2EG catalog, Sturner et al. (1996)
repeated the analysis, and showed that 95\%
confidence contours of 7 unidentified EGRET sources overlapped
SNRs, some of them appearing to be in interaction with molecular clouds.
Similar results were
independently reported by Esposito et al. (1996), although neither of them
assessed the chance probablility of these 2EG-catalog findings.
Considering the 1EG catalog, 35\% of the unidentified sources were positional
related to SNRs. This drop to 21.8\% in the 2EG catalog, and is currently
about 27\%. One important point to take into account when evaluating these
differences is not only to consider the evolution of
the EGRET catalog but also that of the supernova remnant Green's catalog.
At the time of the first studies by Sturner \& Dermer (1995), the supernova
catalog contained 182 SNRs. This grew up to 194 in 1996, and currently it
lists 220 remnants.
In Table 4 we show the 3EG sources that are positionally consistent with
SNRs listed in the latest version of Green's catalog. From left to right we
provide the $\gamma$-ray source name, the measured flux, the photon
spectral index $\Gamma$, the SNR identification, the angular distance
between the best $\gamma$-ray source position and the center of the remnant, the
size of the remnant in arcminutes, the SNR type (S for shell, F for
filled-centre, and C for composite), and other positional coincidences found in our
study. The table contains 22 possible associations with an a priori
probability of being purely by chance completely negligible ($\leq
10^{-8}$). It is important to remind that this list is formed entirely of
positional coincidences with currently catalogued SNRs. However, the
diffuse galactic disk nonthermal emission, originated in the interaction
of the leptonic component of cosmic rays with the galactic magnetic field,
is veiling many remnants of low surface brigthness. Recent observational
studies using filtering techniques in the analysis of radio data have
revealed many new SNR candidates that are not included in Green's catalog
(e.g. Duncan et al. 1995, Combi \& Romero 1998, Combi et al. 1998b, 1999).
If these candidates
were included in our analysis a larger number of associations would have
resulted.
The intrinsic $\gamma$-ray luminosity of SNRs, stemmed from interactions
between cosmic rays reaccelerated at the supernova shock front and
swept-up material, is expected to be rather low (Drury et al. 1994). However, if a cloud is
near the particle acceleration site, the enhanced nuclear cosmic rays from
the shock can ``illuminate'' the cloud through $\pi^0$-decays yielding a
compact $\gamma$-ray source (Aharonian et al. 1994). Such scenario has
been recently study by Combi et al (1998a) in relation with the source
3EG J1659-6251 (previously 2EGS J1703-6302).
\section{OB associations}
In Table 5 we list the unidentified 3EG sources that are positionally
coincident with the OB associations in the catalog by Mel'nik \& Efremov
(1995). Our results can be compared with the similar work by Kaaret \& Cottam
(1996).
Using the 2EG catalog, they have already
found a statistically significant
correlation: 9 of the unidentified 2EG sources
have position contours overlapping
an OB association and other 7 lie within $1^o$ angular distance.
These results are totally compatible with our's.
Here, we find 26 superpositions out of 81 unidentified 3EG sources (32\%),
5$\sigma$ away from what is expected from
pure chance association. The mean angular separation between the centroid
of the OB association and the EGRET source is 1.5$^o$, although most sources
are at angular distances of less than $1^o$.
The differences between both methods of analysis are worth commenting.
In particular,
we decided, for completitude, to keep the nearby association Sco 2A despite
its proximity. Any pulsar traced by it must have a negligible proper
velocity in order to be consistent with its angular size, but its
existence cannot be ruled out only on a priori grounds.
To calculate the chance superposition probability
Kaaret and Cottam studied EGRET sources just within [-5$^o$, 5$^o$] in
galactic latitude
(only 25 sources of the total 129 unidentified ones present in the
2EG catalog),
and generated sample locations using two Gaussian distributions, in longitude
and latitude,
with central value and deviation provided by the actual positions
of the unidentified sources. They also used a galactic model
to map the gas distribution.
This procedure yields almost the same results than the method we follow
(chance association probability around $10^{-5}$).
Interestingly, despite
all EGRET sources changed their positions
from the 2EG to the 3EG catalog and a significant number of new
detections has
been added, the percentage and the confidence level of the positional
coincidences remains almost the same in both studies.
All known $\gamma$-ray pulsars are young objects ($\leq 10^{6}$ yr) with
spectral indices smaller than 2.15 (Crab's) and a trend for spectral
hardening with characteristic age (Fierro et al. 1993). From Table 5,
if we consider just
sources coincident {\em only} with OB associations and exclude the three
sources with very steep indices (3EG J 1308-6112, 3EG J 1718-3313, and 3EG
J 1823-1314), we get $<\Gamma>=2.07$ and $1\sigma=0.12$ for the 8
remaining EGRET sources. These are the most promising candidates for
pulsar associations. We have marked them with a star symbol in Table 5.
\section{Further comments}
In Figure ~\ref{fig.2} we show a plot of the $\gamma$-ray luminosity (assuming isotropic
emission) of the unidentified sources coincident with OB associations against
the estimated distance to the associations. By using different symbols we
indicate whether there are additional positionally coincident objects for
each $\gamma$-ray source. The solid horizontal line represents the luminosity
of Vela pulsar. A similar plot of luminosity versus photon spectral index
$\Gamma$ is shown in Figure ~\ref{fig.3}. The first plot shows that the luminosity
distribution of this subset of 3EG sources is consistent with the observed
distribution for $\gamma$-ray pulsars when emission into $4\pi$ sr is
assumed (see Kareet \& Cottam 1996). Figure ~\ref{fig.3} shows, however, that not
all sources superimposed to OB associations present the spectral signature
expected from pulsars: they should concentrate in the left-upper corner of
the frame. There, two sources clearly differentiate from the rest:
3EG J1027-5817 and 3EG J1048-5840. They have luminosities similar to Vela's
and hard spectra with $\Gamma<2$, which make them good candidates for
$\gamma$-ray pulsars.
The identification of 3EG J1048-5840 (formerly 2EG J1049-5847) with a pulsar
(PSR B1046-58) was already proposed by Zhang \& Cheng (1998), who showed
that its $\gamma$-ray spectrum is consistent with the predictions of outer
gap models. In addition, these authors also suggested that 3EG J1823-1314
(2EG J1825-1307) could be the pulsar PSR B1823-13. This latter identification must
be now rejected in the light of the new determination of the spectral
index of the $\gamma$-ray source in the 3EG catalog, $\Gamma=2.69\pm0.19$,
which is too steep for a pulsar.
Regarding 3EG J1027-5817, no known radio
pulsar is found within its 95 \% confidence contour. It could be a
Geminga-like object or the effect of the combined emission of a pulsar and
a weak SNR in Car 1A-B (the 3EG catalog notes that it is a possible case of
multiple or extended source).
Some of the low luminosity sources in Fig. ~\ref{fig.3} might be yet undetected SNRs,
whereas the sources with the steepest indices could be background AGNs.
A simple extrapolation of the high latitude population of $\gamma$-ray
blazars shows that about 10 of this sources should be detected throughout
the Galaxy within $|b|<10^o$ (Yadigaroglu \& Romani 1997). Most of them,
however, should belong to the group of 43 3EG sources for which we have
found not positional coincidences with any known galactic object. This
set of sources has an average value of galactic latitude $<|b|>=5.8\pm3.3$,
which suggests a significant extragalactic contribution.
Finally, we want to mention two interesting additional possibilities to
explain some 3EG sources: isolated Kerr-Newman black holes (Punsly 1998a,b)
and isolated standard black holes accreting from the diffuse interstellar
medium (Dermer 1997). In Punsly's model, a bipolar magnetically dominated
MHD wind is driven by a charged black hole located in a low density region
(otherwise it would discharge rapidly). The wind forms two leptonic jets
which propagate along the rotation axis in opposite directions, as it
occurs in AGNs. Self-Compton losses provide $\gamma$-ray luminosity in the
range $10^{32}-10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for a 7-$M_{\odot}$ black hole with a
polar magnetic field of $\sim10^{10}$ G. If such an object is relatively
close ($\sim300$ pc), it could appear as a typical unidentified EGRET
source with $\Gamma\sim2.5$.
In the case of isolated black holes accreting from a diffuse medium, a
hole with mass of 10 $M_{\odot}$ and a velocity of 10 km s$^{-1}$ can
produce a $\gamma$-luminosity $\sim7\times10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$
in a medium with
density of 0.1 cm$^{-3}$ (Dermer 1997). Changes in the particle density can
result in $\gamma$-ray flux variability, as observed in several unidentified
sources. None of these $\gamma$-sources based on black holes can be ruled out at
present, and their observational signatures at other wavelengths seem to
be worth of careful search.
\section{Conclusions}
We have studied the level of two-dimensional positional coincidences between
unidentified EGRET sources at low galactic latitudes in the 3EG catalog
and different populations of galactic objects, finding out that there is
overwhelming statistical evidence for the association of $\gamma$-ray sources
with SNRs and OB star forming regions (these latter considered as pulsar tracers).
Additionally, there is marginally significant evidence for the association with
early-type stars endowed with very strong winds, like Wolf-Rayet stars and Of stars.
A posteriori analyses of the star candidates show that there are at least
three systems (WR 140, WR 142, and Cyg OB2 No. 5) which are likely
$\gamma$-ray sources. Several sources positionally coincident with
OB associations are probably pulsars, like 3EG J1048-5840 and similar sources with
hard spectra. Besides, there are 43 3EG sources for which we have
not found any positional coincidence with known objects. This set of sources
could include undetected low-brightness SNRs in interaction with dense
and compact clouds, some Geminga-like pulsars, and, perhaps, a new kind of
galactic $\gamma$-ray sources, like Kerr-Newman black holes or isolated
black holes accreting from the interstellar medium.
The main conclusion to be drawn is that there seems to exist more than a single
population of galactic $\gamma$-ray sources. Pulsars constitute a well
established
class of sources, and there is no doubt that under certain conditions some
SNRs are also responsible for significant $\gamma$-ray emission in the EGRET
scope. Both isolated and binary early-type stars are likely to present high-energy
radiation strong enough to be detected by EGRET in some special cases. We propose
that, in addition to the well-known WR stars 140 and 142, the Cyg OB2 No. 5 binary
system could be a strong $\gamma$-ray source, the first one to be detected
involving no WR stars. The large number of unidentified EGRET sources free of any
positional
coincidence with luminous objects also encourage further studies to find whether
there exist a population of exotic objects yet undetected at lower wavelengths.
\begin{acknowledgements}
This work has been partially supported by the Argentine agencies CONICET
and ANPCT.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The problem of defining meaningful conserved charges in gauge theories
is notoriously subtle. It has been addressed in the literature
along various lines.
One approach relies on the use of Noether identities
and conserved currents \cite{No,BH2,Fl,Bg,Ju,BCJ,JS}.
Another is based on Hamiltonian methods and asymptotic symmetries
\cite{ADM,RT,Asht,AD}. The first approach is probably the
most familiar and emphasizes locality. It has been recognized,
however, that it suffers from ambiguities, which, if
improperly resolved, may lead to incorrect results.
It was recalled in \cite{JS} that in modern language, Noether already
showed that on-shell the conserved charge associated to one-parameter
subgroup of a gauge group is topological and hence lives at any infinity
(ignoring singularities). More than $40$ years later \cite{ADM,RT}, it was
understood that charges can indeed be defined at infinity for a good
choice of boundary conditions, and in one to one correspondence with
their (asymptotic) symmetries. The later may be finite or infinite in
number.
The purpose of this paper is to derive the correct superpotential
for the supercharges in supergravity theories.
We show that a ``natural'' application of
the Noether identities yields an incorrect supercharge. We then
derive a correct superpotential by adopting the
criterion proposed in \cite{Si} and verify equivalence with
the Hamiltonian approach.
Finally, we explain in a first appendix why the first-order and
second-order formulations yield the same superpotentials for
local supersymmetries. The second appendix analyses in
some detail the case of ${\cal N}_4 =2$ supergravity and provides
explicit boundary conditions for the fields that enable one
to meaningfully compute the charges and their algebra that contain a
central charge as in the rigid supersymmetry case.
\section{Noether superpotential}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
As shown by E. Noether,
any continuous one-parameter invariance of the action leads to a conservation law
$\partial_\mu j^\mu \approx 0$, where $\approx$ means ``{\it equal to}
when the equations of motion
hold''. The conserved Noether current is defined through
\begin{equation} j^\mu = S^\mu - \frac{\partial L}{\partial \partial_\mu \phi}
\delta \phi \label{NC} \end{equation}
where $\delta \phi$ is the infinitesimal variation under the (local or
global) symmetry
and
$\delta L = \partial_\mu S^\mu$. The fields $\phi$ may carry an index
over which one sums in (\ref{NC}), but this will not be explicitly
indicated. In the class of Lagrangians
having the same (bulk) Euler-Lagrange derivative ($L \rightarrow
L + \partial_\mu k^\mu$), one must adjust the
surface term in such a way that the action $\int d^Dx L = 0$
is truly stationary on-shell.
This surface term is fixed by a choice of boundary conditions.
However, even for a given $L$, there is some ambiguity in the
choice of $S^\mu$ since the addition to $S^\mu$ of the
divergence $\partial_\nu k^{\mu \nu}$
of an antisymmetric tensor $k^{\mu \nu} = - k^{\nu \mu}$ does not modify
$\partial_\mu S^\mu$. Expressed in terms of the currents,
this (topological) ambiguity reads
\begin{equation} j^\mu \rightarrow j^\mu + \partial_\nu k^{\mu \nu} \label{redef}\end{equation}
and is particularly relevant in
the case of gauge symmetries.
Indeed, in this case, conserved Noether currents
$j^\mu$ derive from superpotentials,
\begin{equation} j^\mu \approx \partial_\nu U^{ \mu\nu} , \;
U^{\mu \nu} = - U^{\nu \mu} \end{equation}
This has been proved in many references (see \cite{No,BH2,Fl,Bg,Ju,BCJ,JS} and
also \cite{BBH} for a cohomological interpretation). The fact that
$j^\mu$ derives from a superpotential implies that one can set
it equal to zero by means of the redefinitions (\ref{redef}).
In other words, ``everything is in the superpotential", which indicates
how crucial it is to resolve correctly the above-mentioned
ambiguities. A wrong choice would lead to an incorrect
integrated charge,
\begin{equation} Q = \int_V d^{D-1}x \, j^0 \approx \int_{\partial V} d^{D-2} S_i\, U^{0i}
\end{equation}
which would e.g. not generate the appropriate transformations
through the Poisson bracket.
A ``natural'' choice for the superpotential
may seem to be
\begin{equation} U^{\mu \nu} = -\frac{1}{2} (M^{\mu \nu}_A - M^{\nu \mu}_A) \xi^A
\label{wrongsup} \end{equation}
with
\begin{equation} M^{\mu \nu}_A = \frac{\partial L}{\partial \partial_\mu \phi}\Delta_A^\nu
\label{w2} \end{equation}
One finds
\begin{equation} j^\mu = \partial_\nu U^{\mu\nu} + \frac{\delta L}{\delta \phi}
\Delta_A^\mu \xi^A \label{current} \end{equation}
where the $\Delta_A^\mu$'s are the coefficients of the derivatives of
the gauge parameters in the variations of the fields,
\begin{equation} \delta_\xi \phi = \xi^A \Delta_A + \partial_\mu \xi^A \Delta_A^\mu \label{deltafi}\end{equation}
(we assume for simplicity that only the first-order derivatives appear).
The choice (\ref{wrongsup}) corresponds to taking the coefficient of $\partial_\nu \xi^A$
in $S^\mu= \xi^A \Sigma_{A}^{\mu }+\partial_{\nu} \xi^A \Sigma_{A}^{\mu \nu }$ to be symmetric in $\mu$, $\nu$ and may be regarded
as being ``natural" on this ground.
However, this choice is not
always correct and does in fact give an incorrect supercharge in supergravity
for instance.
To see this, note that only the fields that transform
into derivatives of the gauge parameter
contribute to the superpotential, and only the piece of the action containing
derivatives of these fields is relevant.
In all supergravity theories, the relevant part of the supersymmetry
transformations is thus
\begin{equation} \delta_\epsilon \psi^A_\sigma = \partial_\sigma \epsilon^A +
\hbox{ ``more"} \end{equation}
and the relevant piece in the action
is the kinetic term for the gravitini\footnote{The conventions are the
following:
$\eta^{ab}=\{ -,+,\dots,+\}$, $\epsilon_{01\ldots (D-1)}=1$, $\gamma^a$ are $D$ real Majorana
matrices and $\gamma^{a_1\ldots a_i}:=\gamma^{[a_1}\ldots\gamma^{a_i]}$ .
The gravitini are described by Majorana spinors.},
\begin{equation} \frac{i}{2} \bar{\psi}^A_\lambda \gamma^{\lambda \mu \nu}
\partial_\mu
\psi^A_\nu. \end{equation}
One finds by application of formulas (\ref{wrongsup}-\ref{w2})
\begin{equation} U^{ \mu\nu}_{\bar{\epsilon}} =-
\frac{i}{2} \bar{\epsilon}^A \gamma^{ \mu \nu \lambda} \psi^A_\lambda. \label{incorrect}\end{equation}
As discussed in the first appendix, one obtains (\ref{incorrect})
by working either in first or
second order formalism.
Although simple, the formula (\ref{incorrect}) is incorrect. It gives only
half of the supercharge as can be seen by comparing with the Hamiltonian
formalism \cite{T}
or by computing the variation of the supercharge
under a supersymmetry transformation, where one finds only half of the
$4$-momentum $P^\mu$ instead of $P^\mu$ itself.
The correct supercharge is \cite{T}
\begin{equation} Q_{\bar{\epsilon}} =- i \int_{S_\infty} d^{D-2}S_i \;
\bar{\epsilon}^A \gamma^{0ik} \psi^A_ k
\label{supercharges}\end{equation}
while the integral of $j^0$ given by
(\ref{current}), (\ref{incorrect})
is clearly only half of this expression.
That (\ref{incorrect}) is
incorrect is perhaps not surprising since it is well appreciated
that there exist in general relativity a plethora of superpotentials,
many of which yield incorrect energy, momentum, or angular momentum
\cite{Bg,Ko}. For a recent and informative discussion,
see \cite{KBL}.
We have just
pointed out the supersymmetric extension
of this problem. What is needed is a criterion that selects
among the many candidate superpotentials the correct one. Such
a criterion has been proposed in \cite{Si} and tested with
success in many models. We apply below this criterion and show
that it yields the correct supercharge.
\section{Construction of the correct surface integrals at infinity}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The approach proposed in \cite{Si} is a ``superpotential-based
generalization" of the Hamiltonian approach of \cite{RT}.
It may not always be equivalent to it, but in the
case of theories like supergravity where one can write the
Lagrangian in terms of forms and exterior products (in the sense
specified after equation (\ref{defvm})), it does
yield the same supercharge.
The starting point of \cite{Si} is
the relationship between the superpotential and the conserved
current associated with a given one parameter group of gauge
transformations of the fields
through the Noether identities.
For any choice of surface terms, this relationship reads \cite{JS}
\begin{equation} j_U^\mu = \partial_\nu U^{ \mu\nu} + \frac{\delta L}{\delta \phi}
\Delta_A^\mu \xi^A \label{currentbis} \end{equation}
with the term proportional to the equations of motion being
independent of the choice.
The idea is then to find a criterion which, given the term
proportional to the equations of motion, completes it in a definite
way in equation (\ref{currentbis})\footnote{The current in
(\ref{currentbis}) is conserved on-shell due to the antisymmetry of $U^{\mu\nu}$
and the so-called Noether identities, $\partial_\mu \left(\frac{\delta L}{\delta \phi}
\Delta_A^\mu \xi^A \right) = \frac{\delta L}{\delta \phi} \delta_{\xi} \varphi$.}.
In the case of supergravity,
the supersymmetry current identity is
\begin{eqnarray}
j_{\bar{\epsilon}}^\mu &=& \partial_\nu U^{ \mu\nu}_{\bar{\epsilon}}
+ \bar{\epsilon}^A \frac{\delta L}{\delta \bar{\psi}_\mu^A} \nonumber \\
&=& \partial_\nu U^{ \mu\nu}_{\bar{\epsilon}}
+ i \bar{\epsilon}^A \gamma^{\mu \rho \sigma} (\partial_\rho
\psi^A_\sigma + \Lambda_{\rho \sigma}^A)
\label{jm} \end{eqnarray}
where $\Lambda_{\rho \sigma}^A $
denotes terms containing undifferentiated gravitini
fields.
If one varies this equation with respect to the gravitini
fields\footnote{In computing the superpotential associated with
supersymetries, one may assume $\delta$(other fields)$=0$,
since the terms proportional to $\delta$(other fields) die off
faster at infinity, where the superpotential is actually defined.
For instance, in four dimensions, this condition
is verified
in the asymptotically flat case, for which we adopt the
boundary conditions of appendix B, or in the asymptotically
anti-de Sitter case, for which we take the precise boundary
conditions of \cite{HTads}. Thus the expression (\ref{superpotential})
for the superpotential associated with supersymmetries
is correct in both cases.},
one gets, upon integration by parts,
\begin{equation} \delta j_{\bar{\epsilon}}^\mu =
\partial_\nu \delta U^{ \mu\nu}_{\bar{\epsilon}}
+ \partial_\nu V^{ \mu\nu}
- i \partial_\nu \bar{\epsilon}^A \gamma^{\mu \nu \sigma} \delta \psi^A_\sigma
+ i \bar{\epsilon}^A \gamma^{\mu\rho \sigma} \delta \Lambda_{\rho \sigma}^A
\label{divergence} \end{equation}
with
\begin{equation} V^{\mu\nu} (\epsilon, \phi, \partial \phi)
= i \bar{\epsilon}^A \gamma^{\mu \nu \sigma} \delta \psi^A_\sigma
\label{defvm}\label{defV} \end{equation}
Note that here $V^{\mu \nu}$ is antisymmetric in $\mu$ and
$\nu$. In fact, $V^{\mu\nu}$ is defined by (\ref{divergence}) up to
a total divergence, $\tilde{V}^{\mu \nu}=V^{\mu \nu}+\partial_\rho
X^{\mu[\nu\rho]}$, which can in the present case be adjusted so
that $V^{\mu\nu}$ is antisymmetric in
$\mu$ and $\nu$. Quite generally, the antisymmetry is guaranteed
if the theory can be written in a first order formulation (see
appendix of \cite{Si}).
What is proposed in \cite{Si} is to take $U^{ \mu\nu}$
in such a way that the divergence terms cancel
in (\ref{divergence}), i.e., such that
\begin{equation} \delta U^{ \mu\nu}_{\bar{\epsilon}}
+ V^{ \mu\nu} = 0
\label{criterion} \end{equation}
The integration in field space of this equation is straightforward
and leads to
\begin{equation} U^{\mu\nu}_{\bar{\epsilon}} = -
i \bar{\epsilon}^A \gamma^{\mu \nu \sigma}\psi^A_\sigma \label{superpotential}\end{equation}
without the factor one-half (recall that $\delta$(other fields) $=0$ -
as stated in \cite{Si}, (\ref{criterion}) must be imposed only at infinity).
As in the Hamiltonian formalism of
\cite{RT}, equation (\ref{criterion}) defines the charge up to a constant
which can be adjusted so that the superpotential vanishes for
the vacuum. This superpotential
is correct
since, contrary to (\ref{incorrect}), it yields the correct supercharges
(\ref{supercharges}). The last two terms of (\ref{jm}) are not relevant
for charge evaluation. Actually the bulk charge has not
yet been defined for singular solutions even
in the presence of horizons.
That the supercharge that follows from (\ref{criterion}) is
the same as the one obtainable by Hamiltonian methods is
easy to understand.
Indeed, one may identify $\partial_i V^{0i}$ as the surface term
that one picks up at {\em the spatial boundary} when
breaking the variation of the spatial integral of the field-equation
term in (\ref{currentbis})
\begin{equation} \delta \int_{x^0=C^{t}} d^{D-1} x \,\frac{\delta L}{\delta \phi}
\Delta_A^0 \xi^A := \delta \int_{x^0= C^{t}}
d^{D-1} x \, \bar{\epsilon}^A \frac{\delta L}
{\delta \bar{\psi}_0^A} \end{equation}
into a bulk term and a surface term,
\begin{equation} \delta \int_{x^0= C^{t}} d^{D-1} x \,\bar{\epsilon}^A \frac{\delta L}
{\delta \bar{\psi}_0^A} = \hbox{ ``bulk" } + \int_{S_\infty}
d^{D-2} S_i \;V^{0i}. \label{varbulk} \end{equation}
where ``bulk'' contains only undifferentiated variations of the canonical fields.
This identification manifestly holds in supergravity.
The only field equation that appears in (\ref{varbulk})
is the equation associated with the field that transforms
into the time derivative of the gauge parameter,
i.e. $\bar{\psi}^A_0$.
Now, it is well-known that the temporal component $\bar{\psi}^A_0$
of the gravitino field is the Lagrange multiplier for the
supersymmety constraint-generator, namely $\frac{\delta L}
{\delta \bar{\psi}_0^A}$. Therefore, the term being
varied in (\ref{varbulk}) is of the form ``Lagrange
multipliers" times ``Hamiltonian constraints".
This property, verified here for supergravity,
is actually generic since the
Lagrange multipliers transform always into the time
derivatives of the gauge parameters (see e.g. \cite{HT}).
Thus,
the zeroth component of the criterion (\ref{criterion})
\begin{equation} \delta U^{0i}_{\bar{\epsilon}} + V^{0i} = 0 \end{equation}
precisely guarantees that the charge
\begin{equation} Q_{\bar{\epsilon}} = \int_{x^0= C^{t}}
d^{D-1}x \; \bar{\epsilon}^A \frac{\delta L}
{\delta \bar{\psi}_0^A} + \int_{S_\infty} d^{D-2}S_i \,U_{\bar{\epsilon}}^{0i} \end{equation}
has well-defined functional derivatives
in the sense of \cite{RT}, i.e., has a variation that
contains only a bulk part. Since the asymptotic equality
$\delta U^{0i}_{\bar{\epsilon}} + V^{0i} = 0$, together with
a covariance argument at infinity, implies
$\delta U^{\mu\nu}_{\bar{\epsilon}}
+ V^{ \mu\nu} = 0$ (asymptotically), one
may conclude that in the case of supergravity, the superpotential method
supplemented by the criterion of \cite{Si} and the Hamiltonian
method are equivalent.
\section{Conclusions}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this paper, we have shown how superpotential methods
apply to local supersymmetry transformations in supergravity.
We have rederived the correct supercharges.
Once the supercharges are known, one may compute their
algebra \cite{T,GH}.
The case of ${\cal{N}}_4=2$ supergravity
is particularly interesting because the algebra of the
supercharges contains central charges. One of these,
the magnetic central charge, arises
in exactly the same way as the conformal central charge
in $2+1$ anti-de Sitter gravity \cite{BH}: the central charge is not
seen in the algebra of the asymptotic symmetries, but does appear in the
algebra of their canonical generators.
The calculation is direct. Because it lies
somewhat outside the main line of this paper,
it is discussed in the second
appendix where precise boundary conditions that include
magnetic sources are
displayed.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\bigskip
We thank Eug{\`e}ne Cremmer and Thomas Materna
for useful conversations.
MH is grateful to the ``Laboratoire de Physique
Th{\'e}orique de l'Ecole Normale Sup{\'e}rieure" for
warm hospitality extended to him in May of 1998
while this work began.
The work of MH has been partly supported by the ``Actions de
Recherche Concert{\'e}es" of the ``Direction de la Recherche
Scientifique - Communaut{\'e} Fran{\c c}aise de Belgique", by
IISN - Belgium (convention 4.4505.86) and by
Proyectos FONDECYT 1970151 and 7960001 (Chile).
This work has been partly supported by
the EU TMR contract ERBFMRXCT96-0012.
\section*{Appendix A: Superpotential in first-order and second-order formalisms}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The superpotentials for pure gravity are better understood in a pure
$1^{st}$ order formalism, i.e. where the connection $\omega_{\mu b}^a$
is varied independently \cite{JS}. However, supergravities are usually
given in a $2^{nd}$-order formulation of the supersymmetry
transformations laws. That is the (spin)-connection is not treated as
an independent field, and then, its supersymmetry transformation law
is not required. The point
of this appendix is to check in the special case of ${\cal{N}}_4=2$
supergravity that the above computation
of the superpotential
does not depend on which formalism ($1^{st}$ or
$2^{nd}$ order) we are using. This provides a consistency check for
\cite{Si}. The same consistency holds for pure gravity
\cite{JS2}.
First of all, the starting point for computing superpotentials is equation
(\ref{currentbis}). In the special case of supergravity, the result
was given in (\ref{jm}).
Now, the only difference between a $1^{st}$
or $2^{nd}$ order computation would come from a term proportional to
the equation of motion of the connection when computing $V^{\mu\nu}$
using the second term of the rhs of
equation (\ref{currentbis}). However, if the $1^{st}$
order formulation of supergravity is such that the supersymmetry
variation of the connection does not contain any term proportional to
$\partial_\mu \xi^A$, no additional contribution is expected (recall
the definitions (\ref{deltafi}) and (\ref{currentbis})).
In a parallel publication \cite{HJS2},
we will present a general scheme to derive a
pure $1^{st}$ order formulation from a $1.5$ one. That
simply requires to compute a supersymmetry transformation law for the
connection. Then, the simplest way to show that the superpotential
computation for $1^{st}$ order formulation is equivalent to the
$2^{nd}$ order one is to show that this supersymmetry transformation law does
not depend on the derivative of the gauge parameter.
This holds for the ${\cal{N}}_4=1$ supergravity, where the supersymmetry
transformation law for the connection is \cite{DZ}:
\begin{equation} \delta_1 \omega_{\mu}^{ab} = 2 i\kappa^2 \bar{\epsilon} \gamma^5 \left(\gamma_\mu \tilde{\psi}^{ab} -
\frac{1}{2} e_\mu^a \gamma_c \tilde{\psi}^{cb}
+ \frac{1}{2} e_\mu^{b} \gamma_c \tilde{\psi}^{ca} \right) \label{varomf} \end{equation}
where $ \tilde{\psi}^{ab} :=\frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{abcd} {\cal D}_c \psi_d$, with the
covariant derivative acting on spinors defined as usual by
${\cal D}_{\sigma }:=\partial_{\sigma } + \frac{\gamma _{ab}}{4}\omega
_{\sigma }^{ab}$.
In the ${\cal{N}}_4=2$ supergravity case, it is also possible to find a
$1^{st}$ order formulation, that is a supersymmetry transformation
law for the connection. The result is \cite{HJS2}:
$$ \delta_1 \omega_\mu^{ab} = 2 i\kappa^2 \bar{\epsilon}^A \gamma^5
\left(\gamma_\mu \tilde{\hat{\psi}}^{ab}_A -\frac{1}{2} e_\mu^a \gamma_c
\tilde{\hat{\psi}}^{cb}_A
+ \frac{1}{2} e_\mu^b \gamma_c \tilde{\hat{\psi}}^{ca}_A \right) $$
\begin{equation} + i \kappa^3 \bar{\epsilon}_A \varepsilon^A_{\ B} \left(\hat{F}^{ab}-
\tilde{\hat{F}}^{ab} \gamma^5 \right) \psi^B_\mu \label{tranw}\end{equation}
Here $\tilde{\hat{\psi}}_{ab}^A := \frac{1}{2} \varepsilon_{abcd}
\hat{{\cal D}}^c \psi^{dA}$. The $( {\cal N}_{4}={2})$-``hatted'' covariant
derivative is defined by $\hat{{\cal D}}_{\sigma } :={\cal D}_{\sigma } +\frac{\kappa }{2}\varepsilon^A_{\ B}\left(\hat{F}_{\rho \sigma } \gamma ^{\rho }+\tilde{\hat {F}}_{\rho \sigma }\gamma^{\rho } \gamma ^{5}\right)$ together with
(super-covariant) ``hatted'' field strength $\hat {F}_{\mu
\nu }:= F_{\mu\nu }+i\kappa\varepsilon_{AB} \bar{\psi}^{A}_{\mu }\psi^{B}_{\nu
}$ and its Hodge-dual $\tilde{\hat{F}}_{\mu
\nu }:=\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma } \hat{F}^{\rho \sigma}$.
Again, there is no term in $\partial_\mu \bar{\epsilon}^A$ in the above
transformation law.
Another example is the eleven dimensional supergravity,
which will be presented also in \cite{HJS2}.
\section*{Appendix B: Boundary conditions, asymptotic symmetry algebra
and algebra of charges for ${\cal N}_4 = 2$ supergravity}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{B.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
To compute the algebra of the charges of ${\cal N}_4 = 2$ supergravity,
one first needs to give boundary conditions for the fields
at spatial infinity that ensure that the surface integrals yielding the
corresponding charges be all finite. The boundary conditions should also
be invariant under the asymptotic symmetries, i.e., under the
asymptotic rigid $N=2$ SUSY algebra. In the second order formalism,
the independent fields of ${\cal N}_4 = 2$ supergravity are the tetrads
$e^a_\mu$, the abelian connection $A_\mu$ and the two gravitini
$\psi_\mu^A$. The boundary conditions for the tetrads and the
gravitini are given in \cite{RT,T} (the tetrads approach their
Minkowskian values up to terms falling off like $1/r$ with definite
parity conditions, while the gravitini fall off
like $1/r^2$). For this reason, we shall focus here only on the
abelian connection. Our treatment includes
magnetic monopoles.
As in \cite{RT,T}, we shall express the boundary conditions
in terms of the canonical variables, which are $A_k$ and $\pi^k$
(electric field).
To enforce the Lorentz invariance
properties of the boundary conditions, it is convenient to use
the ``improved" form of the transformation of the connection under
diffeomorphisms, which is
\begin{equation} \delta_\xi A_\mu = \xi^\nu F_{\nu \mu} \label{potential} \end{equation}
This is in fact the transformation that arises in the
Hamiltonian formalism \cite{CT78}.
Indeed, the constraints associated with diffeomorphisms are, for
$N=2$ supergravity,
\begin{eqnarray} {\cal H} &=& {\cal H}^G + {\cal H}^{em}
+ {\cal H}^{\frac{3}{2}} \approx 0 , \label{constraint1}\\
{\cal H}_k &=& {\cal H}^G_k + {\cal H}^{em}_k
+ {\cal H}^{\frac{3}{2}}_k \approx 0 \label{constraint2}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal H}^G$ and ${\cal H}^G_k$ are the metric contributions, while
${\cal H}^{em}$ and ${\cal H}^{em}_k$ (respectively, ${\cal H}^{\frac{3}{2}}$
and ${\cal H}^{\frac{3}{2}}_k$) are the electromagnetic contributions
(respectively, the gravitini contributions). We shall only need here
the electromagnetic terms (the gravitational terms do not contribute
to the transformations of the electromagnetic variables, while the
spin $3/2$ terms can be neglected asymptotically). One has
\begin{eqnarray} {\cal H}^{em}&=& \frac{g_{ij}}{2 \sqrt{g}} (\pi^i \pi^j +
{\cal B}^i {\cal B}^j) \\
{\cal H}^{em}_k &=& F_{km} \pi^m
\end{eqnarray}
(electromagnetic energy density and Poynting vector). Here, ${\cal B}^i$ is
the magnetic field and $g_{ij}$ the spatial metric induced on the
surfaces $x^0 = C^{t}$; $g$ is its determinant. It is straightforward
to check that $\int d^3x (\xi {\cal H} + \xi^k {\cal H}_k)$, where $\xi$
is the displacement
normal to the hypersurface $x^0 = C^{t}$ and $\xi^k$ the tangential
displacement, generates (\ref{potential}) when acting on $A_k$
through the Poisson bracket. The transformation law
(\ref{potential}) for $A_0$
follows then from the general variation of the
Lagrange multiplier under transformations generated by the
constraints (see e.g. \cite{HT} equation (3.26b) - note that the brackets
of the constraints (\ref{constraint1}) and (\ref{constraint2})
involve the Gauss' law constraint \cite{CT78}).
The transformation of the electric field will also be evaluated
through its Poisson bracket with the Hamiltonian constraints
and is
\begin{equation} \delta_{\xi} \pi^k = D_m(\xi F^{km} \sqrt{g})
+ (\xi^m \pi^k),_m - \xi^k,_m \pi^m
\label{electric} \end{equation}
where $D_m$ is the spatial covariant derivative.
The transformation (\ref{electric}) coincides on-shell with
the standard transformation.
To motivate the boundary conditions, consider first the zero-monopole sector.
In Minkowski space, the electromagnetic potential for an
electric charge at rest at the origin is given by
\begin{equation} A_0 \sim \frac{e}{r}, \; \; A_k = 0 \end{equation}
while the electromagnetic field behaves as
\begin{equation} F_{0i} \sim \frac{e n^i}{r^2}, \; \; F_{ij} = 0 \end{equation}
where $n^i$ is the unit radial vector.
By boosting this solution, one generates non-vanishing
$r^{-1}$-order terms for $A_k$; these terms have
the interesting property of being even under the parity
${\bf n} \rightarrow -{\bf n}$. Similarly, the leading-order
term in the electromagnetic field has the property of
being odd under the same parity transformation. These
features remain valid if one superposes various charges.
This suggests taking as boundary
conditions at spatial infinity (at each given time)
\begin{equation} A_k = \frac{a_k^{(1)}({\bf n})}{r} + \frac{a_k^{(2)}({\bf n})}{r^2}
+ o(r^{-2}) \label{bcp} \end{equation}
for the spatial components of the connexion and
\begin{equation} \pi^k = \frac{p^k_{(1)}({\bf n})}{r^2} + \frac{p^k_{(2)}({\bf n})}{r^3}
+ o(r^{-3}) \label{bcef} \end{equation}
for the electric field. These conditions imply
\begin{equation} F_{ik} = \frac{f_{ik}^{(1)}({\bf n})}{r^2} +
\frac{f_{ik}^{(2)}({\bf n})}{r^3} + o(r^{-3}) \label{bcmf}\end{equation}
for the magnetic field.
We impose also that the first coefficients in $A_k$ and $\pi^k$
has definite parity properties:
\begin{equation} a_k^{(1)}( - {\bf n}) = a_k^{(1)}({\bf n}), \; \;
p^k_{(1)}( -{\bf n}) = - p^k_{(1)}({\bf n}) . \end{equation}
It follows that
\begin{equation} f_{ik}^{(1)}(-{\bf n}) = - f_{ik}^{(1)}({\bf n}) \end{equation}
One easily verifies that these conditions are invariant under
Lorentz transformations and futhermore guarantee the vanishing of the
boundary term of the variational principle, namely $\delta A_{0}
\pi^{i}+\delta A_{j} F^{ji}$, when integrated at infinity. In fact, the combined asymptotic
conditions of \cite{RT,T} and those given here are invariant
under the full rigid $N=2$ SUSY algebra acting at infinity.
We shall verify for example the asymptotic Lorentz invariance
of the above boundary conditions. The invariance of (\ref{bcp}) follows
from (\ref{potential}) and (\ref{bcef}), (\ref{bcmf})
and the fact that for boosts and rotations, the leading
orders of $\xi$ and $\xi^k$ are both parity-odd. Similarly,
the invariance of (\ref{bcef}) follows from (\ref{electric})
and the same observation on the parity of the leading
orders of $\xi$ and $\xi^k$. One should stress that the boundary
conditions adopted here can probably be somewhat relaxed. However,
our goal is not to provide here the most flexible admissible
boundary behaviour, but to give a consistent and complete
set of boundary conditions that enforce asymptotically
the $N=2$ supersymmetry algebra.
The asymptotic symmetry algebra may actually involve also a central
$U(1)$. This issue is somewhat subtle because there is no charged
field in ${\cal{N}}_4=2$ (ungauged) supergravity. Whether there is a non
trivial $U(1)$ at infinity depends on the topology of the spatial sections.
To see this, one notes that
the boundary conditions on the potential are invariant under
gauge transformations that behave asymptotically as
\begin{equation} \delta_{\Lambda } A_\mu = \partial_\mu \Lambda \label{reducible} \end{equation}
with
\begin{equation} \Lambda = \lambda_0 + \lambda({\bf n}) + o(r^0) \label{asympt} \end{equation}
where $ \lambda_0$ is a constant and
$\lambda({\bf n})$ is parity-odd,
\begin{equation} \lambda(- {\bf n}) = - \lambda({\bf n}). \end{equation}
However, the transformations associated with $\lambda({\bf n})$
are really irrelevant because their corresponding charges, given
by the flux of the electric field times $\lambda({\bf n})$
at infinity (up to non-written Gauss' law constraint terms)
\begin{equation} Q[\lambda({\bf n})] = \int_{S_\infty} \lambda({\bf n})
\mbox{\boldmath$\pi$} \cdot {\bf dS} \label{irrel} \end{equation}
all vanish identically for the field configurations allowed here.
Thus, one can factor them out.
These transformations are somewhat the analogs of the supertranslations of the
BMS group, which are eliminated in the same way through the
parity conditions \cite{RT}. In fact, the main motivation for
adopting similar parity conditions on the
electromagnetic potential is to effectively
remove the charges (\ref{irrel}), which do not seem to have a direct
physical interpretation (these charges are {\em not} associated with
higher multipole moments).
Thus, only the constant piece $\lambda_0$ in (\ref{asympt}) is
relevant.
The charge
associated with gauge transformation that tend to a constant
at infinity reads (again up to unwritten Gauss' law terms)
\begin{equation} Q[\lambda_0] = \lambda_0 \int_{S_\infty}
\mbox{\boldmath$\pi$} \cdot {\bf dS} \label{electriccharge}. \end{equation}
There may be additional surface terms if there are other boundaries
(other asymptotic regions, or other surfaces on which boundary conditions
are required: horizons, surfaces surrounding singularities),
but since we are interested here only in the asymptotic
symmetry generators in a single asymptotic region (called
``infinity''), we shall consider gauge transformations that
are zero except in a vicinity of this asymptotic region. These
gauge transformations are correctly generated by (\ref{electriccharge}),
without any other surface contribution. Being zero at the other
boundaries (if any) they certainly preserve any set of
specific boundary conditions
given there.
Now, whether (\ref{electriccharge}) identically vanishes or not
depends on the topology of the spatial sections. If these
are homeomorphic to $R^3$, then (\ref{electriccharge}) is
zero by Gauss' law and there is no non trivial $U(1)$ asymptotic
generator. However, if the $2$-sphere at infinity is not
contractible,
(\ref{electriccharge}) needs not vanish (``charge without charge").
Furthermore, as a generator, (\ref{electriccharge}) acts non trivially
on the gauge-invariant Mandelstam variables
\begin{equation} M= \int_\gamma dx^k A_k \end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is any path joining the asymptotic region being considered
to any other asymptotic region. The variable $M$ is invariant under
``proper" gauge transformations, i.e., under gauge transformations
that vanish on all boundaries. In that sense, it is an observable.
However, it is not invariant under global transformations characterized by
a non-vanishing $\lambda_0$ provided it ends outside the component of
infinity under consideration.
One gets $\delta_{\Lambda } M = \lambda_0$, which implies
that $M$ is conjugate to the electric charge measured at infinity,
\begin{equation} [M, \int_{S_\infty} \mbox{\boldmath$\pi$} \cdot {\bf dS}] = 1 \end{equation}
(again, we do not write explicitly the constraint terms that accompany
the surface integral at infinity). There is thus a non-trivial $U(1)$
generator at infinity, which generates asymptotic symmetries.
Note that one would also find $U(1)$ symmetries on the
other boundaries. The sum over all boundaries of the
$U(1)$ charges is zero by Gauss' law (the flux lines can only end
on the boundaries).
The fact that the charges add up to zero
just reflects the fact that the generator associated with everywhere
constant gauge transformations vanishes, as it should (such
transformations have no action on the fields).
The inclusion of
magnetic charges is direct. Instead of imposing
(\ref{bcp}) on the potential $A_k$, one requires that it
behaves asymptotically as
\begin{equation} A_k = A_k^{mon} + A'_k \end{equation}
where $A_k^{mon}$ is the potential for the magnetic monopole(s),
living on a non-trivial $U(1)$ bundle over $S_2$ (and defined
over patches), while $A'_k$ is globally defined and subject
to the same boundary conditions (\ref{bcp}). The boundary
conditions on the electric field are unchanged. The
magnetic field has also the same asymptotic behaviour because the field
of a monopole obeys (\ref{bcmf}). These more general boundary
conditions are still Lorentz invariant because the variation
of $A_k^{mon}$, which is globally defined, behaves as $A'_k$.
They are in fact also invariant under supersymmetry transformations and constant
gauge transformations.
Furthermore, the (graded) commutator
of two local supersymmetry transformations that tend asymptotically
to constants $\epsilon^A$ and $\zeta^A$
is the sum of a diffeomorphism that becomes asymptotically
a translation with parameter $-i \kappa^2 \bar{\epsilon}_A
\gamma^\mu \zeta^A$ and a gauge transformation that
behaves at infinity as a constant gauge transformation
with parameter $\Phi = -i \kappa \bar{\epsilon}_A \varepsilon^A_B \zeta^B$
(the asymptotic value of the gauge transformation is defined
up to a constant, but the ambiguity disappears
if one imposes that $\Phi$ vanishes when $\epsilon$ or
$\zeta$ is equal to zero). There is no sign of the magnetic charge
in the asymptotic algebra of the asymptotic symmetry transformations.
Let us turn now to the algebra of the charges defined, in
the Lagrangian context, through the variations of the
charges under the transformations generated by one another.
The variation of the superpotential was
given in equation (\ref{criterion}), together with
the result (\ref{defV}) for supergravity theories. Now
in the special case where $\delta$ is another supersymmetry gauge
transformation, that is $\delta:=\delta_\zeta$, the variation becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{algebre}
\delta_\zeta U_{\bar{\epsilon}}^{\mu \nu } &=& -i \bar{\epsilon}_A\gamma ^{\mu \nu \sigma } \hat{\cal
D}_{\sigma }\zeta^A\nonumber\\
&=& -i \bar{\epsilon}_A\gamma ^{\mu \nu \sigma } \left( {\cal D}_{\sigma } +\frac{\kappa }{2}\varepsilon^A_{\ B}\left(\hat
{F}_{\rho \sigma } \gamma ^{\rho }+\tilde{\hat {F}}_{\rho \sigma }\gamma
^{\rho } \gamma ^{5}\right)\right)\zeta^B \nonumber\\
&=& -i \bar{\epsilon}_A\gamma ^{\mu \nu \sigma }{\cal D}_{\sigma }\zeta^A
-i\kappa \bar{\epsilon}_A \varepsilon^A_{\ B} \left(\hat {F}^{\mu \nu } + \gamma
^{5}\tilde{\hat {F}}^{\mu \nu } \right) \zeta^B
\end{eqnarray}
Where we used the $( {\cal N}_{4}={2})$-``hatted'' covariant derivative defined in appendix A, after equation (\ref{tranw}).
Let us now integrate (\ref{algebre} ) at spatial infinity:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The first term in the rhs of (\ref{algebre}) is nothing but the
Nester-Witten superpotential \cite{NW}, and so the covariant version of
ADM mass (and momentum). We will denote it by
$ H_{\xi }$, where
$\xi^{\mu }$ is an asymptotic displacement and is given by $\xi^{\mu
}=-i \kappa ^{2}\bar{\epsilon}_{A}\gamma
^{\mu }\zeta^{A}$. The idea of relating the positivity of gravitational
mass and local supersymmetry can be found in \cite{DTG}.
The supergravity origin and positivity of the
Nester-Witten superpotential \cite{NW} was already established for the
${\cal{N}}_{4}=1$ supergravity in \cite{Hu}.
\item The second term gives electric and magnetic contributions
(``central'' charges) to the algebra of supersymmetry. Due to the
asymptotic behavior of the gravitino (falling off like $1/r^{2}$), the
hatted field strength can be replaced by the ordinary field strength,
the difference between both falling off like $1/r^{4}$.
\end{enumerate}
Let us define:
\[
Q :=- \int_{S_{\infty}} \left( i \kappa \bar{\epsilon}_A \varepsilon^A_{\ B}\zeta^B
\right) F^{0i}\hspace{.15in} \mbox{and}\hspace{.15in} P :=-\int_{S_{\infty}}
\left(i \kappa\bar{\epsilon}_A \varepsilon^A_{\ B}\gamma^5\zeta^B \right) \tilde{F}^{0i}\nonumber
\]
Then we find that the
algebra of the SUSY charges (which generate the asymptotic
supersymmetric invariance of ${\cal{N}}_{4}=2$
supergravity) has a magnetic central
charge besides the expected $U(1)$ generator.
These are familiar from rigid supersymmetry.
Explicitly, we find the algebra
\begin{equation} \delta_\zeta Q_{\bar{\epsilon}}:=[Q_{\bar{\epsilon}},Q_{\zeta}] =
H_{\xi} + Q + P \label{susyAlgebra}\end{equation}
in agreement with \cite{T,GH}. The electric and magnetic charges appear
as central charges for the $N=2$ supersymmetry algebra. There is,
however, an apparent difference between the two in the present
(electric) formulation of ${\cal N}_4 = 2$ supergravity. While the Noetherian
electric charge is a non trivial generator
which does act on some canonical
fields (when it does not
vanish identically),
the magnetic charge commutes with all of them and not just with the
other generators of the asymptotic symmetry algebra, even
when it is non zero. It is
(in this limited treatment) a fully central charge.
It is customary to adjust the constants in the generators
of the asymptotic symmetries so that these vanish on some
specified background. When specialized to that background,
(\ref{susyAlgebra}) becomes
\begin{equation} \delta_\zeta Q_{\bar{\epsilon}} = P \hbox{ on background}\end{equation}
($H_{\xi} =0$, $Q =0$). The central charge is the variation
of the background generator of asymptotic supersymmetries.
The magnetic central charge can (and does) arise because
the electromagnetic field on a non-trivial $U(1)$-bundle
is non zero and breaks some of the supersymmetries
($\delta_\zeta Q_{\bar{\epsilon}} \not= 0$).
Note that in a dual (magnetic) formulation the role of electric and magnetic
charges would be exchanged, a fully duality invariant treatment should restore
the symmetry between the two.
The algebra of the asymptotic symmetry
transformations (once more defined on the electric canonical variables)
and the algebra of their generators are different.
The algebra (\ref{susyAlgebra}) gives another example of the general theorem of
\cite{BH1} which establishes that extra central charges are allowed in the
asymptotic charge algebras. This has been already used in \cite{BH} and
generalises the classical ambiguity of the charge algebra relative to the
symmetry algebra in Hamiltonian dynamics.
|
\section{Introduction}
The Blume-Emery-Griffiths (BEG) model is a spin-1 Ising model, originally
proposed to study $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures\cite{BEG}. Later, it was
used in the description of a variety of different physical phenomena:
multicomponent fluids \cite{exp1}, microemulsions
\cite{exp2}, semiconductor alloys \cite{exp3}, electronic
conduction models \cite{exp4}, etc. Its hamiltonian reads:
\begin{equation}
{\cal H} = - J \sum_{<i,j>} S_i S_j - K \sum_{<i,j>} S_i^2 S_j^2
+ \sum_i \Delta_i S_i^2, \;\;
\label{hamil}
\end{equation}
where the first two sums are over all nearest-neighbor
pairs on a lattice, the last one is over all sites
and $S_i = \pm 1,0$. $J$ is the exchange parameter, $K$ is the
biquadratic interaction and $\Delta_i$ is a site-dependent crystal field
($\Delta_i=\Delta$ for the pure model).
The phase diagram of the model presents first-order
and continuous phase transitions and, for $K<0$, a rich variety of
multicritical points \cite{ber1,ber2}.
Nevertheless, some systems were found to be better described
by a disordered BEG model, as, for instance, conventional shape memory alloys
\cite{barce} and fluid mixtures on disorder materials (like aerogel, for
example) \cite{mar1,mar2}.
From the theoretical point of view, on the other hand, it has been argued that
randomness may have drastic consequences on multicritical behavior
\cite{Imry,berker}. In
two dimensions, for instance, any infinitesimal amount of disorder
supresses non-symmetry-breaking first-order phase transitions and
replaces symmetry-breaking first-order phase transitions by continuous ones.
The effect of disorder on three-dimensional systems is different:
first-order phase transitions only disappear at a finite amount of
randomness \cite{berker}. This behavior has been observed in some
models \cite{berker,branco,cardy,falicov}.
In order to study the effects of disorder on its phase-diagram,
we study the BEG model in a random crystal field (henceforth called RBEG
model) given by the probability distribution:
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}(\Delta_i) = r \; \delta(\Delta_i+\Delta) +
(1-r) \; \delta(\Delta_i-\Delta) \label{distri}
\end{equation}
It is worthy stressing that the exact
form of the disorder is not relevant to the overall {\it qualitative}
consequences on the phase diagram. If randomness is chosen to be
in the interactions $J$ or $K$, the qualitative effects will be the same
(in what concerns first-order phase transitions).
This is due to the fact that, even if the initial disorder is on the bonds
(interactions
$J$ or $K$), a scale transformation will propagate this disorder to the
crystal field
term, which will act just like field randomness on the coexistence boundary.
Moreover, the exact form of the probability distribution is not relevant,
either; we have performed calculations with other distributions and they lead
to the same qualitative picture as the one found in this work.
Finally, we would like to mention that, to the best of our knowledge,
the BEG model in a random crystal field has not been studied so far. Previous
studies concentrated on the random Blume-Capel model
\cite{mar1,mar2,branco,mf1,mf2}, which has a simpler phase-diagram than the
BEG model's.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In section
II we outline the mean-field approximation we use and discuss the results,
in section III we present the real-space renormalization-group (RSRG)
calculation (expected to hold for two-dimensional systems),
and in the last section we summarize our main conclusions and comment on the
influence of a degeneracy parameter $p$ on the critical behavior.
\section{Mean-field Calculation}
We chose an ordinary mean-field approximation to study the
three-dimensional system. The procedure is rather usual and we refer the
reader to Ref. \onlinecite{bachmann}, where a detailed discussion of the
method is done.
However, we would like to stress that the mean-field approximation
we use is equivalent
to a model where the interaction is of infinite-range, i.e., each
spin interacts with every other spin in the system. This will have
explicit consequences on the phase diagram and we will return to this
point later.
Most of the information about the phase diagram is numerically
calculated
but some analytical results can be obtained. Among them, we can find the
ground state for any values of $J$, $K$, $\Delta$ and $r$.
It is possible to show that the ground state magnetization, $m_0$, for
$d\equiv \Delta/zJ > 0$, where $z$ is the coordination
number of the lattice, is given by [results for $\Delta<0$ can be inferred
from the mapping $(r,\Delta) \leftrightarrow (1-r,-\Delta)$]:
\begin{equation}
m_0 = 1 - (1-r) \; \theta\left[ d - \left( k+1 \right) \left( \frac{1+r}{2}
\right)
\right] ,
\end{equation}
where $k \equiv K/J$ and $\theta[x]$ is the step function, such that
$\theta[x]=0$ or $1$ for $x<0$ or $x>0$ respectively. The ferromagnetic
phase $O_1$ (see figures in this subsection), with $m_0=1$, is stable for
$d \leq d_c = \left( k+1 \right) \left( \frac{1+r}{2} \right)$, while
for $d \geq d_c$ the ground state is such that $m_0=r$ (denoted $O_2$ in
our figures). Note that, except for $r=0$, the ground state is always
ordered; this is a consequence of the simple mean-field approximation
we used (we will return to this point below).
One can obtain the continuous transition line exactly,
by expanding $\Phi_{min}$ in powers of the magnetization
$m$ and taking the coefficient of $m^2$ equal to zero:
\begin{equation}
t_c = 2 \left( \frac{1-r}{2 + e^{-k} e^{d/t_c}} +
\frac{r}{2 + e^{-k} e^{-d/t_c}} \right),
\end{equation}
where $t_c \equiv k_B T_c / z J$.
More specifically, note that, for $d \gg 1$, the value of the critical
temperature is $t_c = r$. So, for any value
of $r \neq 0$, the critical line between the paramagnet and the $O_2$ phases
extends to $d = \infty$ (see figures in this subsection). This is not
the expected behavior for a cubic lattice, for the following reason. The RBEG
model for $d = \infty$ is equivalent to the site-diluted spin-1/2 Ising
model, since for $\Delta=\infty$, a $+\Delta$ crystal
field acting on a given site forces that site to be in the $S=0$ state
(absent), while a $-\Delta$ field forces the site to be either in the state
$S=1$ or in the state $S=-1$ (both represent a present site). Thus, only for
high enough $r$ an infinite cluster of $S=\pm 1$ states will form and will be
able to sustain order.
Exactly at $r=r_c$, there is such an infinite
cluster but its critical temperature is zero. Therefore, the critical
parameter $d_c$ should only reach infinity for $r \geq r_c$. However, the
simple mean-field analysis we made leads to $r_c=0$, since
it is equivalent to a model with infinite-range interactions.
In some cases \cite{mar1,mf2}, more elaborated mean-field-like
procedures were applied to the Blume-Capel model in a random crystal field.
Briefly, the consequence of these approaches is that the transition line
between $O_2$ and $D$ phases does not extend to $d = \infty$
for all values of $r$. All other results are similar to the ones obtained
with our simple mean-field approximation.
We note in advance that the approach we used for the two-dimenisonal model
leads to a finite value of $r_c$, as expected on physical grounds.
We have already pointed out that $t_c(\Delta=\infty)$ does not
depend on $K$; this comes
from the mapping between the RDBEG model and the site-diluted spin-1/2 Ising
model. The $S=0$ states (absent sites) play no role in the dynamics of
the model and the present sites can only be in the states $S=1$ or $S=-1$;
thus, the biquadractic interaction, $K$, is irrelevant in this limit. If,
for instance, the probability
distribution ${\cal P}(\Delta_i) = r \; \delta(\Delta_i) +
(1-r) \; \delta(\Delta_i-\Delta) $ is used, the $\Delta = \infty$ limit
will be equivalent to the site-diluted {\it spin-1} Ising model; then,
$t_c(\Delta=\infty)$ will depend on $K$. Note that the
discussion in this paragraph applies to the two-dimensional case as well.
We now turn to the discussion of the $k_B T / z J \times \Delta / z J $
phase diagrams. In Figs.~\ref{k5r01}, ~\ref{k5r03}, ~\ref{k5r05} and
\ref{k5r07} we depict sections of
constant $K/J=5$, for many values of $r$. The phase diagram for $r=0$
(pure BEG model) is qualitatively the same as for $r=0.1$ (Fig.~\ref{k5r01}),
except that the $O_2$ phase is not present.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6.5cm
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsffile{k5r01L.eps}
\caption{Mean-field phase diagram for $K/J=5$ and $r=0.1$.
Filled circles and the open square stand for critical end points
and a critical point,
respectively. Continuous (dashed) lines represent continuous (first-order)
transitions. The phases are: ordered with $m=1$ $(O_1)$, ordered with
$m=r$ $(O_2)$, disordered with $q>1/2$ $(D_1)$, and disordered with $q<1/2$
$(D_2)$.}
\label{k5r01}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Note that the size of the ordered phases increases with $r$. This is
expected, since $r$ is the fraction of sites which feel a $-\Delta$ crystal
field (we have already commented on the ``tail'' which separates the $O_2$
and $D_2$ phases, given by $t_c=r$). Another important feature is the presence
of a first-order line between two disordered phases, for $r=0.1$ and $r=0.3$.
In both of these phases $m=0$ but $q>1/2$ for $D_1$, while $q<1/2$ for
$D_2$. We would like to call attention
for the phase diagram for $r=0.3$ (Fig.~\ref{k5r03}); this type of diagram is
not present in the Blume-Capel model.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6.5cm
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsffile{k5r03L.eps}
\caption{Mean-field phase diagram for $K/J=5$ and $r=0.3$.
Same conventions as in Fig.~\ref{k5r01}; $T$ stands for
tricritical points.}
\label{k5r03}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6.5cm
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsffile{k5r05L.eps}
\caption{Mean-field phase diagram for $K/J=5$ and $r=0.5$.
Same conventions as in Fig.~\ref{k5r03}.}
\label{k5r05}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6.5cm
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsffile{k5r07L.eps}
\caption{Mean-field phase diagram for $K/J=5$ and $r=0.7$.
Same conventions as in Fig.~\ref{k5r03}.}
\label{k5r07}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The corresponding phase diagrams for $K/J=3$ show
only three types of critical behavior: for $r$ near zero,
they are similar to the phase diagram for $K/J=5$ and $r=0.3$
(Fig.~\ref{k5r03}); for intermediate
values of $r$, the behavior is the same as for $K/J=5$ and $r=0.5$
(Fig.~\ref{k5r05}); and
for $r$ close to one, the equivalence is with the diagrams for
$K/J=5$ and $r=0.7$ (Fig.~\ref{k5r07}).
The Blume-Capel model ($K/J=0$) has already been studied within
mean-field approximations \cite{mar1,mar2,mf1,mf2}, although for different
probability distributions; the results we find in this case are in qualitative
agreement with those of Refs.\ \onlinecite{mar2} and \onlinecite{mf1} and
we shall not depict all of them here. The only exception is the diagram
for $r=0.1$ (Fig.~\ref{k0r01}), which is not present for higher values
of $K/J$.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6.5cm
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsffile{k0r01L.eps}
\caption{Mean-field phase diagram for $K/J=0$ and $r=0.1$.
Same conventions as in Fig.~\ref{k5r03}.}
\label{k0r01}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
On general grounds, one should note that the mean-field approximation
we employed suggests that the random crystal field
does not destroy the first order transitions between disordered
phases and between an ordered and a disordered phase. Even
first order lines between ordered phases (like the one in Fig.~\ref{k0r01})
survive the introduction of randomness.
\section{Two-dimensional Renormalization-group}
It is well known that mean-field-like approximations are not suitable
to describe low-dimensional systems. We have then to resort to a different
technique, in order to study the RBEG model in two dimensions. RSRG
procedures, on the other hand, have been
successfully applied to two-dimensional systems. Note, however, that RSRG
approximations, in general, do
not lead to results as precise as those obtained with Monte Carlo simulations,
phenomenological renormalization or conformal invariance techniques.
Nevertheless, they allow for a correct description of universality classes,
order of the transitions, crossover phenomena, etc.
The procedure is the same as the one thouroughly discussed in Ref.
\onlinecite{branco}. There is just one technical point we would like to
stress. Although we start with a uniform distribution for $J$ and $K$,
the renormalization procedure will introduce randomness in all
renormalized quantities ($J', K'$ and $\Delta'$). A possible approach
is to follow the successive renormalized distributions of these
parameters in order to study the phase diagram. We adopted an alternative
way, which forces the renormalized distributions to be the same as the
initial ones, but with renormalized parameters, namely,
$ {\cal P}'_{ap}(J) = \delta(J-J')$, ${\cal P}'_{ap}(K) = \delta(K-K')$ and
${\cal P}'_{ap}(\Delta_i) = r' \; \delta(\Delta_i+\Delta') + (1-r') \;
\delta(\Delta_i-\Delta')$. The values of $J'$ and $K'$ are
obtained imposing that the first moment of the actual distributions for
$J$ and $K$ and of ${\cal P}'_{ap}(J)$ and ${\cal P}'_{ap}(K)$ are equal,
respectively. The values $r'$ and $\Delta'$ are calculated imposing
that the two lowest moments of ${\cal P}'_{ap}(\Delta)$ match those of the
real distribution.
This procedure has to be used with some care:
in certain systems, where the random-field mechanism is important and the
initial randomness is on the interaction ($J$, for instance), forcing the field
back into a uniform distribution leads to incorrect results.
In Ref. \onlinecite{yeo}, for instance, the crystal field probability
distribution is maintained uniform throughout the renormalization
procedure. Consequently, the critical behavior of the random model is
characteristic of a high-dimensional system: the critical temperature
of the tricritical point diminishes as randomness is increased but only
reaches the zero temperature axis at a finite value of the disorder.
As discussed in Ref. \onlinecite{berker}, the mechanism
responsible for the lack of first-order phase transitions in two-dimensional
random systems is the disorder in the crystal field, which is not taken into
account by approximations such as the one used in Ref. \onlinecite{yeo}. In
the model we study in this paper, however, the disorder in the field is
not approximated away by our RSRG
procedure.
Our results for $K/J=2$ are presented in Fig.~\ref{k2r}, where we
depict the $kT/zJ \times \Delta/zJ$ phase diagram for $r=0$ (pure BEG model),
$r=0.2$, $r=0.45$, and $r=0.5$.
Let us first comment on the pure BEG model (curve (a) of
Fig.~\ref{k2r}). As for $K/J=5$ in three dimensions, there are
two types of disordered phases: both have $m=0$ but
$q>1/2$ for phase $D_1$ and $q<1/2$ for phase $D_2$.
The continuous line between
phases $O$ and $D_1$ belongs to the universality class of the
Ising model: this line is attracted to the Ising fixed point,
$C^* \equiv \left( J=0.4407, K=-0.07308, \Delta=-\infty \right)$.
The dashed line
between phases $O$ and $D_2$ is attracted to the fixed point
$F_1 \equiv \left( J=\infty, K=\infty, \Delta=2(J+K) \right) $, which
represents
a first-order transition in both $m$ and $q$, i.e., the largest
eigenvalue of the even and the odd sectors of the linearized RGT matrix
are equal to $b^d$ (see Ref. \onlinecite{fisher}). On the other
hand, the dashed line between phases $D_1$ and $D_2$ is attracted to
the fixed point $F_2 \equiv \left( J=0, K=\infty, \Delta=2K+\ln 2 \right)$;
in this
fixed point only the largest eigenvalue of the {\it even} sector of
the linearized RGT matrix is equal to $b^d$; this is a sign
of a discontinuity in $q$ (but not in $m$) when the line is crossed
\cite{fisher}.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=6.5cm
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsffile{k2rL.eps}
\caption{Renormalization-group phase diagram for $K/J=2$ and (a) $r=0$,
(b) $r=0.2$, (c) $r=0.45$, and (d) $r=0.5$. Filled circles stand for critical
end points, $O$ for
the ordered phase and $D_1$ and $D_2$ for the two disordered phases (see
text). Continuous (dashed) lines represent continuous (first-order)
transitions. The transition lines extend to $\Delta \rightarrow \infty$
only for $r \geq 0.5$. Note that the
critical end point (filled circle) is present only for $r=0$.}
\label{k2r}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In curves $(b)$, $(c)$, and $(d)$ of Fig.~\ref{k2r} we depict the
$kT/zJ \times \Delta/zJ$ phase diagram for $r \neq 0$. We note that
the first-order line is either replaced by a line of
continuous transitions (between $O$ and $D_2$ phases) or is
eliminated (between $D_1$ and $D_2$ phases), for any infinitesimal
amount of randomness. In fact, the first-order
fixed point attractors, $F_1$ and $F_2$, are unstable along the $r$
direction. There is still a line separating the two disordered phases
(not depicted in Fig.~\ref{k2r}),
$D_1$ and $D_2$, for $r \neq 0$, but this line is attracted to the
$\left( r=1/2, J=0, K=0, \Delta=\infty \right)$ fixed point. This
point represents a model with independent spins, in which no phase
transition can take place. We note that our results are in accordance with
general arguments on the effects of randomness on multicritical phase
diagrams \cite{berker}, although, to the best of our knowledge, some
features of these arguments have never been tested so far.
On the other hand, the whole line of continuous
transitions for $r \neq 0$ belongs to the pure Ising model universality class,
i.e., $C^*$ is a stable fixed-point along the $r$
direction. This is expected, since,
for the hierarchical lattice used in this work, the specific heat
critical exponent of the pure Ising model, $\alpha$, is negative
and disorder is irrelevant, according to the Harris criterion \cite{Har}.
For the corresponding model
on a two-dimensional Bravais lattice, where $\alpha = 0$, the Harris
criterion is inconclusive. The accepted behavior, when disorder is present,
is the following: critical exponents of the random model retain the same
values as their pure conterparts but logarithmic corrections are
introduced by randomness \cite{Fabio}.
Experimental results also indicate the same critical exponents for
pure and random two-dimensional Ising model \cite{exper}.
We would like to call attention to the behavior of the critical point
which separates the $O$ and $D_2$ phases at $T=0$. For $r < 0.5$,
the transition
at zero temperature takes place at a finite value of $\Delta/zJ$. For
$r \geq 0.5$, the critical line between the ordered and the disordered phases
extends to $\Delta/zJ = \infty$ in the diagram.
In fact, for $\Delta/zJ = \infty$
the RBEG model is equivalent to the site-dilute spin-1/2 Ising model, as
discussed above. Thus, only for
high enough $r$ an infinite cluster of $S=\pm 1$ states will form and will be
able to sustain order. There is a critical value of $r$, $r_c$, such that
the critical line between the ordered and disordered phases only reaches
$\Delta/zJ = \infty$ for $r \geq r_c$.
Our evaluation of $r_c$ is 1/2, while the accepted value for the
site percolation critical probability on the square lattice
is $r_c=0.5927$ \cite{perco}. This difference is due to the small cell
we use in this work; nevertheless, the correct qualitative picture is
obtained, i.e., a finite value of $r_c$.
Finally, we would like to stress that there are only two types
of phase diagrams for the BEG model; for high values of $K/J$ these
diagrams have the same structure as for $K/J=2$. For small values of
$K/J$, the structure is the same as for the Blume-Capel ($K=0$) model.
As this model has been studied elsewhere \cite{branco}, we will not
discuss it here.
\section{Summary}
We studied the BEG model in two and three dimensions within
a RSRG framework and a mean-field approximation, respectively. The
disorder is on the crystal field term, which follows a
probability distribution given by:
${\cal P}(\Delta_i) = r \; \delta(\Delta_i+\Delta) +
(1-r) \; \delta(\Delta_i-\Delta)$.
For the mean-field approximation (expected to represent the qualitative
behavior of three-dimensional systems), the presence of randomness
increases the ordered phase and brings qualitative changes to the
$kT/zJ \times \Delta/zJ$
phase diagram. More specifically, first-order transitions are present in
the disordered model, but new multicritical points emerge, depending on the
value of $r$.
In two dimensions, the RSRG approach we use shows that
randomness has a drastic effect on critical behavior:
it supresses non-symmetry-breaking first-order transitions and replaces
symmetry-breaking discontinuous transitions by continuous ones. These
results are in accordance with general arguments concerning the
effects of quenched impurities on multicritical behavior (but, to the best of
our knowledge, the disappearance of the first-order line between disordered
phases or between ordered phases has never been seen in an actual calculation).
The line
of continuous transition, present for the disordered $(r \neq 0)$ model,
belongs to the universality class of the two-dimensional {\it pure}
Ising model; this results agrees with the Harris criterion, since
the specific heat critical exponent, $\alpha$, is negative for the
hierarchical lattice used in this work. It has been conjectured that a
new unstable critical point, at finite temperatures, might be present
for the disordered system \cite{mar1}; we found no evidence of this point,
for any value of $K$.
We have also studied the so-called degenerate Blume-Emery-Griffiths
(DBEG) model, introduced in the study of martensitic transitions \cite{barce}.
In the DBEG model, the $S=0$ states are assumed to have a degeneracy $p$, which
mimics the effects of vibrational degrees of freedom. It has been shown
in Ref.\onlinecite{barce} that the effect of increasing $p$ is to shrink
the ordered phase and to increase the region where the transition is of
first-order. Using the same probability distribution for the crystal field as
in the RBEG model, we were able to show that the parameter $p$ may bring
only {\it quantitative} changes to the phase diagrams, for any $K/J$, $r$,
and $p$. This is expected, since the DBEG model is equivalent to the usual
$BEG$ model with all crystal fields displaced by $\ln(p)$ \cite{referee}.
In particular, any infinitesimal amount of randomness in two dimensions
destroys the first order transitions, no matter the value of $p$.
Finally, we would like to stress that our approximation does not allow
for a study of the BEG model with negative $K$, where new and interesting
critical behavior emerges \cite{ber2}. Work is now being made to discuss this
model in the presence of a random crystal field.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Prof. J. F. Stilck for a critical reading of
the manuscript and Prof. Anna Chame for calling our attention to Ref.
\onlinecite{barce} while this work was in progress.
|
\section{Introduction}
The nearby spiral galaxy NGC~7331 the main parameters of which
are given in Table 1 represents a challenge for the
observers interested in structure and dynamics of disk galaxies.
It has been observed many times, both photometrically and
spectroscopically; but results of each new approach contradicted
often to results of previous ones. Many years ago Bosma (\cite{bosma})
trying to give a general description of NGC~7331 noted that
according to Sandage (\cite{ha}) who saw spiral arms as close to
the center as at $r\approx 6\arcsec$ NGC~7331 is a disk-dominated
galaxy; however the deep photograph reported by Arp and Kormendy
(\cite{ak72}) revealed a presence of prominent extended bulge.
The problem of the bulge role in NGC~7331 is not solved yet despite
numerous photometric studies. Boroson (\cite{bor}) estimated a
bulge-to-disk ratio as 1.10 by analysing a major-axis surface
brightness profile. Kent (\cite{kent}) analysed two-dimensional
CCD images and proposed a method of bulge-disk decomposition
based on different ellipticities of the bulge and disk isophotes;
but he noted that this method is inapplicable to NGC~7331 because
in this galaxy the isophotes of the bulge and of the disk
demonstrate the same (!) ellipticity. As a result, he decomposed
only the major-axis profile and derived $B/D=0.66$ and the disk
with a central hole. Among recent studies, von Linden et al.
(\cite{germ}) have published a surface brightness profile in the
$I$--band extended up to $R\approx 100\arcsec$ and have concluded
that a de Vaucouleurs' bulge dominates over the whole radius range
under consideration, whereas Prada et al. (\cite{espls}) analysing
together $I$-- and $K$--images have reached the best fit with the
compact bulge, having effective radius of $\sim 10\arcsec$, and
two exponential disk components with different characteristic
scales which meet at $R\approx 100\arcsec$. So the situation with
the morphological characteristics of the bulge in NGC~7331
remains to be uncertain. A similar uncertainty exists relating
to a dynamical status of the bulge in this galaxy: Prada et al.
(\cite{espls}) have found the bulge to counter-rotate with
respect to the stellar disk basing on the long-slit observations
in the \ion{Ca}{2}\,IR triplet spectral range, but Mediavilla et
al. (\cite{esptig}) who observed the central part of NGC~7331
with a panoramic fiber spectrograph in two spectral ranges, near
Mgb and near \ion{Ca}{2}\,IR, do not agree stating that the
bulge in NGC~7331 corotates the stellar and gaseous disks.
\begin{table}
\caption[ ] {Global parameters of NGC~7331}
\begin{flushleft}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Type (NED) & SA(s)b \\
$R_{25}$, kpc (LEDA) & 22.5 \\
$B_T^0$ (LEDA) & 9.27 \\
$M_B$ (LEDA) & --21.41 \\
$V_r(radio) $ (LEDA) & 821 $km\cdot s^{-1}$ \\
Distance, Mpc (Hughes et al. 1998) & 15.1 \\
Inclination (LEDA) & $70^o$ \\
{\it PA}$_{phot}$ (LEDA) & $171^\circ$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
Another question which is an object of discussion for several
years: is there a "dead quasar", or supermassive black hole,
in the center of NGC~7331? We have begun this discussion ten
years ago. Afanasiev et al. (\cite{asz89}) examining the
major-axis profile of line-of-sight velocities of the ionized gas
have found that central $\pm 2\arcsec$ (the scale which is
comparable to our spatial resolution) are kinematically
decoupled by fast solid-body rotation. We have checked the
axisymmetric character of the gas rotation and have concluded
that this fast rotation is caused by a compact mass concentration of
order of $5 \cdot 10^8 \, M_\odot$. To see if a "dead quasar" may be
in the center of NGC~7331, Bower et al. (\cite{betal}) have
studied major-axis and minor-axis profiles of stellar velocities.
Though the angular rotation velocity of stars in the center of
NGC~7331 has been found to be as high as that of the ionized gas,
namely, about of 500 km/s/kpc, the very central part of the
stellar rotation curve has not appeared to be so distinct.
Moreover, the stellar velocity dispersion has not a sharp
maximum in the center, as it is the case, for example, in M~31
where the presence of the supermassive black hole in the
center is proved (\cite{dr88,k88}). On the contrary, in NGC~7331
$\sigma (r)$ along the minor axis seems to demonstrate a local
minimum at $r\approx 0\arcsec$. So Bower et al. (\cite{betal})
have concluded that the mass of the central black hole, if
exists, must be less than $5 \cdot 10^8 \, M_\odot$. However,
the problem of the black hole presence in the nucleus of NGC~7331
has not been closed: Cowan et al. (\cite{crb}) have reported
a detection of unresolved nuclear radio source in this galaxy
which has appeared to be more luminous by a factor of 3--4
than the famous Sgr~A in the center of our Galaxy, and recently
Stockdale et al. (\cite{src}) have claimed an existence of the
nuclear X-ray source in NGC~7331 -- they treat it as a massive
black hole. If it really exists, its dynamical implications must be
re-looked for more carefully.
When Afanasiev et al. (\cite{asz89}) have detected a compact mass
concentration in the center of NGC~7331, we have not made a definitive
choice between the supermassive black hole and a compact dense
stellar subsystem, such as a central star supercluster or
circumnuclear stellar disk. Moreover, later we have undertaken a
two-dimensional spectrophotometry of the central region of NGC~7331
and have found that its unresolved nucleus is chemically distinct:
its magnesium index is much higher than that of the nearest bulge
(\cite{sil92}). As the kinematically decoupled nucleus in NGC~7331
has been found to be also chemically distinct, we would like to think
it to be a separate stellar subsystem. So a more careful investigation
of stellar population properties in the nucleus and in the circumnuclear
region of NGC~7331 must help to clarify the structure and evolution
of its center and of the entire galaxy. We report our observations and
other data which we use in Section~2. The brief description
of the ionized-gas morphology in the center of NGC~7331 is given
in Section~3. Radial variations of the stellar population age
and metal abundances are analysed in Section~4, and the
kinematics of ionized gas and stars in the region under
consideration is discussed in Section~5. Section~6 presents
our conclusions and a brief discussion of our results.
\section{Observations}
The observations of NGC~7331 which results are presented in this
paper have been undertaken with the Multi-Pupil Field Spectrograph
(MPFS, \cite{afetal90}) of the 6m telescope of the Special Astrophysical
Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1996.
The red spectral range, 6300--6900~\AA, has been exposed on August 19,
1996, during 55 minutes, under the seeing $FWHM \approx 2\farcs 4$.
The MPFS was equipped
with CCD $520 \times 580$; we registered simultaneously 95 spectra
from an area of $19\arcsec \times 12\farcs 6$, each spectrum
corresponding to a spatial element of $1\farcs 58 \times 1\farcs 58$.
The strongest emission line in the circumnuclear region,
[NII]$\lambda$6583, has been measured to construct two-dimensional
velocity field of the ionized gas; we fitted its profile by a
single Gaussian.
The blue-green spectral range, 4100--5600~\AA, has been exposed on
October 9, 1996, during 40 minutes, under the seeing $FWHM=1\farcs 6$.
The sky has been exposed separately during 20 minutes, properly
normalized and subtracted from the galaxy frame. The MPFS
was equipped with CCD $1040 \times 1160$; we registered
simultaneously 128 spectra from an area of
$11\arcsec \times 21\arcsec$, each spectrum corresponding to a
spatial element of $1\farcs 33 \times 1\farcs 33$. This spectral
range includes a lot of strong absorption lines, so we have used
this exposure to calculate absorption-line indices H$\beta$, Mgb,
Fe5270, and Fe5335 in the well-known Lick system (\cite{woretal}).
We have checked our consistency with the Lick
measurements by observing stars from their list (\cite{woretal})
and by calculating the absorption-line indices for the stars in the same
manner as for the galaxies. The indices calculated for 9 stars are
coincident with the data tabulated in (\cite{woretal}) in average within
0.05~\AA. The exposure for the galaxy has been taken long enough
to provide a signal-to-noise ratios of $\sim$ 60 in the nucleus
and $\sim$ 10--15 near the edge of the frame; the corresponding random
error estimations made in the manner of Cardiel et al. (\cite{cgcg})
range from 0.2~\AA\ in the center to 0.6--0.7~\AA\ for the individual
spatial elements at the outermost points. To keep a constant level of
accuracy along the radius, we summed the spectra for the galaxies in
concentric rings centered onto the nuclei and studied the radial
dependencies of the luminosity-weighted properties of stars by
comparing the observational index values to those from the
synthetic models of old stellar populations of Worthey (\cite{worth94})
and Tantalo et al. (\cite{tantalo}). We estimate the mean accuracy of
our azimuthally-averaged indices as 0.1--0.2~\AA. Besides, we
have cross-correlated each elementary spectrum with the spectrum
of the late-type star ADS~15470 (the brighter component) and
have obtained two-dimensional velocity field for the stellar
component of the central region of NGC~7331.
The reciprocal dispersion during these observations was 1.6~\AA\ per
pix, and the spectral resolution varied slightly over the field of
view from 3.5~\AA\ to 5~\AA. As a result, we estimate our accuracy
of the elementary line-of-sight velocities as 20--25 km/s. However,
our spectral resolution allowed to obtain only luminosity-weighted
mean line-of-sight velocitites; we were not able to separate
kinematical components similar to the
counterrotating bulge reported by Prada et al. (\cite{espls}).
To refine kinematical analysis, we have involved high-resolution
long-slit data from the La Palma Archive. The galaxy has been observed
on July 19, 1996, with the ISIS (red arm) equipped with CCD TEK
$1024 \times 1024$ at the William Herschel Telescope. The near-infrared
spectral range, 8360--8750~\AA, containing the strong CaII
absorption-line triplet, has been exposed: 60 min in the
$P.A.=172\arcdeg$ (major axis) and 30 min in the $P.A.=262\arcdeg$
(minor axis). The slit width was $0\farcs95$; the reciprocal dispersion
of 0.39~\AA\ per pix provided spectral resolution of 1.0~\AA. A star
HR~8656 (K0III) was observed during the same night; we have
cross-correlated the galaxy spectra row-by-row with the spectrum of
this star after binning by three pixels (with the final spatial
step of $1\arcsec$), sky subtracting and transforming into velocity
scale. The subsequent Gauss analysis of obviously multi-component
LOSVDs (line-of-sight velocity distributions) has allowed to extract
several kinematical components along the slit aligned with the major
axis of the galaxy.
The basic reduction steps -- bias subtraction, flatfielding,
cosmic ray hit removing, extraction of one-dimensional spectra,
wavelength calibration, construction of surface brightness maps --
have been fulfiled by using the software developed in the Special
Astrophysical Observatory (\cite{vlas}). To calculate the
absorption-line indices and to map them we have used our own
programs as well as the FORTRAN program of Dr.~Vazdekis.
\section{Morphology of the Ionized Gas Distribution in the Center
of NGC~7331}
Fig.~1 shows raw observational data -- so called "data cube" -- in
the red spectral range. One can see immediately that a characteristic
ratio of emission lines, $H\alpha$-to-[NII]$\lambda$6583, indicates
a LINER-like excitation inside the central region, roughly
$16\arcsec \times 10\arcsec$, but a rather strong present star
formation already in $11\arcsec$ to the east (along the minor axis)
from the nucleus. This fact contradicts to the claims of Keel
(\cite{keel}) who observed the spectra in $10\arcsec$ to the north,
south, and east (!) from the nucleus and everywhere had found the
dominance of [NII]$\lambda$6583 over H$\alpha$. But his aperture,
$8\farcs 1$, was perhaps too large to distinguish between the central
shock-excited gaseous disk and nearby star-forming sites which are
concentrated in a ring with a deprojected radius of $45\arcsec$
(or $15\arcsec$ on the sky plane along the minor axis). This ring
is presented best of all in the recent paper of Smith (\cite{smith}).
It looks quite identical at different wavelengths: on the
H$\alpha$+[NII] map from Pogge (\cite{pogge}), on the 15$\mu$m map
from Smith (\cite{smith}), on the Nobeyama CO (1-0) map from Tosaki
and Shioya (\cite{jap}), and on the 20\,cm radio
continuum map from Cowan et al. (\cite{crb}). Obviously, this multiple
coincidence together with H$\alpha$/[NII]$\lambda 6583 > 2$ in our
Fig.~1 proves that this ring contains sites of intense present star
formation, including formation of massive stars. If we accept the
surface-brightness profile decomposition from Boroson (\cite{bor})
or from Baggett et al. (\cite{bag}), this star-forming ring is
located well inside the bulge-dominated area.
The nature of the very central region is not so obvious. Fig.~2
presents isophotes of the [NII] emission-line surface brightness
distribution obtained with the MPFS. They are elongated and repeat
approximately the shape of continuum isophotes. The consistent
results are obtained by Mediavilla et al. (\cite{esptig}) (see their
Fig.~9); even an asymmetry "north-south" is the same. Keel (\cite{keel})
also mentioned a gaseous disk with the radius of $2\arcsec$ having the
diffuse extension up to $10\arcsec$ aligned in the $P.A.=165\arcdeg$,
close to the line-of-nodes orientation. Interestingly, the similar
elongated structure, with the major-axis diameter of
$7\arcsec - 9\arcsec$, is present on the 15$\mu$m map of Smith
(\cite{smith}), but the sense of the north-south asymmetry is opposite
with respect to the [NII] map. Probably, the explanation of this
asymmetry by the dust concentration to the south from the nucleus
given by Mediavilla et al. (\cite{esptig}) is correct. There are no
either HI (\cite{begeman}) nor CO (Tosaki \& Shioya \cite{jap})
inside this circumnuclear structure; also it is undetected in radio
(Cowan et al. \cite{crb}). Therefore, there is no detectable present
star formation there; but the gas is probably shock-excited, and
the dust is warm. As the structure is aligned with the line of nodes,
we would like to treat it preliminarily as a circumnuclear gaseous disk.
\section{Stellar Population Properties in the Circumnuclear Region
of NGC~7331}
Figure~3 presents isolines of the surface distributions in the
central $9\arcsec \times 10\arcsec$ area for the green (5100~\AA)
continuum and three absorption-line indices, Mgb,
$<\mbox{Fe}>\equiv$ (Fe5270+Fe5335)/2, and H$\beta$.
The continuum isophotes show a strange asymmetry: within $3\arcsec$
from the center eastern halves of them seem to be more tightly
packed than their western halves. It looks like a some extracomponent
of light to the west from the nucleus. Interestingly, on larger
scales the sense of isophote crowding is opposite due to global
dust concentration on the western side of the galaxy
(Boroson \cite{bor}, Smith \cite{smith}). The magnesium-index
isolines are rather roundish; the distribution is strongly peaked
on the nucleus of the galaxy (NGC~7331 has a chemically distinct
nucleus, as we noted earlier, \cite{sil92}). But the surface
distribution of another metal-line index, $<\mbox{Fe}>$, is quite
different from that of Mgb and can partly explain an asymmetry
of the continuum isophotes. In Fig.~3c we clearly see a compact
Fe-rich disk shifted to the west from the nucleus (or do we see
only its western half?). A strong north-south asymmetry is present
too. If we assume that we see only south-western quarter of the
disk, its radius may be as large as $3\farcs5$. This size agrees
with the size of the central mid-infrared structure
(Smith \cite{smith}). But what is the most interesting thing, it is
the similar surface distribution of the hydrogen-line index
H$\beta$ (Fig.~3d): the circumnuclear Fe-rich disk is also
distinguished by the very prominent Balmer absorption line. Since iron
and hydrogen absorption lines in integrated spectra are unmatched
being produced by different groups of stars, the similarity
of the Fig.~3c and Fig.~3d may signify that the circumnuclear
Fe-rich stellar disk is rather young. Let us look at what state-of-art
diagnostics of the stellar population properties can tell us.
To compare our measurements to the stellar population models based on
summation (with some weights) of spectra of stars, we must made
corrections for the stellar velocity dispersion in galaxies which
broadens absorption lines and "degrades" a spectral resolution in
such way. We have calculated the correction by smoothing the spectra
of K0-K3 III giants from the list of (\cite{woretal}) which we have
observed and by measuring the absorption-line indices of the smoothed
spectra. We have found that the index H$\beta$ is quite insensitive
to the velocity dispersion when $\sigma_v$ remains to be less than
230 km/s; as for the metal-line indices, we have found the
correction to be 0.1~\AA\ for $\sigma_v$=130 km/s which is typical
for the central part of NGC~7331 (Bower et al. \cite{betal}).
Figures~4 and 5 contains the corrected indices.
The most popular models of Worthey (\cite{worth94}) allow to disentangle
age and metallicity of old stellar populations by confronting
some metal-line indices (e. g. Mgb, $<\mbox{Fe}>$, or
[MgFe]$\equiv (\mbox{Mgb} \, <\mbox{Fe}>)^{1/2}$) with the
Balmer-line index H$\beta$; but these models have been calculated
for the solar magnesium-to-iron ratio. To use the Worthey's
(\cite{worth94}) models, we must be sure that the stellar population
has solar magnesium-to-iron ratio. Figure~4 presents the diagram
(Fe5270, Mgb) where we compare azimuthally-averaged (in circular
rings centered onto the nucleus) index measurements in NGC~7331
with the models of Worthey (\cite{worth94}) for the solar
magnesium-to-iron ratio. Since the circumnuclear Fe-rich disk
seen in Figs.~3c and 3d is located asymmetrically with respect to
the nucleus and contributes only partially to the ring-integrated
estimates at $r=1\farcs 3$ and $r=2\farcs 6$, we have also
plotted individual-element measurements related to this disk
though they are less accurate than azimuthally-averaged ones.
One can see from Fig.~4 that the nucleus of NGC~7331 is surely
magnesium-overabundant. The Mg/Fe ratio for the azimuthally-averaged
measurements at $r=1\farcs 3$ and $r=2\farcs 6$ is obviously lower
than that for the nucleus, but is it solar or not, depends on the
stellar population age. Farther from the nucleus, at $r \geq 4$,
the moderate magnesium overabundance can also be seen. Interestingly,
the proper measurements of the circumnuclear Fe-rich disk lie
much higher that the azimuthally-averaged points: the disk has
the solar Mg-to-Fe ratio if it is as young as 2 billion years old
and is iron-overabundant if it is older.
Taking in mind all said above, let us try to determine mean ages
of stars in the nucleus and at different distances from the center.
Figures~5a, 5b, and 5c present various diagrams which may be useful
for this purpose. As the nucleus is magnesium-overabundant, the
models of Worthey (\cite{worth94}) are inapplicable for it; in Fig.~5a
we have plotted the calculations of Tantalo et al. (\cite{tantalo})
for [Mg/Fe]=+0.3. From comparison with these models on the diagram
(H$\beta$, $<\mbox{Fe}>$) one can see that the mean age of the
nuclear stellar population in NGC~7331 is 5 billion years, and
its global metal content, $Z$, is close to the solar value. Fig.~5b
shows also the models from Tantalo et al. (\cite{tantalo}), but
for the solar magnesium-to-iron ratio; the locations of the
azimuthally-averaged points at the $r=1\farcs 3$ and $r=2\farcs 6$
imply similarly a rather young age for the nearest neighborhood of
the nucleus. The elementary measurements related to the circumnuclear
Fe-rich disk, though well scattered, nevertheless all lie above
the model sequence with the age of 5 billion years. The next Fig.~5c
presenting the diagram (H$\beta$, [Mg\,Fe]) with the models of
Worthey (\cite{worth94}) calculated under [Mg/Fe]=0 confirms that
four individual points for the circumnuclear Fe-rich disk agree
with the age estimate of 2 billion years and the overall metallicity
at least twice the solar one. If we return now to Fig.~4, we should
conclude that the circumnuclear "Fe-rich" disk has indeed [Mg/Fe]=0
under the assumption of $T=2$ billion years.
The work of Tantalo et al. (\cite{tantalo}) proposes also a possibility
to quantify differences of stellar population properties basing on
the index differences. A set of three linear equations, connecting
$\Delta$[Mg/Fe], $\Delta \log Z$, and $\Delta \log T$ to the
$\Delta \mbox{Mg}_2$, $\Delta <\mbox{Fe}>$, and $\Delta \mbox{H}\beta$,
is written. We apply these equations to the differences between the
nucleus and the bulge; the bulge is safely taken at the following values
of radius, at $r=4\arcsec$, $5\farcs 3$, $6\farcs 7$, and $8\arcsec$,
namely, outside the circumnuclear "Fe-rich" disk but well inside
the star-forming ring. Solely, one must take in mind that the index
measurements at $r > 6\arcsec$ are twice less precise than the more
inner ones so they can be used mostly as a check.
Having performed the set of calculations,
we have obtained the parameter differences listed in Table~2.
They mean that the bulge is twice older and more metal-poor
by a factor of 2.5--4 than the nucleus. Surprisingly, the Mg/Fe
ratios are almost equal in the nucleus and in the bulge. When we
compare the absolute values of nuclear indices,
$\mbox{Mg}_2=0.229 \pm 0.005$, $<\mbox{Fe}>=2.66 \pm 0.22$,
and H$\beta = 1.83 \pm 0.19$, to the direct model
calculations of Tantalo et al. (\cite{tantalo}), we see that the
model with $Z=0.02$ (solar value), [Mg/Fe]=+0.3, and $T=5$ billion
years has consistent index values. Then the bulge stellar population
parameters are $Z=0.005-0.008$, [Mg/Fe]=+0.2, and $T=9-12$ billion
years. The latter age estimate agrees also with the positions
of bulge points in Fig.~5a.
\begin{table}
\caption[ ] {Stellar population parameter differences "bulge-nucleus"}
\begin{flushleft}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\tableline
Radius, \arcsec & $\Delta$[Mg/Fe] & $\Delta \log Z$ & $\Delta \log T$ \\
\tableline
4 & -0.09 & -0.39 & +0.26\\
5.3 & -0.17 & -0.41 & +0.29 \\
6.7 & -0.16 & -0.62 & +0.46 \\
8 & -0.07 & -0.58 & +0.27 \\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
The analysis undertaken in this Section has allowed to identify three
quite different stellar structures within $8\arcsec$ ($\sim$ 600 pc)
from the center. The unresolved star-like nucleus is rather young,
$5 \cdot 10^9$ years old, strongly magnesium-overabundant and has
solar global metallicity. Farther out, the circumnuclear disk with
a radius of $\sim 3\arcsec$ is even younger, $\sim 2$ billion years
old, has the solar Mg-to-Fe ratio, and the global metallicity higher
than the solar one. The surrounding bulge is older than the nucleus
and the circumnuclear disk, namely, is 9--12 billion years old,
magnesium-overabundant and moderately metal-poor.
\section{Kinematics of Gas and Stars}
Two-dimensional line-of-sight velocity fields for stars and ionized
gas obtained with the MPFS are presented in Fig.~6. Both fields
look rather regular and show clear signs of rotation. However there
are some differences between velocity fields of stars and gas. As
we noted earlier (Afanasiev et al. \cite{asz89}), the gas rotation
curve has a sharp local maximum at $R\approx 2\arcsec$, and we see
a consequent feature to the north-west from the center in Fig.~6b
(it is somewhat farther than it must be due to a seeing quality
worse with respect to that of our long-slit observations).
Meantime the rotation velocity of stars rises continuously
with radius -- rapidly up to $R\approx 5\arcsec$ and more slowly
farther from the center (Bower et al. \cite{betal}, Prada et al.
\cite{espls}), and consistently, Fig.~6a has no closed isovelocities.
Two-dimensional velocity fields can allow to check an axisymmetric
character of rotation. If we have an axisymmetric mass distribution
and rotation on circular orbits, the direction of maximum central
line-of-sight velocity gradient (we shall call it "dynamical major
axis") should coincide with the line of nodes as well as the
photometric major axis; whereas in a case of triaxial potential
the isovelocities align with the principal axis of the ellipsoid,
and generally the dynamical and photometrical major axes diverge
showing turns with respect to the line of nodes in opposite senses
(e. g. \cite{mbe92}). In a simple case of cylindric (disk-like)
rotation we have a convenient analytical expression for the
azimuthal dependence of central line-of-sight velocity
gradient within the area of solid-body rotation:\\
\noindent
$dv_r/dr = \omega$ sin $i$ cos $(P.A. - P.A._0)$, \\
\noindent
where $\omega$ is a deprojected central angular rotation velocity,
$i$ is an inclination of the rotation plane, and $P.A._0$ is an
orientation of the line of nodes.
We have fitted the data presented in Fig.~6a by this formula and
have obtained for the gradients taken within $r \leq 2\arcsec$:\\
\noindent
$dv_r/dr$ = [33 cos $(P.A. - 183^\circ) - 2.5$]
$\mbox{km} \ \mbox{s}^{-1} \ \mbox{arcsec}^{-1}$ . \\
\noindent
The amplitude of the cosine curve, $\omega \, \sin i = 33 \,
\mbox{km} \ \mbox{s}^{-1} \ \mbox{arcsec}^{-1}$, agrees rather well
with the central slopes of the major axis long-slit cross-sections
obtained for the stellar component of NGC~7331 by Bower et al.
(\cite{betal}) and by Prada et al. (\cite{espls}). Moreover, it agrees
rather well with the rotation velocity of ionized gas within the
kinematically decoupled region: in Afanasiev et al. (\cite{asz89})
we reported an azimuthal dependence of the central line-of-sight
velocity gradients based on the long-slit [NII]$\lambda$6583
emission line measurements in four different position angles,
the best-fitted cosine curve formula for which was:\\
\noindent
$dv_r/dr$ = [38.4 cos $(P.A. - 175^\circ) + 1.3$]
$\mbox{km} \ \mbox{s}^{-1} \ \mbox{arcsec}^{-1}$ . \\
\noindent
The phases of these two cosine curves are close too; but together
they evidence for a marginal turn of the dynamical major axis with
respect to the line of nodes which has $P.A.=166\arcdeg - 167\arcdeg$
(Prieto et al. \cite{pretal}, von Linden et al. \cite{germ}).
It would be a signature of a triaxial potential, if the photometric
major axis turns in opposite sense, to lesser $P.A.$. But indeed
it turns in the same sense! Numerous photometric studies detected
a turn of the photometric major axis in NGC~7331 to $P.A.\approx
175\arcdeg - 183\arcdeg$ inside $R=6\arcsec - 8\arcsec$ (somewhat
different in different works). It is also known that this turn
is stronger at shorter wavelengths. For example, Prieto et al.
(\cite{pretal}) have measured the following orientations of the
isophote major axis at $R\approx 4\arcsec$:
$P.A._0 \approx 182\arcdeg$ in the $B$-band,
$P.A._0 \approx 179\arcdeg$ in the $V$-band, and only
$P.A._0 \approx 176\arcdeg$ in the $I$-band; the asymptotic
$P.A._0$ value at larger radii given by them is $166\arcdeg$.
Up to now the common point of view is that it is a dust effect
which must be wavelength-dependent. But in the center of NGC~7331
the dust is still visible in the $I$-band, however, the measurements
of $P.A._0$ in the $I$- and in the $K$-bands agree well (Prada et al.
\cite{espls}). There may be another explanation: if there is a blue
(young) misaligned stellar disk inside the red (older) bulge, the
measurements of combined isophotes should show a stronger turn
through the bluer filter. The coincidence of the dynamical and
photometrical major axes at $P.A.\approx 180\arcdeg$ reveals a
presence of inclined circumnuclear stellar disk, rather rapidly
rotating.
The long-slit observations made under higher spectral resolution
may help to clarify a dynamical structure of the central region of
NGC~7331. The similar observational data taken along the major axis
of the galaxy in 1992 August have allowed Prada et al. (\cite{espls})
to claim a presence of counterrotating bulge in NGC~7331. Here we
present the later results for the major-axis and minor-axis
cross-sections. Fig.~7 shows a direct view of the LOSVD calculated along
the major axis, and Figs.~8a and 8b -- the results of multi-component
Gauss analysis of the LOSVDs.
One can immediately see a difference between our Fig.~7 and the
analogous Fig.~3 of Prada et al. (\cite{espls}). The description
of the latter included only two kinematical components: fast-rotating
disk and retrograde bulge rotating more slowly and seen only
in the radius range of $5\arcsec - 15\arcsec$. Prada et al.
(\cite{espls}) claimed an absence of prograde bulge. Meantime even
a single glance at our Fig.~7 reveals two quite noticeable
prograde structures: a fast-rotating disk and a slower rotating
prograde bulge seen up to $\sim 35\arcsec$ from the center. The
retrograde component is seen too, but it is not so prominent as
it seemed to be in Fig.~3 of Prada et al. (\cite{espls}). Since
our long-slit data were obtained with the same equipment -- the ISIS,
red arm, of the WHT, -- and the template star is of the same
spectral type as that of Prada et al. (\cite{espls}), we can only
refer to our better spectral resolution -- 35 km/s (their spectral
resolution was reported as 52 km/s).
Fig.~8a displays the results of Gauss analysis of the LOSVD along
the major axis $P.A.=172\arcdeg$ together with stellar velocity
profiles derived without component separation, namely, together
with the recent data of Heraudeau \& Simien (\cite{hr}) obtained under
seeing of $2\farcs 5$ and with the simulated one-dimensional profile
calculated from our MPFS two-dimensional velocity field shown in
Fig.~6a. By analysing the long-slit data, we have extracted three
kinematical components. The first, fast-rotating component dominates
over the full range of radii. Since according to Prada et al.
(\cite{espls}) at $R \geq 5\arcsec$ its stellar velocity dispersion
does not exceed 70 km/s, we would treat it as a disk. The second
component, corotating with the first one and seen at $R \geq 5\arcsec$,
rotates much slower than the first one, so we would conclude that
it is an ordinary bulge; but it dominates nowhere, and that is very
strange for the early-type spiral galaxy with extended photometric
bulge. Interestingly, its nearly solid-body slow rotation up to
$R \approx 45\arcsec$ matches perfectly the rotation of the ionized gas
at $R > 2\arcsec$ (see Fig.~1 in our work, Afanasiev et al.
\cite{asz89}, or the lower resolution H$\alpha$ data in \cite{fr})
while the rotation curve of the dominant stellar component, disk,
diverges strongly with the gas rotation curve. Finally, the third
component counter-rotates with respect to the main stellar and
gaseous rotation; it is just the same component which was reported
by Prada et al. (\cite{espls}) as a "retrograde bulge". But there
is some ambiguity with this diagnosis: in their Conclusions Prada
et al. (\cite{espls}) stated that "the inner parts of the galaxy
consists of a boxy component, dominating the inner $5\arcsec$. It
shows position angle twisting, rotates retrograde to the rest of
the galaxy, and is rounder"; meantime the retrograde component is
seen only in the narrow radius range $5\arcsec < R < 20\arcsec$
according both to the data of Prada et al. (\cite{espls}) and ours!
Besides, its velocity dispersion is as low as that of the disk
(Prada et al. \cite{espls}), and it rotates faster than the prograde
bulge though slower than the disk. So it does not resemble a bulge;
it must be a rather flat structure.
The central $5\arcsec$ contains only one inseparable component; but
at $R \approx 5\arcsec$ it meets perfectly the disk component. As
it looks like a straight solid-body rotation curve, we would identify
it with a central part of the disk rotation profile. An increased
velocity dispersion inside $R\approx 5\arcsec$ which has been reported
by Prada et al. (\cite{espls}) is probably a result of adding
slower rotating, weaker components. However, we can conclude
that from a dynamical point of view the disk dominates over
the whole central region of NGC~7331.
\section{Discussion}
We can summarize our conclusions as follows. In the Sb galaxy NGC~7331
the stellar disk is a kinematical component dominating over the full
radius range. The bulge is less prominent though it can be traced up
to $R\approx 45\arcsec$ (3.3 kpc); its slow solid-body rotation
is very similar to the main rotation of the ionized gas. We confirm
also an existence of the counter-rotating stellar component in
the radius range of $5\arcsec - 20\arcsec$ (400 -- 1500 pc). The
central part of the disk inside $\sim 3\arcsec$ (200 pc) -- or
a separate circumnuclear stellar-gaseous disk as it is distinguished
by decoupled fast rotation of the ionized gas -- is very metal-rich,
rather young, $\sim 2$ billion years old, and its solar
magnesium-to-iron ratio evidences for a very long duration of the
last episode of star formation there. However the gas excitation
mechanism in this disk now is shock-like. The star-like nucleus
had probably experienced a secondary star formation burst too: its
age is 5 billion years, much younger than the age of the circumnuclear
bulge. But [Mg/Fe]=+0.3 and only solar global metallicity imply that
the nuclear star formation burst has been much shorter than that
in the circumnuclear disk.
Up to now two-dimensional mapping of the absorption-line equivalent
widths (or indices) is rarely used to investigate stellar population
properties in galaxies. Practically unique examples of such approach
are a long-slit combined study of the center of M~31 by Davidge
(\cite{dav}) and a detailed TIGER investigation of NGC~4594 by
Emsellem et al. (\cite{ems96}). The latter case appears to be
something similar to the case of NGC~7331: the magnesium-index
map of the center of NGC~4594 demonstrates a point-like peak in
the nucleus of the galaxy, and the iron indices are roughly
constant along the major axis up to the border of the area
investigated, $R\approx 5\arcsec$ (Emsellem et al. \cite{ems96}).
So the isolines of the iron indices in NGC~4594 present something
like the Fe-rich circumnuclear stellar disk found by us in NGC~7331.
Though the measurements of Mgb index in NGC~4594 are complicated by
a presence of the rather strong emission line [NI]$\lambda$5199
(Emsellem et al. \cite{ems96}) and though two examples are not
a statistics yet, perhaps, there exists some evolutionary sense
in different morphologies of magnesium- and iron-index surface
distributions.
An interesting problem is an origin of the counter-rotating component.
Usually counter-rotating stellar substructures are considered
as a result of merger. Some merger event could also provoke a
secondary star formation burst in the center of the galaxy in this
way producing the chemically distinct nucleus and, if the merger
was dissipative, the inclined circumnuclear disk. However, the
circumnuclear Fe-rich disk in NGC~7331 rotates in the same sense
as the rest of the galaxy and so cannot be genetically related to
the counter-rotating component. Recently we have found a
counter-rotating stellar component in the nearby spiral galaxy
NGC~2841 (\cite{we99}). NGC~2841 and NGC~7331 look almost twins:
the same morphological type, Sb, the same size and luminosity, the
same inclination. They were the first galaxies where a global ring-like
distribution of CO has been detected (\cite{ys}). Analysing the
major-axis long-slit cross-section of NGC~2841, we have found two
kinematical components in the bulge: strong prograde one which
dominates up to $R\approx 25\arcsec$ and weak retrograde one
(\cite{we99}). A set of other phenomena allow us to suggest an
existence of extended triaxial bulge almost aligned with the line
of nodes of the global disk in this galaxy, and we have thought
the counter-rotating stellar component to be an intrinsic property
of a slightly tumbling triaxial potential. Perhaps the similar
situation takes place in NGC~7331; the only difference is that in
NGC~7331 the disk dominates over the full radius range whereas
in NGC~2841 the bulge is more prominent. A hypothesis of the
bar presence in the center of NGC~7331 has already been proposed
by von Linden et al. (\cite{germ}) to explain a central depletion
of molecular gas in this galaxy. Besides, the French team (\cite{fr})
have constructed a global two-dimensional velocity field of the
ionized gas in NGC~7331 from their observations of H$\alpha$ emission
line with a scanning Fabry-Perot interferometer and have found a
strong large-scale turn of the isovelocities which is usually treated
as a signature of bar presence. Now we can add another argument
in favor of a triaxial potential aligned with the line of nodes:
inside $R\approx 40\arcsec$ the gas in NGC~7331 rotates more slowly
than the stellar disk, and it is valid both for the ionized gas
(\cite{retal65}, Afanasiev et al. \cite{asz89}, \cite{fr}) and for
the molecular gas (von Linden et al. \cite{germ}). Since the emission
lines are narrow (below the spectral resolution) and the gas seems
to be well-settled to the global plane of the galaxy
(Bosma \cite{bosma}, von Linden et al. \cite{germ}),
the only explanation can be non-circular rotation of the gas caused
by the triaxial potential of the bulge. The stronger response of the
gaseous disk to the triaxial potential of the bulge when compared to
the response of the stellar disk may be explained by a viscous nature
of the gas and by a significant self-gravitation of the massive stellar
disk of NGC~7331 which is a dominant dynamical component in this galaxy.
Interestingly, the solid-body part of the gas rotation curve, or a
zone of non-circular motions as we think, ends at
$R=40\arcsec - 45\arcsec$ -- exactly at the ring of molecular gas,
warm dust, and intense star formation which we have discussed in
Section~3. The configuration looks like an HII ring around a bar
which is often observed in classic barred galaxies. Probably, the
low-contrast triaxial bulge extends up to $40\arcsec \div 50\arcsec$
from the center in NGC~7331.
The last interesting question concerns a possible presence of the black
hole in the center of NGC~7331. In Afanasiev et al. (\cite{asz89}) we
argued that the fast decoupled axisymmetric rotation of the ionized
gas inside $R=2\arcsec$ proved strong mass concentration in the nucleus;
this mass concentration might be a black hole. But Bower et al.
(\cite{betal}) have noticed no decoupled rotation by studying a stellar
component; and what is the most important, they have not found a peak
of stellar velocity dispersion in the nucleus. How can we agree gas and
star behaviours? In Afanasiev et al. (\cite{asz89}), Zasov and
Sil'chenko (\cite{zs96}) we noted that a misaligned minibar in the
center of a galaxy may mimic a presence of kinematically decoupled
nucleus by increasing a visible central slope of the major-axis
velocity profile due to non-circular motions. But in NGC~7331 the
situation is more complex: the rotation of the gas and stars in the
very center is circular, and the bar effect (non-circular gas motions)
is felt only outside the zone of decoupled rotation. However, the
result is the same: the nucleus looks kinematically decoupled though
no point-like central mass concentration is required for this. By
summarizing, since Cowan et al. (\cite{crb}) and Stockdale et al.
(\cite{src}) have found the unresolved radio- and X-ray source in the
center of NGC~7331, it may be a black hole, but it cannot be
a {\it supermassive} black hole, like those in NGC~4594, NGC~3115,
and M~87, because its dynamical influence is nowadays indeterminate.
As supermassive black holes are now detected in some three dozens
galaxies, a correlation is found between black hole mass and
galactic spheroid luminosity. By using this relation taken e. g.
from Cattaneo et al. (\cite{bhmass}) one can try to estimate
a possible black hole mass in the center of NGC~7331. Unfortunately,
as we have noted in the Introduction, the bulge-disk decomposition
in NGC~7331 is ambiguous: if the bulge is large as Boroson (\cite{bor})
or Baggett et al. (\cite{bag}) reported, the black hole mass
may be $10^9\,M_\odot$, if it is small like that reported by
Prada et al. (\cite{espls}), the mean relation $M_{BH}$ vs. $L_{B,bul}$
implies $M_{BH}=10^8\,M_\odot$ for NGC~7331. If we take also into
account the large scatter of this relation (Cattaneo et al.,
\cite{bhmass}, give $\sigma = 0.74$) and the impression that
the $M_{BH}$ estimates for spiral galaxies lie all below the mean
relation defined mostly by ellipticals, the mass of the black hole
in the center of NGC~7331 may be as small as $3 \cdot 10^7\,M_\odot$.
This value contributes only several percents into the total mass
of the circumnuclear disk ($5 \cdot 10^8\,M_\odot$, Afanasiev et al.,
\cite{asz89}), so it may be undetectable in kinematical studies
of moderate spatial resolution like ours.
\acknowledgements
I thank the astronomers of the Special Astrophysical Observatory
Drs. V. L. Afanasiev, S. N. Dodonov, V. V. Vlasyuk, and
Mr. S. V. Drabek for supporting the observations at the 6m telescope.
I am also grateful to the graduate student of the Moscow University
A. V. Moiseev for the help in preparing the manuscript.
The 6m telescope is operated under the financial support of
Science Department of Russia (registration number 01-43).
During the data analysis I have
used the Lyon-Meudon Extragalactic Database (LEDA) supplied by the
LEDA team at the CRAL-Observatoire de Lyon (France) and the NASA/IPAC
Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
This research has made use of the La Palma Archive. The telescope
WHT is operated on the island of La Palma by the Royal
Greenwich Observatory in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los
Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias. The work
was supported by the grant of the Russian Foundation for Basic
Researches 98-02-16196, by the grant of the President of Russian
Federation for young Russian doctors of sciences 98-15-96029
and by the Russian State Scientific-Technical
Program "Astronomy. Basic Space Researches" (the section "Astronomy").
|
\section{Introduction}
On general grounds (2+1)-dimensional spacetime was long considered unlikely
to support black holes, before such solutions were
discovered \cite{BTZ}.
Black holes were commonly conceived as places where the effects of gravity are
large, surrounded by a region where these effects are asymptotically negligible.
Another possible reason is the idea that black holes are ``frozen
gravitational waves" and therefore exist only in a context where the
gravitational field can have independent degrees of freedom.
In 2+1 dimensional Einstein theory --- that is, Einstein's equations in
a 3-dimensional space-time of signature $(- + +)$ --- the pure,
sourceless gravitational field has no local degrees of freedom,
because in three dimensions the Riemann tensor is given algebraically
by the Einstein tensor, which in turn is algebraically determined by
the Einstein field equations. If there is no matter source and
no cosmological constant, the Riemann tensor vanishes and space-time is
flat; if there is no matter but a cosmological constant $\Lambda$, the
Riemann tensor is that of a space of constant curvature $\Lambda/3$.
Thus gravity does not vary from place to place and it does not have
any wave degrees of freedom. These were some of the reasons
why the possibility of black holes was discounted, and the discovery of
black hole solutions in 2+1 D spacetimes with a negative $\Lambda$ came as
such a surprise.
The existence of (2+1)-dimensional black holes of course does not alter the
absence of gravitational waves in (2+1)-dimensional Einstein spaces, nor the
lack of variation of their curvature. The curvature of spacetimes
satisfying the sourceless Einstein equations with negative $\Lambda$ is
constant negative, and the local geometry in the asymptotic region does not
differ from that near the black hole. Indeed, black hole solutions
can be obtained from
the standard, simply connected spacetime of constant negative curvature (anti-de
Sitter space, AdS space for short) by forming its quotient space with a
suitable group of
isometries.\footnote{It appears that all locally AdS spacetimes can be obtained in
this way \cite{mess}. This is not so for
positive curvature \cite{MJW}.} One of
the criteria on the isometries is that the quotient space should not have any
objectionable singularities. For example, if the group contains
isometries of the rotation type, with a timelike set of fixed points,
then the quotient space will have singularities of the conical kind.
Such singularities can represent ``point" particles, and the corresponding
spacetime can be interpreted as an interesting and physically meaningful
description of the dynamics of such particles \cite{Hoo}. However, we confine
attention to solutions of the sourceless Einstein equations with negative
cosmological constant --- whether black holes or not --- that are at least
initially nonsingular. Therefore we exclude such particle-like solutions.
(Likewise, we will not consider the interesting developments in
lower-dimensional dilaton gravity, nor other matter fields \cite{LD}.)
On the other hand, the group used to construct our quotient space may have
isometries that are locally Lorentz boosts, with spacelike sets of
fixed points. The
corresponding singularities are of the non-Hausdorff ``Misner" type \cite{Mis}. If
such a singularity does not occur on an initial spacelike surface, and is hidden
behind an event horizon, then the spacetime can be acceptable as a
representation of a black hole. Finally, the isometry may not have any fixed
points but still lead to regions in the quotient space that are to be considered
singular for physical reasons, and such regions may again be surrounded by an
event horizon, yielding other types of black holes.
Thus the proper criterion characterizing a black hole in this context is not
a region of large curvature or an infinite red shift (in typical representations
of AdS space itself, where there is no black hole, there is an infinite red
shift between the interior and the region near infinity), but existence of an
event horizon. This in turn requires the existence of a suitable {\curs I}, whose
neighborhood is a region in which ``distant observers" can survive for an
arbitrarily long time without hitting a singularity. That is, there have to be
causal curves (the worldlines of these observers) that can be continued to
infinite proper time. For example, Misner space itself --- the quotient of
Minkowski space by a Lorentz boost --- does not satisfy this criterion in
any dimension, because all timelike curves intersect the non-Hausdorff
singularity in a finite proper time. Thus the case $\Lambda = 0$ does not yield
any black holes. The same is true, for similar reason, in the case $\Lambda >
0$. However, for $\Lambda < 0$ there are worldlines along which asymptotic
observers can survive forever even when spacelike singularities are present.
Our black holes will then not be asymptotically flat \cite{Heu}, but
asymptotically AdS.
We will see (in section 3) that the usual definition of black holes can be
applied to these spacetimes, and even before we have come to this
we will speak of them as black holes.
We can understand the difference between the cases $\Lambda \geq 0$ and
$\Lambda < 0$ as as a consequence of the positive
``relative acceleration" of spacelike geodesics in spaces of negative
curvature. Spacelike geodesics reaching the asymptotically AdS region
will increase their separation without limit. The
fixed points of the identification that generates a black hole --- that
is, the ``singularities" --- lie along a spacelike geodesic. Consider a
set of observers located initially further and further towards the
asymptotic region and along another spacelike geodesic, which does not
intersect the geodesic of fixed points. The timelike distance of an
observer from the singularity
will then eventually increase without limit, so a sufficiently far-out
observer can survive for an arbitrarily long time.
We note in passing that {\em timelike} geodesics in spacetimes of constant
negative curvature have the opposite property: they accelerate toward
each other. Thus $\Lambda < 0$ corresponds to a universal ``attractive"
gravity, and a black hole in such a spacetime exerts this same attraction
on test particles, as a black hole should.
The quotient of the AdS universe with the group generated by a single
finite isometry that is without fixed points, at least on some initial
spacelike surface, yields a single black hole, called a BTZ spacetime
(for its discoverers, Ba\~nados, Teitelboim and Zanelli \cite{BTZ}).
As we will see, one can make further identifications in a BTZ spacetime,
obtaining more complicated black holes, and this process can be repeated
an arbitrary number of times. Although the isometries used for
the identification cannot be entirely
arbitrary, the variety of possibilities and of the resulting spacetimes
is quite large. These spacetimes cannot be described by their metric in
one or in a few simple coordinate systems, because many coordinate patches
would be needed to cover their possibly complicated topology. In
principle such a spacetime is of course defined, and all its physical
properties are computable, once we know the structure of the AdS
isometries that generate it. But such a presentation does not give an
accessible and easily visualizable picture of the spacetime. Therefore
we prefer to describe the spacetimes combinatorially, by ``gluing together"
pieces of AdS space. This view allows one to gain many important
geometrical insights directly, without much algebra or analysis (even if
a few of these geometrical constructions may resemble a tour de force).
In section 2 we consider the simplest, time-symmetric case. Because the
extrinsic curvature of the surface of time-symmetry vanishes, this
surface is itself a smooth two-dimensional Riemannian space of constant
negative curvature. This class of spaces
has been studied in considerable detail \cite{BP}. In particular, almost
all two-dimensional spacelike topologies occur already within this class.
Section 3 considers the time development of these spaces; we find that all the
non-compact initial states develop into black holes. The horizon can
be found explicitly, although its behavior can be quite complicated.
Section 4 concerns spacetimes that are not time-symmetric but have angular
momentum.
An important reason for studying the classical behavior of these spacetimes is
their relative simplicity while still preserving many of the features of more
realistic black hole spacetimes. They are therefore interesting models for
testing the formalism of quantum gravity. We do not go into these developments
but refer the reader to the recent book by S. Carlip \cite{Carl}.
\section{Time-symmetric geometries}
Three-dimensional AdS space has many totally geodesic (``time-symmetric")
spacelike
surfaces. Because the extrinsic curvature of such surfaces vanishes, they
have constant negative curvature $\Lambda$. Each such surface remains
invariant under a
``little group" of AdS isometries, which are therefore isometries of the
spacelike surface, and conversely each isometry of the spacelike surface
can be extended to be an isometry of the whole AdS
spacetime.\footnote{Since AdS spacetime is an analytic continuation (both
in signature and curvature) of the familiar spherical geometry, such
properties can be considered extensions of the corresponding statements
about spheres, mutatis mutandis for the difference in group structure,
SO(4) vs SO(2,2). Analogous statements are true about surfaces of
constant extrinsic curvature.} Therefore any identification obtained by
isometries on the spacelike surface can likewise be extended to the whole
spacetime. (AdS space identified by this extension coincides with the usual
time development of the initial data via Einstein's equations where the
latter is defined, but it even goes beyond any Cauchy horizon).
Thus to identify the possible time-symmetric geometries it suffices to discuss the
possible initial spacelike geometries --- although this leaves the time
development still to be made explicit.
\subsection{Coordinates}
Although most physically and mathematically interesting facts about
constant negative curvature spaces can be phrased without
reference to coordinates, and even usefully so, it is convenient for the
elucidation and proof of these facts to have coordinates available.
Because of the large number of symmetries of AdS spacetime, its geometry
takes a simple form in a large number of coordinate systems, which do not
usually cover all of the spacetime, but which exhibit explicitly one or
several of these symmetries. The simplest coordinates are the redundant
set of four $X^\mu$, $\mu = 1,\dots 4$ in terms of which AdS space is
usually defined, namely as an embedding in four-dimensional flat space
with signature $(-,-,+,+)$ and metric
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2=-dU^2-dV^2+dX^2+dY^
\label{emme}
\end{eqnarray}
by the surface
\begin{eqnarray}
-U^2-V^2+X^2+Y^2=-\ell^2 .
\label{ads}
\end{eqnarray}
This spacetime is periodic in the timelike direction with
the topology $S^1\times R^2$; for example, for $X^2+Y^2<\ell^2$
the curves ($X,\,Y$) = const,
$ U^2+V^2 = \ell^2 - X^2-Y^2$ are closed timelike circles.
In the following we assume that this periodicity has been removed by passing to the
universal covering space with topology $R^3$, which we will call AdS
space. If it is necessary to distinguish it from the space of Eq
(\ref{ads}) we will call the latter ``periodic AdS space." Either
spacetime is a solution of the vacuum Einstein
equations with a negative cosmological constant $\Lambda=-1/\ell^2$.
Eq (\ref{ads}) shows that AdS space is a surface of constant distance
from the origin in the metric (\ref{emme}). It therefore inherits from the
embedding space all the isometries that leave the origin fixed, which
form the SO(2,2) group. AdS space can be described by coordinates
analogous to the usual spherical polar coordinates as in Eq (\ref{ts}), but
of greater interest are coordinates related to
isometries that leave a plane fixed, and whose orbits lie in the orthogonal
plane. These have the nature of rotations if the plane is spacelike (or double-timelike,
such as the ($U,\,V$) plane), and of Lorentz transformations if the plane is timelike.
Isometries corresponding to orthogonal planes commute, and we can find coordinates that
exhibit such pairs of isometries explicitly. If the isometries are rotations, the
coordinates cover all of AdS space; if they are Lorentz transformations the
corresponding
coordinates are analogous to Rindler coordinates of flat space, and need to be
analytically extended in the usual fashion to cover all of the spacetime.
For example, if we choose rotations by an angle $\theta$ in the ($X,\,Y$) plane and by an
angle $t/\ell$ in the ($U,\,V$) plane, and specify the respective orbits
on the AdS surface by
$$U^2+V^2=\ell^2\cosh^2\chi \qquad {\rm and} \qquad X^2+Y^2 = \ell^2\sinh^2\chi$$
(so that, for example, $U=-\ell\cosh\chi\cos{t\over\ell},\;
V=\ell\cosh\chi\sin{t\over\ell}$) we obtain the metric
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2=-\cosh^2\chi dt^2+\ell^2\left( d\chi^2+\sinh^2\chi d\theta^2\right) .
\label{statmet}
\end{eqnarray}
In order to describe the universal covering space we have to allow $t$ to
range
$-\infty < t < \infty$, whereas $\theta$ has its usual range, $0\leq\theta<2\pi$,
and similarly $0\leq\chi<\infty$. Except for the usual polar coordinate
singularity at $\chi = 0$, these coordinates cover all of AdS space by a
sequence of identical (``static") two-dimensional spacelike surfaces
$t =$ const having a standard metric of spaces of constant negative curvature
$-1/\ell^2$. Because $U=0=V$ does not occur on (\ref{ads}),
shifts in the $t$ coordinate are true translations, without fixed points.
These coordinates define timelike sections ($\theta=$ const) and spacelike
sections ($t=$ const) of AdS space. Each of these
can be represented in a conformal diagram, shown in Fig.~1.
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 0.8mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(140.20,86.00)(10,5)
\bezier{184}(99.80,50.00)(99.80,61.28)(109.90,67.68)
\bezier{180}(109.90,67.68)(120.00,72.73)(130.10,67.68)
\bezier{184}(130.10,67.68)(140.20,61.28)(140.20,50.00)
\bezier{184}(99.80,50.00)(99.80,38.72)(109.90,32.32)
\bezier{180}(109.90,32.32)(120.00,27.27)(130.10,32.32)
\bezier{184}(130.10,32.32)(140.20,38.72)(140.20,50.00)
\put(20.00,15.00){\line(0,1){70.00}}
\put(40.00,15.00){\line(0,1){70.00}}
\put(60.00,15.00){\line(0,1){70.00}}
\put(80.00,50.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$t=0$}}
\put(85.00,50.00){\vector(1,0){11.00}}
\put(75.00,50.00){\vector(-1,0){11.00}}
\put(20.00,50.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\put(20.00,60.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\put(20.00,70.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\put(20.00,80.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\put(20.00,40.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\put(20.00,30.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\put(20.00,20.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\put(48.00,82.00){\line(0,-1){64.00}}
\put(54.00,82.00){\line(0,-1){64.00}}
\put(57.00,82.00){\line(0,-1){64.00}}
\put(32.00,82.00){\line(0,-1){64.00}}
\put(26.00,82.00){\line(0,-1){64.00}}
\put(23.00,82.00){\line(0,-1){64.00}}
\bezier{184}(103.38,50.00)(103.38,59.28)(111.69,64.54)
\bezier{180}(111.69,64.54)(120.00,68.70)(128.31,64.54)
\bezier{184}(128.31,64.54)(136.62,59.28)(136.62,50.00)
\bezier{184}(103.38,50.00)(103.38,40.72)(111.69,35.46)
\bezier{180}(111.69,35.46)(120.00,31.30)(128.31,35.46)
\bezier{184}(128.31,35.46)(136.62,40.72)(136.62,50.00)
\bezier{184}(106.33,50.00)(106.33,57.63)(113.16,61.97)
\bezier{180}(113.16,61.97)(120.00,65.38)(126.84,61.97)
\bezier{184}(126.84,61.97)(133.67,57.63)(133.67,50.00)
\bezier{184}(106.33,50.00)(106.33,42.37)(113.16,38.03)
\bezier{180}(113.16,38.03)(120.00,34.62)(126.84,38.03)
\bezier{184}(126.84,38.03)(133.67,42.37)(133.67,50.00)
\bezier{184}(112.01,50.00)(112.01,54.46)(116.00,57.00)
\bezier{180}(116.00,57.00)(120.00,58.99)(124.00,57.00)
\bezier{184}(124.00,57.00)(127.99,54.46)(127.99,50.00)
\bezier{184}(112.01,50.00)(112.01,45.54)(116.00,43.00)
\bezier{180}(116.00,43.00)(120.00,41.01)(124.00,43.00)
\bezier{184}(124.00,43.00)(127.99,45.54)(127.99,50.00)
\put(100.00,50.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\put(120.00,30.00){\line(0,1){40.00}}
\put(138.00,61.67){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\theta$}}
\put(119.33,49.67){\vector(3,1){0.2}}
\bezier{100}(99.33,37.00)(107.33,46.00)(119.33,49.67)
\put(99.00,36.33){\makebox(0,0)[ct]{$\chi = 0$}}
\put(105.67,35.67){\line(1,1){29.00}}
\put(134.33,35.67){\line(-1,1){29.00}}
\put(140.00,42.00){\makebox(0,0)[lt]{$\chi=\infty$}}
\put(40.00,86.00){\makebox(0,0)[cb]{$\chi=0$}}
\put(60.00,86.00){\makebox(0,0)[cb]{$\chi=\infty$}}
\put(61.00,70.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$t=$ const}}
\put(40.00,10.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf a})}}
\put(120.00,10.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf b})}}
\thicklines
\put(135.67,62.67){\vector(-1,1){0.20}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Conformal diagrams of the static (or sausage) coordinates
of Eq (\ref{statmet})
in sections of AdS space.
({\bf a}) The $\chi,\,t$ section, both sides of the origin. The right half is, for
example, $\theta = 0$, and the left half, $\theta=\pi$. ({\bf b}) The section $t=$ const is
the 2D space of constant negative curvature, conformally represented as a Poincar\'e disk
(see section 2.2). The conformal factors are different in the two sections, so they do not
represent sections of one three-dimensional conformal diagram. (For the
latter see Fig.~4b)} \label{fig1}
\end{figure}
We can define a ``radial" coordinate (which really measures the circumference of circles) by
$$ r = \ell\sinh\chi\,.$$
The metric (\ref{statmet}) then takes the form
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-\left({r^2\over\ell^2}+1\right) dt^2+
\left({r^2\over\ell^2}+1\right)^{-1} dr^2+r^2 d\theta^2\,.
\label{m0}
\end{equation}
By choosing a different radial coordinate, namely $$\rho = \ell\tanh{1\over 2}\chi$$
to replace the $\chi$ of Eq (\ref{statmet}), we can make the conformally flat nature of the
spacelike section explicit and keep the metric static:
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-\left({1+(\rho/\ell)^2\over 1-(\rho/\ell)^2}\right)^2dt^2 +
{4\over\left(1-(\rho/\ell)^2\right)^2}\left(d\rho^2 + \rho^2d\theta^2\right).
\label{sausge}
\end{equation}
A picture like Fig.~1, with parts ({\bf a}) and ({\bf b}) put together into a
3-dimensional cylinder, can be considered a plot of AdS space in the cylindrical
coordinates of Eq (\ref{sausge}).
Because of the cylindrical shape of this diagram these coordinates are sometimes called {\it
sausage coordinates} \cite{Ingemar}. Like the static coordinates of (\ref{statmet}), these
cover all of AdS space.
If we follow an analogous construction but use the timelike ($X,\, U$) and ($Y,\, V$) planes
with orbits (in terms of a new coordinate $\chi$)
$$-V^2+X^2=-\ell^2\cosh^2\chi \qquad {\rm and} \qquad -U^2+Y^2 = \ell^2\sinh^2\chi ,$$
and new hyperbolic coordinates $\phi$ and $t/\ell$, we obtain the metric
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = -\sinh^2\chi dt^2 +\ell^2\left(d\chi^2+\cosh^2\chi d\phi^2\right).
\end{equation}
By defining
$$r = \ell\cosh\chi$$
we can change this to the Schwarzschild-coordinate form
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2=-\left({r^2\over\ell^2}-1\right) dt^2+
\left({r^2\over\ell^2}-1\right)^{-1} dr^2+
r^2 d\phi^2,
\label{schwmet}
\end{eqnarray}
which is usually derived from the ``rotationally" symmetric ansatz --- however, in this
description
of AdS space, $\phi$ has to be given the full range, $-\infty < \phi < \infty$ of a
hyperbolic angle. The range of $r$ for which the metric (\ref{schwmet}) is regular,
$\ell<r<\infty$,
describes only a part of AdS space, as can be seen from the explicit
expression for the embedding in terms of these coordinates,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
U=\left(r^2-\ell^2\right)^{1/2}\sinh{t\over\ell}\\
V=r\cosh\phi\\
X=r\sinh\phi\\
Y=\left(r^2-\ell^2\right)^{1/2}\cosh{t\over\ell}\\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{schwc}
\end{eqnarray}
This regular region can be patched together in the usual way with the
region $0<r<\ell$ (Fig.~2), to describe a larger part of AdS space. But
if it is desired (for whatever bizarre reason) to describe all of AdS space
by analytic extensions of the coordinates (\ref{schwc}), one needs also
analytic extensions beyond the null surfaces $\phi=\pm\infty$ (or $r=0$),
which are quite analogous to the usual Schwarzschild-type ``horizon" null
surfaces $t=\pm\infty$ (or $r=\ell$). One then finds two disjoint regions
of a third type (not shown in the Figure because they extend perpendicular
to the plane of Fig.~2a) in which $r^2$ is negative and $\phi$ is the timelike
coordinate.\footnote{Like all statements derived from embedding equations
such as (\ref{schwc}) this really applies to periodic AdS space, and
should be repeated an infinite number of times for the covering AdS space
itself. For example, there are an infinite number of regions of the three
types in AdS space.}
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 0.80mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(131.00,90.00)
\bezier{184}(89.80,50.32)(89.80,61.60)(99.90,68.00)
\bezier{180}(99.90,68.00)(110.00,73.05)(120.10,68.00)
\bezier{184}(120.10,68.00)(130.20,61.60)(130.20,50.32)
\bezier{184}(89.80,50.32)(89.80,39.05)(99.90,32.64)
\bezier{180}(99.90,32.64)(110.00,27.59)(120.10,32.64)
\bezier{184}(120.10,32.64)(130.20,39.05)(130.20,50.32)
\put(10.00,10.00){\line(0,1){80.00}}
\put(50.00,10.00){\line(0,1){80.00}}
\put(10.00,50.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\put(10.00,30.00){\line(1,1){40.00}}
\put(50.00,30.00){\line(-1,1){40.00}}
\bezier{88}(10.00,42.00)(18.00,42.00)(30.00,50.00)
\bezier{88}(50.00,58.00)(42.00,58.00)(30.00,50.00)
\bezier{88}(10.00,58.00)(18.00,58.00)(30.00,50.00)
\bezier{88}(50.00,42.00)(42.00,42.00)(30.00,50.00)
\put(10.00,70.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\bezier{204}(50.00,70.00)(34.00,50.00)(50.00,30.00)
\bezier{204}(10.00,70.00)(26.00,50.00)(10.00,30.00)
\bezier{204}(50.00,70.00)(30.00,54.00)(10.00,70.00)
\put(30.00,5.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf a})}}
\put(90.00,50.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\bezier{152}(95.00,64.00)(110.00,52.00)(125.00,64.00)
\bezier{40}(102.00,69.00)(104.00,64.00)(110.00,64.00)
\bezier{40}(118.00,69.00)(116.00,64.00)(110.00,64.00)
\bezier{152}(95.00,37.00)(110.00,49.00)(125.00,37.00)
\bezier{40}(102.00,32.00)(104.00,37.00)(110.00,37.00)
\bezier{40}(118.00,32.00)(116.00,37.00)(110.00,37.00)
\put(10.00,30.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\bezier{204}(50.00,30.00)(30.00,46.00)(10.00,30.00)
\bezier{216}(110.00,30.00)(92.00,50.00)(110.00,70.50)
\bezier{120}(110.00,30.00)(95.00,36.00)(95.00,50.00)
\bezier{120}(110.00,70.50)(95.00,64.00)(95.00,50.00)
\bezier{216}(110.00,30.00)(128.00,50.00)(110.00,70.50)
\bezier{120}(110.00,30.00)(125.00,36.00)(125.00,50.00)
\bezier{120}(110.00,70.50)(125.00,64.00)(125.00,50.00)
\put(70.00,50.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$t=0$}}
\put(75.00,50.00){\vector(1,0){12.00}}
\put(65.00,50.00){\vector(-1,0){12.00}}
\put(51.00,58.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$t=$ const}}
\put(30.00,70.33){\makebox(0,0)[cb]{$r=0$}}
\put(56.00,75.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$r=$ const}}
\put(39.00,64.00){\vector(-1,-2){0.2}}
\bezier{92}(55.00,75.00)(43.00,74.33)(39.00,64.00)
\put(44.00,60.00){\vector(-3,-1){0.2}}
\bezier{80}(56.00,73.00)(54.00,63.33)(44.00,60.00)
\put(110.00,55.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$r$=$\ell$}}
\put(131.00,50.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$\phi=0$}}
\put(129.00,62.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$\phi$}}
\put(110.00,5.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf b})}}
\put(110.00,30.00){\line(0,1){23.00}}
\put(110.00,56.00){\line(0,1){14.50}}
\put(110.00,71.00){\makebox(0,0)[cb]{$\phi=\infty$}}
\put(110.00,29.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\phi=-\infty$}}
\thicklines
\put(127.00,62.00){\vector(-1,2){0.20}}
\bezier{10}(10.00,50.00)(20.00,60.00)(30.00,70.00)
\bezier{10}(30.00,70.00)(40.00,60.00)(50.00,50.00)
\bezier{10}(50.00,50.00)(40.00,40.00)(30.00,30.00)
\bezier{10}(30.00,30.00)(20.00,40.00)(10.00,50.00)
\bezier{20}(10.00,50.00)(30.00,65.00)(50.00,50.00)
\bezier{20}(50.00,50.00)(30.00,35.00)(10.00,50.00)
\end{picture}
\caption{Conformal diagrams of the ``Schwarzschild" coordinates of
Eq (\ref{schwc}) in sections of AdS space.
({\bf a})~An $r,\,t$ section, continued across the $r=\ell$ coordinate singularity.
The outer vertical lines correspond to $r=\infty$. The dotted curves show a
few of the surfaces $\tau=$ const for the coordinates of Eq (\ref{cmc}),
with limits at $\tau = \pm\pi\ell/2$.
({\bf b})~An $r,\,\phi$ section ($r>\ell$) is
a two dimensional space of constant negative curvature, conformally represented as a
Poincar\'e disk (see below). The approximately vertical curves are lines of constant $r$;
they are equidistant in the hyperbolic metric. The approximately horizontal curves are
lines of constant $\phi$; they are geodesics in the hyperbolic metric. The outer circle
corresponds to $r=\infty$}
\end{figure}
Another interesting coordinate system is closely related to ordinary polar
coordinates on the three-sphere:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
U=\ell\sin{\tau\over\ell}\\
V=\left(r^2-\ell^2\right)^{1/2}\cos{\tau\over\ell}\\
X=r\cos{\tau\over\ell} \cos\phi \\
Y=r\cos{\tau\over\ell} \sin\phi\\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{ts}
\end{eqnarray}
with the metric
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-d\tau^2 + \cos^2\left({\tau\over\ell}\right)
\left[\left({r^2\over\ell^2}-1\right)^{-1}dr^2+ r^2 d\phi^2\right].
\label{cmc}
\end{equation}
This is a time development of the same initial data as in (\ref{schwmet}) (at $t=0$
resp.\ $\tau=0$) but with unit lapse function $N=1$. The surfaces $\tau=$ const have
constant extrinsic curvature, and they just cover the domain of dependence of
those initial values.
Finally one can introduce coordinates that correspond to the flat sections of
de Sitter space:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
U+Y=r\\
U-Y=r\left(\phi^2-t^2\right)+{1\over r}\\
X=r\phi\\
V=rt\\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{horo}
\end{eqnarray}
The metric then takes the form
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-r^2dt^2+{dr^2\over r^2}+r^2d\phi^2.
\label{horom}
\end{equation}
Here the $r=$ const sections are manifestly flat.\footnote{These subspaces
are the analog in the case of Lorentzian metrics of {\it horospheres} of
hyperbolic spaces (see, for example, \cite{BP}).} Fig.~3 shows the conformal
picture of these coordinates.
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 0.80mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(131.00,90.00)(5,0)
\bezier{184}(89.80,50.32)(89.80,61.60)(99.90,68.00)
\bezier{180}(99.90,68.00)(110.00,73.05)(120.10,68.00)
\bezier{184}(120.10,68.00)(130.20,61.60)(130.20,50.32)
\bezier{184}(89.80,50.32)(89.80,39.05)(99.90,32.64)
\bezier{180}(99.90,32.64)(110.00,27.59)(120.10,32.64)
\bezier{184}(120.10,32.64)(130.20,39.05)(130.20,50.32)
\put(10.00,10.00){\line(0,1){80.00}}
\put(50.00,10.00){\line(0,1){80.00}}
\put(30.00,5.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf a})}}
\put(70.00,50.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$t=0$}}
\put(75.00,50.00){\vector(1,0){12.00}}
\put(65.00,50.00){\vector(-1,0){12.00}}
\put(131.00,50.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$\phi=0$}}
\put(127.00,61.50){\vector(-2,3){1.00}}
\put(127.67,63.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$\phi$}}
\put(110.00,5.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf b})}}
\put(10.00,50.00){\line(1,1){40.00}}
\put(10.00,50.00){\line(1,-1){40.00}}
\put(10.00,50.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\put(90.00,50.00){\line(1,0){40.00}}
\bezier{144}(90.00,50.00)(108.00,52.00)(110.00,70.00)
\bezier{144}(90.00,50.00)(108.00,48.00)(110.00,30.00)
\bezier{160}(90.00,50.00)(107.00,49.00)(124.00,64.00)
\bezier{160}(90.00,50.00)(107.00,51.00)(124.00,36.00)
\bezier{120}(89.66,50.22)(89.66,57.85)(96.49,62.18)
\bezier{120}(96.49,62.18)(103.33,65.60)(110.17,62.18)
\bezier{120}(110.17,62.18)(117.00,57.85)(117.00,50.22)
\bezier{120}(89.66,50.22)(89.66,42.59)(96.49,38.25)
\bezier{120}(96.49,38.25)(103.33,34.83)(110.17,38.25)
\bezier{120}(110.17,38.25)(117.00,42.59)(117.00,50.22)
\put(96.00,50.00){\circle{12.00}}
\bezier{380}(50.00,90.00)(24.00,50.00)(50.00,10.00)
\bezier{204}(22.00,50.00)(22.00,58.00)(50.00,90.00)
\bezier{204}(22.00,50.00)(22.00,42.00)(50.00,10.00)
\bezier{180}(10.00,50.00)(36.00,66.00)(50.00,66.00)
\bezier{180}(10.00,50.00)(36.00,34.00)(50.00,34.00)
\put(110.00,71.00){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\phi=$const}}
\put(70.00,29.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$r=$ const}}
\put(50.50,65.00){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$t=$ const}}
\put(82.00,29.00){\vector(2,1){16.00}}
\put(59.00,28.00){\vector(-3,-1){15.00}}
\put(22.00,62.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$r$=0}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Conformal diagram of the ``extremal" Schwarzschild coordinates
of Eq (\ref{horo}) in sections of AdS space.
({\bf a}) An $r,\,t$ section.
({\bf b}) An $r,\,\phi$ section. The lines $r=$ const are {\it horocycles} of the
Poincar\'e disk.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
The spacelike surfaces $t=$ const are conformally flat as are all two-dimensional surfaces,
and as is manifest in Eq (\ref{sausge}). Less trivially, the three-dimensional AdS spacetime
also has this property, so neighborhoods of AdS space can be conformally mapped to flat
space (one of the few cases where a three-dimensional conformal diagram
exists). Such a map is the ``stereographic" projection, a projection by
straight lines in the embedding space from a point in the surface of Eq (\ref{ads})
onto a plane tangent to that surface at the antipodal point, analogous to the
familiar stereographic projection of a sphere (Fig.~4a).
By projection from the point $(U,\,V,\,X,\,Y) = (-\ell,\,0,\,0,\,0)$
to the plane $U=\ell$ we obtain the coordinates (provided $U > -\ell$)
\begin{equation}
x^\mu = {2\ell X^\mu\over U+\ell} \qquad X^\mu \neq U
\label{stc}
\end{equation}
with the metric (where $X^0=V,\,x^0=t$)
\begin{equation}
ds^2=\left({1\over 1-r_c^2}\right)^2\left(-dt^2+dx^2+dy^2\right)\quad
{\rm where} \quad r_c^2={-t^2+x^2+y^2\over 4\ell^2}\,.
\label{stm}
\end{equation}
This metric is time-symmetric about $t=0$ but not static. It remains invariant
under the Lorentz group of the flat 2+1-dimensional Minkowski space ($t,\,x,\,y$).
In addition the origin may be shifted and the projection ``centered" about any
point in AdS space (by projecting from the corresponding antipodal point).
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 0.90mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(127.20,65.00)(12,0)
\bezier{184}(63.00,55.20)(67.47,55.20)(70.00,45.10)
\bezier{180}(70.00,45.10)(71.99,35.00)(70.00,24.90)
\bezier{184}(70.00,24.90)(67.47,14.80)(63.00,14.80)
\bezier{30}(63.00,55.20)(58.53,55.20)(56.00,45.10)
\bezier{30}(56.00,45.10)(54.01,35.00)(56.00,24.90)
\bezier{30}(56.00,24.90)(58.53,14.80)(63.00,14.80)
\bezier{184}(30.00,55.20)(33.67,55.20)(35.76,45.10)
\bezier{180}(35.76,45.10)(37.40,35.00)(35.76,24.90)
\bezier{184}(35.76,24.90)(33.67,14.80)(30.00,14.80)
\bezier{184}(30.00,55.20)(26.33,55.20)(24.24,45.10)
\bezier{180}(24.24,45.10)(22.60,35.00)(24.24,24.90)
\bezier{184}(24.24,24.90)(26.33,14.80)(30.00,14.80)
\bezier{160}(31.00,55.00)(47.00,43.00)(63.00,55.00)
\bezier{24}(63.00,55.20)(61.51,55.20)(59.00,53.00)
\put(33.00,17.00){\line(-1,1){9.00}}
\put(70.00,45.00){\line(-1,0){34.50}}
\put(35.50,45.00){\line(-1,1){8.20}}
\put(59.00,53.00){\line(-1,0){24.50}}
\bezier{28}(70.00,45.00)(63.67,49.07)(59.00,53.00)
\bezier{14}(34.00,53.00)(31.63,52.96)(27.00,53.00)
\put(33.00,17.00){\line(1,0){34.00}}
\bezier{28}(67.00,17.00)(60.70,22.59)(56.00,26.00)
\bezier{64}(56.00,26.00)(39.96,25.93)(24.00,26.00)
\put(47.00,21.00){\circle*{0.80}}
\bezier{80}(61.00,15.20)(47.00,26.85)(31.00,15.00)
\put(47.00,21.00){\line(1,2){16.00}}
\put(63.30,53.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{A}}
\put(63.00,53.00){\circle*{0.80}}
\put(60.50,48.00){\circle*{0.80}}
\put(61.00,48.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{B}}
\put(47.00,20.93){\makebox(0,0)[rb]{P}}
\put(28.00,23.00){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{2}}
\put(30.20,51.20){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{1}}
\bezier{184}(126.80,20.90)(129.00,14.93)(117.10,12.00)
\bezier{180}(117.10,12.00)(107.00,10.01)(96.90,12.00)
\bezier{184}(96.90,12.00)(86.80,14.53)(86.80,19.00)
\bezier{30}(127.20,19.00)(127.20,23.47)(117.10,26.00)
\bezier{30}(117.10,26.00)(107.00,27.99)(96.90,26.00)
\bezier{30}(96.90,26.00)(86.80,23.47)(86.80,19.00)
\bezier{184}(127.20,52.00)(127.20,48.33)(117.10,46.24)
\bezier{184}(127.20,52.00)(127.20,48.33)(117.10,46.24)
\bezier{180}(117.10,46.24)(107.00,44.60)(96.90,46.24)
\bezier{184}(96.90,46.24)(86.80,48.33)(86.80,52.00)
\bezier{184}(127.20,52.00)(127.20,55.67)(117.10,57.76)
\bezier{180}(117.10,57.76)(107.00,59.40)(96.90,57.76)
\bezier{184}(96.90,57.76)(86.80,55.67)(86.80,52.00)
\bezier{160}(127.00,51.00)(115.00,35.00)(126.80,21.00)
\bezier{180}(87.20,21.00)(98.85,35.00)(87.00,51.00)
\put(48.00,5.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf a})}}
\put(107.00,5.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf b})}}
\put(107.00,35.00){\vector(0,1){30.00}}
\put(107.00,35.00){\vector(4,-1){19.00}}
\put(107.00,35.00){\vector(3,2){10.00}}
\put(117.00,42.00){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$y$}}
\put(126.00,30.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$x$}}
\put(107.00,65.20){\makebox(0,0)[cb]{$t$}}
\end{picture}
\caption{AdS space in stereographic projection.
({\bf a}) The hyperboloid is 2-dimensional AdS space embedded in 3-dimensional flat
space as in Eq (\ref{ads}), restricted to $Y=0$. It is projected from
point P onto the plane 1 ($U=\ell$). The image of
point A in the hyperboloid is point B in the plane. The part of the hyperboloid that
lies below plane 2 is not covered by the stereographic coordinates.
({\bf b}) When plotted in the stereographic coordinates (\ref{stc}), AdS space is the
interior of a hyperboloid. The boundary of the hyperboloid is (part of) the conformal
boundary of AdS space.} \label{fig4}
\end{figure}
Because of the condition $U>-\ell$ the stereographic projection fails to cover a part of
AdS space, even in the periodically identified version (Fig.~4a). The 3-dimensional conformal
diagram is the interior of the hyperboloid $r_c=1$, where the conformal factor of the
metric (\ref{stm}) is finite (Fig.~4b). On the surface of time-symmetry, $t=0$, the
stereographic metric agrees with the sausage metric (\ref{sausge}).
Many similar coordinate systems,
illustrating various symmetries of AdS space, are possible; for examples
see \cite{Li}.
\subsection{Isometries and Geodesics}
To discuss the identifications that lead to time-symmetric black holes and
other globally non-trivial 2+1-dimensional solutions we need a convenient
representation of isometries and other geometrical relations in a spacelike
initial surface of time-symmetry. Such a representation is the conformal
map of Figs 1 and 2, in which this spacelike surface is shown as a disk,
known as the {\it Poincar\'e disk}. This representation has been
extensively studied (see, for example, \cite{BP}), and we only mention the
features that are most important for our task.
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 0.63mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(144.00,109.00)
\bezier{436}(43.00,95.00)(80.00,55.00)(117.00,95.00)
\bezier{160}(43.00,96.00)(42.67,100.04)(60.00,102.83)
\bezier{188}(60.00,102.83)(80.00,105.48)(100.00,102.83)
\bezier{160}(100.00,102.83)(115.67,100.92)(117.00,96.00)
\bezier{160}(43.00,96.00)(42.67,91.96)(60.00,89.17)
\bezier{190}(60.00,89.17)(80.00,86.52)(100.00,89.17)
\bezier{160}(100.00,89.17)(115.67,91.08)(117.00,96.00)
\bezier{100}(43.00,15.00)(80.00,55.00)(117.00,15.00)
\bezier{160}(41.15,75.00)(40.80,79.24)(59.00,82.17)
\bezier{188}(59.00,82.17)(80.00,84.95)(101.00,82.17)
\bezier{160}(101.00,82.17)(117.45,80.17)(118.85,75.00)
\bezier{160}(41.15,75.00)(40.80,70.76)(59.00,67.83)
\bezier{188}(59.00,67.83)(80.00,65.05)(101.00,67.83)
\bezier{160}(101.00,67.83)(117.45,69.83)(118.85,75.00)
\bezier{70}(40.00,95.00)(60.00,75.00)(80.00,55.00)
\bezier{70}(80.00,55.00)(98.00,73.00)(120.00,95.00)
\bezier{40}(43.00,14.00)(42.67,18.04)(60.00,20.83)
\bezier{45}(60.00,20.83)(80.00,23.48)(100.00,20.83)
\bezier{40}(100.00,20.83)(115.67,18.92)(117.00,14.00)
\bezier{40}(43.00,14.00)(42.67,9.96)(60.00,7.17)
\bezier{45}(60.00,7.17)(80.00,4.52)(100.00,7.17)
\bezier{40}(100.00,7.17)(115.67,9.08)(117.00,14.00)
\put(122.00,109.00){\vector(-1,-1){9.00}}
\put(124.00,109.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{hyperboloid}}
\put(142.00,75.00){\vector(-1,0){10.00}}
\put(144.00,75.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{plane}}
\put(28.00,69.00){\makebox(0,0)[rc]{limit circle}}
\put(125.00,7.00){\vector(-4,3){8.00}}
\put(126.00,8.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{other sheet of hyperboloid}}
\put(126.00,5.50){\makebox(0,0)[lt]{(not used in construction)}}
\put(29.00,69.00){\vector(1,0){23.00}}
\put(123.00,85.00){\line(5,-6){16.67}}
\thicklines
\put(140.00,65.00){\line(-1,0){105.00}}
\put(35.00,65.00){\line(-3,5){12.00}}
\thinlines
\put(23.00,85.00){\line(1,0){100.00}}
\put(80.00,55.00){\vector(0,1){40.00}}
\put(80.00,96.00){\makebox(0,0)[cb]{$U$}}
\put(80.00,55.00){\vector(4,-1){30.00}}
\put(111.00,47.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$X$}}
\put(80.00,55.00){\vector(3,2){12.00}}
\put(93.00,63.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$Y$}}
\put(80.00,45.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\ell$}}
\put(80.00,48.00){\vector(0,1){7.00}}
\put(80.00,43.00){\vector(0,-1){8.00}}
\bezier{50}(118.00,73.00)(99.00,54.00)(80.00,35.00)
\bezier{50}(80.00,35.00)(60.67,54.33)(43.00,72.00)
\put(80.00,35.00){\line(-1,2){27.00}}
\put(53.00,89.00){\circle*{1.0}}
\put(61.00,73.00){\circle*{1.0}}
\put(80.00,35.00){\circle*{1.0}}
\put(54.00,89.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{A}}
\put(62.00,73.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{B}}
\put(80.00,34.00){\makebox(0,0)[ct]{P}}
\end{picture}
\caption{The two-dimensional space $H^2$ of constant curvature $1/\ell^2$ is
embedded in flat Minkowski space as one sheet of the hyperboloid of Eq
(\ref{emb}). Under a stereographic projection from point P to the plane,
point A on the hyperboloid is mapped to point B in the plane. Thus the
hyperboloid ($H^2$) is mapped onto the Poincar\'e disk, the interior of
the curve marked ``limit circle"
\end{figure}
All totally geodesic, time-symmetric surfaces $H^2$ in AdS space are
isometric to the typical hyperboloid (Fig.~5) obtained by restricting
Eq (\ref{ads}) to $V=0$,
\begin{equation}
X^2+Y^2-U^2=-\ell^2 \label{emb}
\end{equation}
This surface has zero extrinsic curvature and therefore constant negative
Gaussian curvature $-1/\ell^2$. The Poincar\'e
disk can be obtained as a map of $H^2$ by the stereographic projection of
Fig.~5, which illustrates Eq (\ref{stc}) when restricted to $V=0$
similar to the way Fig.~4 illustrates it when restricted to $X=0$. In
this way
all of $H^2$ is mapped into the interior of a disk of radius $2\ell$,
whose boundary, called the limit circle, represents points at
(projective or conformal) infinity. Because the map is conformal,
angles are faithfully represented. Other geometrical objects in $H^2$ appear
distorted in the Euclidean geometry of the disk, but by assigning new
roles to these ``distorted" objects and manipulating those according to
Euclidean geometry one can perform constructions equivalent to those
in the $H^2$-geometry directly on the Poincar\'e disk.
For example, on the surface $H^2$ as described by Eq (\ref{emb}),
all geodesics are intersections of planes through the origin with the
surface; that is, they satisfy a linear relation between
$X,\,Y,\,U$. From Eq (\ref{stc}) it follows directly that Eq (\ref{emb})
becomes such a linear relation if $x,\,y$ satisfy the equation of a circle that has
radius $(a^2-4\ell^2)$ if it is centered at $(x,\,y)=(a_x,\,a_y)$, hence meets
the limit circle at right angles. Because two such circles intersect in
at most one point in the interior of the Poincar\'e disk, it follows that
two geodesics in $H^2$ meet at most in one point (as in Euclidean space).
An important difference occurs if two geodesics do {\it not} meet:
in Euclidean space they are then equidistant; whereas in the Poincar\'e
disc the geodesic between points on two disjoint geodesics (Euclidean circles
perpendicular to the limit circle) approaches a complete geodesic
as the points approach the limit circle. Since
the conformal factor in the metric of Eq (\ref{stm}),
restricted to $t=0$,
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = \left(1-{x^2+y^2\over 4\ell^2}\right)^{-2}\left(dx^2+dy^2\right)
\label{cm}
\end{equation}
increases without limit as $x^2+y^2\rightarrow 4\ell^2$
on $H^2$ the geodesic distance between two given disjoint geodesics typically
increases without bound as we go along the given geodesics in either
direction. However, the geodesic distance between points on two given disjoint
geodesics of course has a lower bound.
If this is nonzero there is a unique geodesic segment of minimal
length joining the two given geodesics at right angles to either.
On the other hand, if we have a family of equidistant curves, at most one of
them can be a geodesic, and then the representation of the others on the
Poincar\'e disk are arcs of circles, not perpendicular to the limit circle,
but meeting the geodesic asymptotically at the limit circle.
The curves $r=$ const of Fig.~2b are
examples, with $r=\ell$ the geodesic of the family. These equidistant curves
have constant acceleration (with respect to their arclength parameter), and they
also illustrate how the conformal factor in (\ref{cm}) distorts the apparent
(Euclidean) distances of the disk into the true distances of $H^2$.
Because the surface (\ref{emb}) in Minkowski space has constant extrinsic
curvature, any isometry of the surface geometry can be extended to an
isometry of the embedding space. But we know all those isometries: they
form the homogeneous isochronous Lorentz group. Thus any Lorentz transformation
implies, by the projection of Fig.~5, a corresponding transformation of the
Poincar\'e disk that represents an isometry of $H^2$, and all $H^2$
isometries can be obtained in this way. In the Euclidean metric of the
disk such transformations must be conformal transformations leaving the
limit circle fixed, since they
are isometries of the conformal metric (\ref{cm}).
Knowing this we can now classify\footnote{We confine
attention to orientation-preserving transformations; they can be combined with
a reflection about a geodesic (with an infinite number of fixed
points) to obtain the rest.} the isometries of $H^2$. Proper
Lorentz transformations in 3D Minkowski space have an axis of fixed points
that may be a spacelike, null, or timelike straight line. If the axis is
timelike, it intersects the hyperboloid (\ref{emb}). If the axis is null,
it intersects the hyperboloid asymptotically. If the axis is spacelike,
it does not intersect the hyperboloid, but there are two fixed
null directions perpendicular to the axis. Correspondingly on the Poincar\'e
disk there is either one fixed point within the disk (``elliptic"), or one fixed point
on the limit circle (``parabolic"), or two fixed points on the limit circle
(``hyperbolic") for these transformations. Fig.~1b
illustrates by the transformation $\theta \rightarrow \theta+$const the case
with one finite fixed point
(the origin). Figs.~2b and 3b illustrate by the transformation $\phi \rightarrow \phi+$const
the case with two fixed points and one fixed point, respectively, on the limit circle ($\phi
=\pm\infty$). In the case of two fixed points there is a unique geodesic
($r=\ell$ in Fig.~2b)
left fixed by the isometry, and conversely the isometry, which we will call ``along" the
geodesic, is uniquely defined by the invariant geodesic and the distance by which a point
moves along that geodesic.
Except for the rotation about the center of the disk as in Fig.~1b these
are not isometries of the disk's flat, Euclidean metric, but they are
of course conformal isometries of this metric. Such conformal
transformations, mapping the limit
circle into itself, are conveniently described as {\em M\"obius
transformations} of the complex coordinate
\begin{equation}
z = {x+iy\over\ell} \quad {\rm by} \quad z\rightarrow z'={az+b\over \bar b z+\bar a}\,,
\label{moeb}
\end{equation}
where $a,\,b$ are complex numbers with $|a|^2-|b|^2=1$. When we consider an
isometry or identification abstractly, it can always be implemented concretely
by such a M\"obius transformation. In particular, hyperbolic isometries
are described by M\"obius transformations with real $a$.
As the examples of Figs.~1-3 show, each of these isometries is part of a family
depending on a continuous parameter (the constant in $\phi\rightarrow\phi
+$const, for example). There is therefore an ``infinitesimal" version of
each isometry, described by a Killing vector ($\partial/\partial\phi$ in the
example). Conversely an (orientation-preserving) isometry can be described as the
exponential of its Killing vector.
\subsection{Identifications}
The hyperbolic transformations, which have no fixed points in $H^2$,
are suitable for forming nonsingular quotient spaces that have the same local geometry
as AdS space, and hence satisfy the same Einstein equations. In the
context of Fig.~2b
and Eq (\ref{schwmet}) the transformation that comes to mind is described by
$\phi\rightarrow\phi+2\pi$. The quotient space is the space in which points connected
by this transformation are regarded as identical, which is the same as the space
in which $\phi$ is a periodic coordinate with the usual period. Eq (\ref{schwmet}) with
this periodicity in $\phi$ already gives us the simplest BTZ metric for a single, non-rotating
2+1-dimensional black hole. It is asymptotically AdS, as shown by comparing Eqs
(\ref{schwmet}) and (\ref{m0}).
The minimum distance between the two identified geodesics occurs at $r=\ell$ and is $2\pi\ell$.
This is the minimum distance around the black hole, and plays the role of the
horizon ``area". If we identify $\phi$ with a different
period $2\pi a$, we get a metric with a different horizon size. We can then redefine the
coordinates so that $\phi$ has its usual period,
$$\phi\rightarrow a\phi,\qquad r\rightarrow r/a\qquad t\rightarrow at$$
and the metric takes this standard form, called the BTZ metric \cite{BTZ}:
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-\left({r^2\over\ell^2}-m\right) dt^2+\left({r^2\over\ell^2}-m\right)^{-1} dr^2+
r^2 d\phi^2,
\label{BTZ}
\end{equation}
where $m=1/a^2$. Here the dimensionless quantity $m$ is called the mass parameter. Although it can
be measured in the asymptotic region, it is more directly related to the
horizon size, the length of the minimal geodesic at the horizon,
$2\pi\ell\sqrt{m}$.
The metric (\ref{BTZ}) is a solution also for $m=0$, as shown by Eq (\ref{horom}), but that is not the
AdS metric itself. The latter is also described by Eq (\ref{BTZ}), but with $m=-1$, as shown by
Eq (\ref{m0}). By contrast, the $m=0$ initial state is obtained by identifying the
geodesics $\phi=0$ and $\phi=2\pi$ in Fig.~3b.
To describe the identification more explicitly, we may say that we have cut a strip from $\phi=0$ to
$\phi=2\pi$ out of Fig.~2b, and glued the edges together. This strip is a ``fundamental domain" for
our identification, a region that contains images of its own points under the group only
on its boundary, and that together with all its images covers the full AdS space. To
obtain a fundamental domain for the BTZ black hole we might have used as the boundaries
some other curve on the Poincar\'e disk and its image under the transformation, provided only
that the curve and its image do not intersect. But since it is always possible to avoid
apparent asymmetries by choosing boundaries composed of geodesics that meet at right angles, we will
generally do so.
We can think of the identification in yet another way, by a process that has
been called ``doubling":
cut a strip from $\phi=0$ to $\phi=\pi$ from Fig.~2b, and cut another identical strip.
Put one on top of the other and glue the two edges together, obtaining
again the black hole initial state. The gluing makes the two strips reflections of each other
with respect to either of the original edges. Back on the Poincar\'e disk the composition of
the two reflections is a translation in $\phi$ by $2\pi$, that is, the isometry of the identification.
Any (orientation-preserving) isometry of a hyperbolic space can be decomposed into two reflections
\cite{Bach};
hence any quotient space can be considered the double of a suitable region (possibly in another
quotient space), and a fundamental domain is obtained from the region and one of its reflections.
The process of gluing together a constant negative curvature space from a fundamental
domain of the Poincar\'e disk can be reversed: we cut the space by geodesics into
its fundamental domain, make many copies of the domain, and put these down on the disk so that
boundaries coming from the same cut touch, until the entire disk is covered. The resulting pattern is
called a ``tiling" of the disk (although the ``tiles" corresponding to the $t=0$ section of the BTZ
black hole look more like strip flooring). Thus we have two equivalent ways of describing our
identified space: by giving a fundamental domain and rules of gluing the boundaries, or by a tiling
together with rules relating each tile to its neighbors.
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 0.70mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(150.00,82.00)(-5,0)
\thicklines
\bezier{40}(5.00,17.00)(5.00,47.00)(5.00,77.00)
\bezier{40}(5.00,77.00)(35.00,77.00)(65.00,77.00)
\bezier{40}(35.00,17.00)(35.00,47.00)(35.00,77.00)
\bezier{40}(65.00,17.00)(65.00,47.00)(65.00,77.00)
\bezier{40}(5.00,47.00)(35.00,47.00)(65.00,47.00)
\bezier{40}(5.00,17.00)(35.00,17.00)(65.00,17.00)
\put(35.00,47.00){\line(5,3){9.00}}
\put(65.00,47.00){\line(-3,5){21.00}}
\put(44.00,82.00){\line(-5,-3){22.00}}
\put(65.00,47.00){\line(-5,-3){13.00}}
\put(52.00,39.20){\line(-3,5){7.68}}
\put(65.00,47.00){\circle*{2.00}}
\put(35.00,47.00){\circle*{2.00}}
\put(57.00,60.00){\circle*{2.00}}
\put(35.00,47.00){\line(-3,5){13.20}}
\thinlines
\put(22.00,39.00){\line(5,3){36.00}}
\put(27.20,60.00){\line(-5,-3){22.20}}
\put(27.20,30.00){\line(-5,-3){22.20}}
\put(57.20,30.00){\line(-5,-3){22.20}}
\put(65.00,17.00){\line(-5,-3){13.00}}
\put(52.00,9.20){\line(-3,5){7.68}}
\put(65.00,77.00){\line(-5,-3){13.00}}
\put(35.00,47.00){\line(-3,5){21.00}}
\put(14.00,82.00){\line(-5,-3){9.00}}
\put(35.00,17.00){\line(-3,5){21.00}}
\put(65.00,17.00){\line(-3,5){13.80}}
\put(35.00,17.00){\line(-5,-3){13.00}}
\put(22.00,9.20){\line(-3,5){7.68}}
\thicklines
\put(108.00,40.00){\line(0,1){12.00}}
\put(108.00,52.00){\line(1,0){12.00}}
\put(120.00,52.00){\line(0,1){18.00}}
\put(108.00,40.00){\line(-1,0){18.00}}
\put(90.00,40.00){\line(0,1){30.00}}
\put(90.00,70.00){\line(1,0){30.00}}
\bezier{23}(90.00,40.00)(105.00,46.00)(120.00,52.00)
\bezier{23}(90.00,40.00)(96.00,55.00)(102.00,70.00)
\bezier{23}(108.00,22.00)(123.00,28.00)(138.00,34.00)
\bezier{23}(108.00,22.00)(114.00,37.00)(120.00,52.00)
\bezier{23}(120.00,52.00)(135.00,58.00)(150.00,64.00)
\bezier{23}(120.00,52.00)(126.00,67.00)(132.00,82.00)
\bezier{23}(138.00,34.00)(144.00,49.00)(150.00,64.00)
\bezier{23}(78.00,10.00)(84.00,25.00)(90.00,40.00)
\bezier{23}(102.00,70.00)(117.00,76.00)(132.00,82.00)
\bezier{23}(78.00,10.00)(93.00,16.00)(108.00,22.00)
\thinlines
\put(138.00,34.00){\line(0,1){18.00}}
\put(126.00,22.00){\line(-1,0){18.00}}
\put(120.00,52.00){\line(1,0){18.00}}
\put(108.00,40.00){\line(0,-1){18.00}}
\put(108.00,40.00){\line(1,0){12.00}}
\put(120.00,40.00){\line(0,1){12.00}}
\put(120.00,52.00){\circle*{2.00}}
\put(120.00,40.00){\circle*{2.00}}
\put(90.00,40.00){\circle*{2.00}}
\put(96.00,10.00){\line(0,1){12.00}}
\put(96.00,22.00){\line(1,0){12.00}}
\put(96.00,10.00){\line(-1,0){18.00}}
\put(78.00,10.00){\line(0,1){30.00}}
\put(78.00,40.00){\line(1,0){12.00}}
\put(120.00,70.00){\line(0,1){12.00}}
\put(138.00,52.00){\line(0,1){12.00}}
\put(138.00,64.00){\line(1,0){12.00}}
\put(150.00,64.00){\line(0,1){18.00}}
\put(120.00,82.00){\line(1,0){30.00}}
\put(138.00,34.00){\line(1,0){12.00}}
\put(126.00,22.00){\line(0,-1){12.00}}
\put(102.00,70.00){\line(0,1){12.00}}
\put(90.00,58.00){\line(-1,0){12.00}}
\put(126.00,22.00){\line(0,1){12.00}}
\put(126.00,34.00){\line(1,0){12.00}}
\put(144.00,10.00){\line(0,1){6.00}}
\put(144.00,16.00){\line(1,0){6.00}}
\put(35.00,2.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf a})}}
\put(114.00,2.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf b})}}
\put(40.00,64.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$a^2$}}
\put(54.00,50.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$b^2$}}
\put(105.00,55.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$a^2$}}
\put(114.00,46.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$b^2$}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Two different ways of tiling the plane prove the theorem of
Pythagoras in ({\bf a}) Euclidean space and ({\bf b}) Minkowski space}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Tiling and Pythagoras}
To fix ideas, consider an application of tiling found among the numerous
proofs of the theorem of Pythgoras (a local boy who contributed to the
early fame of Samos). This proof is based on the fact that all fundamental
domains of a given group of isometries have equal area. In the Euclidean
plane we consider the group generated by two translations specified in direction
and amounts by two adjacent sides of the square above the hypotenuse of
a right triangle, whose vertices are the three larger dots in Fig.~6a. This
square is a fundamental domain of the group, and part of the tiling by
this square is shown by the
horizontal and vertical dotted lines. The region drawn in heavy outline is
an alternative fundamental domain of the same group of isometries,
and that domain is made from the squares above the sides of the same triangle.
Part of its tiling of the plane is shown by the lightly drawn lines of
Fig.~6a.
Either fundamental domain can be glued together to form the same quotient
space, a ``square" torus, so the areas are equal, $c^2 = a^2+b^2 =$ area of
torus.
In special relativity the theorem of Pythagoras is valid with a different
sign, $c^2=a^2-b^2$ if we choose the hypotenuse and one of the sides
to be spacelike, and of course the right angles of the triangle and of squares
are to be drawn in accordance with the Minkowski metric. Fig.~6b shows the
proof by the tiling that derives from a Minkowski torus of area $c^2$.
(Here we use, at least implicitly, the fact that the area of a two-dimensional
figure is the same in Euclidean and Minkowski spaces if their metrics
differ only by a sign.)
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 0.70mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(155.08,136.96)
\bezier{50}(4.92,20.00)(4.92,28.41)(12.46,33.19)
\bezier{50}(12.46,33.19)(20.00,36.96)(27.54,33.19)
\bezier{50}(27.54,33.19)(35.08,28.41)(35.08,20.00)
\bezier{50}(4.92,20.00)(4.92,11.59)(12.46,6.81)
\bezier{50}(12.46,6.81)(20.00,3.04)(27.54,6.81)
\bezier{50}(27.54,6.81)(35.08,11.59)(35.08,20.00)
\bezier{50}(44.92,20.00)(44.92,28.41)(52.46,33.19)
\bezier{50}(84.92,20.00)(84.92,28.41)(92.46,33.19)
\bezier{50}(124.92,20.00)(124.92,28.41)(132.46,33.19)
\bezier{50}(52.46,33.19)(60.00,36.96)(67.54,33.19)
\bezier{50}(92.46,33.19)(100.00,36.96)(107.54,33.19)
\bezier{50}(132.46,33.19)(140.00,36.96)(147.54,33.19)
\bezier{50}(67.54,33.19)(75.08,28.41)(75.08,20.00)
\bezier{50}(107.54,33.19)(115.08,28.41)(115.08,20.00)
\bezier{50}(147.54,33.19)(155.08,28.41)(155.08,20.00)
\bezier{50}(44.92,20.00)(44.92,11.59)(52.46,6.81)
\bezier{50}(84.92,20.00)(84.92,11.59)(92.46,6.81)
\bezier{50}(124.92,20.00)(124.92,11.59)(132.46,6.81)
\bezier{50}(52.46,6.81)(60.00,3.04)(67.54,6.81)
\bezier{50}(92.46,6.81)(100.00,3.04)(107.54,6.81)
\bezier{50}(132.46,6.81)(140.00,3.04)(147.54,6.81)
\bezier{50}(67.54,6.81)(75.08,11.59)(75.08,20.00)
\bezier{50}(107.54,6.81)(115.08,11.59)(115.08,20.00)
\bezier{50}(147.54,6.81)(155.08,11.59)(155.08,20.00)
\put(89.00,9.00){\line(1,1){11.00}}
\put(100.00,20.00){\line(1,-1){11.00}}
\bezier{120}(49.00,9.00)(60.00,18.00)(60.00,35.00)
\bezier{120}(71.00,9.00)(60.00,18.00)(60.00,35.00)
\bezier{120}(31.00,9.00)(21.00,20.00)(31.00,31.00)
\bezier{120}(9.00,9.00)(19.00,20.00)(9.00,31.00)
\bezier{50}(4.92,120.00)(4.92,128.41)(12.46,133.19)
\bezier{50}(12.46,133.19)(20.00,136.96)(27.54,133.19)
\bezier{50}(27.54,133.19)(35.08,128.41)(35.08,120.00)
\bezier{50}(4.92,120.00)(4.92,111.59)(12.46,106.81)
\bezier{50}(12.46,106.81)(20.00,103.04)(27.54,106.81)
\bezier{50}(27.54,106.81)(35.08,111.59)(35.08,120.00)
\bezier{50}(44.92,120.00)(44.92,128.41)(52.46,133.19)
\bezier{50}(84.92,120.00)(84.92,128.41)(92.46,133.19)
\bezier{50}(124.92,120.00)(124.92,128.41)(132.46,133.19)
\bezier{50}(52.46,133.19)(60.00,136.96)(67.54,133.19)
\bezier{50}(92.46,133.19)(100.00,136.96)(107.54,133.19)
\bezier{50}(132.46,133.19)(140.00,136.96)(147.54,133.19)
\bezier{50}(67.54,133.19)(75.08,128.41)(75.08,120.00)
\bezier{50}(107.54,133.19)(115.08,128.41)(115.08,120.00)
\bezier{50}(147.54,133.19)(155.08,128.41)(155.08,120.00)
\bezier{50}(44.92,120.00)(44.92,111.59)(52.46,106.81)
\bezier{50}(84.92,120.00)(84.92,111.59)(92.46,106.81)
\bezier{50}(124.92,120.00)(124.92,111.59)(132.46,106.81)
\bezier{50}(52.46,106.81)(60.00,103.04)(67.54,106.81)
\bezier{50}(92.46,106.81)(100.00,103.04)(107.54,106.81)
\bezier{50}(132.46,106.81)(140.00,103.04)(147.54,106.81)
\bezier{50}(67.54,106.81)(75.08,111.59)(75.08,120.00)
\bezier{50}(107.54,106.81)(115.08,111.59)(115.08,120.00)
\bezier{50}(147.54,106.81)(155.08,111.59)(155.08,120.00)
\thicklines
\put(89.00,109.00){\line(1,1){11.00}}
\put(100.00,120.00){\line(1,-1){11.00}}
\bezier{120}(49.00,109.00)(60.00,118.00)(60.00,135.00)
\bezier{120}(71.00,109.00)(60.00,118.00)(60.00,135.00)
\bezier{120}(31.00,109.00)(21.00,120.00)(31.00,131.00)
\bezier{120}(9.00,109.00)(19.00,120.00)(9.00,131.00)
\thinlines
\bezier{10}(9.79,9.00)(9.79,10.32)(14.90,11.07)
\bezier{10}(14.90,11.07)(20.00,11.66)(25.10,11.07)
\bezier{10}(25.10,11.07)(30.21,10.32)(30.21,9.00)
\bezier{50}(9.79,9.00)(9.79,7.68)(14.90,6.93)
\bezier{50}(14.90,6.93)(20.00,6.34)(25.10,6.93)
\bezier{50}(25.10,6.93)(30.21,7.68)(30.21,9.00)
\bezier{50}(9.79,31.00)(9.79,32.32)(14.90,33.07)
\bezier{50}(14.90,33.07)(20.00,33.66)(25.10,33.07)
\bezier{50}(25.10,33.07)(30.21,32.32)(30.21,31.00)
\bezier{50}(9.79,31.00)(9.79,29.68)(14.90,28.93)
\bezier{50}(14.90,28.93)(20.00,28.34)(25.10,28.93)
\bezier{50}(25.10,28.93)(30.21,29.68)(30.21,31.00)
\bezier{10}(49.79,9.00)(49.79,10.32)(54.90,11.07)
\bezier{10}(54.90,11.07)(60.00,11.66)(65.10,11.07)
\bezier{10}(65.10,11.07)(70.21,10.32)(70.21,9.00)
\bezier{50}(49.79,9.00)(49.79,7.68)(54.90,6.93)
\bezier{50}(54.90,6.93)(60.00,6.34)(65.10,6.93)
\bezier{50}(65.10,6.93)(70.21,7.68)(70.21,9.00)
\bezier{10}(89.79,9.00)(89.79,10.32)(94.90,11.07)
\bezier{10}(94.90,11.07)(100.00,11.66)(105.10,11.07)
\bezier{10}(105.10,11.07)(110.21,10.32)(110.21,9.00)
\bezier{50}(89.79,9.00)(89.79,7.68)(94.90,6.93)
\bezier{50}(94.90,6.93)(100.00,6.34)(105.10,6.93)
\bezier{50}(105.10,6.93)(110.21,7.68)(110.21,9.00)
\bezier{10}(129.79,9.00)(129.79,10.32)(134.90,11.07)
\bezier{10}(134.90,11.07)(140.00,11.66)(145.10,11.07)
\bezier{10}(145.10,11.07)(150.21,10.32)(150.21,9.00)
\bezier{50}(129.79,9.00)(129.79,7.68)(134.90,6.93)
\bezier{50}(134.90,6.93)(140.00,6.34)(145.10,6.93)
\bezier{50}(145.10,6.93)(150.21,7.68)(150.21,9.00)
\bezier{112}(130.00,9.00)(140.00,19.00)(150.00,9.00)
\bezier{10}(9.79,59.00)(9.79,60.32)(14.90,61.07)
\bezier{10}(14.90,61.07)(20.00,61.66)(25.10,61.07)
\bezier{10}(25.10,61.07)(30.21,60.32)(30.21,59.00)
\bezier{50}(9.79,59.00)(9.79,57.68)(14.90,56.93)
\bezier{50}(14.90,56.93)(20.00,56.34)(25.10,56.93)
\bezier{50}(25.10,56.93)(30.21,57.68)(30.21,59.00)
\bezier{50}(9.79,81.00)(9.79,82.32)(14.90,83.07)
\bezier{50}(14.90,83.07)(20.00,83.66)(25.10,83.07)
\bezier{50}(25.10,83.07)(30.21,82.32)(30.21,81.00)
\bezier{50}(9.79,81.00)(9.79,79.68)(14.90,78.93)
\bezier{50}(14.90,78.93)(20.00,78.34)(25.10,78.93)
\bezier{50}(25.10,78.93)(30.21,79.68)(30.21,81.00)
\bezier{10}(49.79,59.00)(49.79,60.32)(54.90,61.07)
\bezier{10}(89.79,59.00)(89.79,60.32)(94.90,61.07)
\bezier{10}(54.90,61.07)(60.00,61.66)(65.10,61.07)
\bezier{10}(94.90,61.07)(100.00,61.66)(105.10,61.07)
\bezier{10}(65.10,61.07)(70.21,60.32)(70.21,59.00)
\bezier{10}(105.10,61.07)(110.21,60.32)(110.21,59.00)
\bezier{50}(49.79,59.00)(49.79,57.68)(54.90,56.93)
\bezier{50}(89.79,59.00)(89.79,57.68)(94.90,56.93)
\bezier{50}(54.90,56.93)(60.00,56.34)(65.10,56.93)
\bezier{50}(94.90,56.93)(100.00,56.34)(105.10,56.93)
\bezier{50}(65.10,56.93)(70.21,57.68)(70.21,59.00)
\bezier{50}(105.10,56.93)(110.21,57.68)(110.21,59.00)
\bezier{100}(50.00,59.70)(58.00,59.70)(59.50,95.00)
\bezier{88}(90.00,59.70)(97.00,59.70)(100.00,75.00)
\bezier{52}(11.00,80.00)(16.00,79.00)(16.00,70.00)
\bezier{64}(16.00,70.00)(16.00,61.00)(10.00,59.70)
\put(15.00,134.00){\line(1,0){10.00}}
\put(14.00,120.00){\line(1,0){12.00}}
\put(14.00,122.00){\line(1,0){12.00}}
\put(26.00,124.00){\line(-1,0){12.00}}
\put(13.00,126.00){\line(1,0){14.00}}
\put(28.00,128.00){\line(-1,0){16.00}}
\put(10.00,130.00){\line(1,0){20.00}}
\put(29.00,132.00){\line(-1,0){18.00}}
\bezier{50}(12.46,106.81)(20.00,103.04)(27.54,106.81)
\put(15.00,106.00){\line(1,0){10.00}}
\put(14.00,118.00){\line(1,0){12.00}}
\put(26.00,116.00){\line(-1,0){12.00}}
\put(13.00,114.00){\line(1,0){14.00}}
\put(28.00,112.00){\line(-1,0){16.00}}
\put(10.00,110.00){\line(1,0){20.00}}
\put(29.00,108.00){\line(-1,0){18.00}}
\put(55.00,106.00){\line(1,0){10.00}}
\put(70.00,110.00){\line(-1,0){20.00}}
\put(52.00,112.00){\line(1,0){16.00}}
\put(66.00,114.00){\line(-1,0){12.00}}
\put(56.00,116.00){\line(1,0){8.00}}
\put(57.00,118.00){\line(1,0){6.00}}
\put(62.00,120.00){\line(-1,0){4.00}}
\put(59.00,122.00){\line(1,0){2.00}}
\put(59.00,124.00){\line(1,0){2.00}}
\put(59.67,126.00){\line(1,0){0.67}}
\put(95.00,106.00){\line(1,0){11.00}}
\put(109.00,108.00){\line(-1,0){17.00}}
\put(90.00,110.00){\line(1,0){20.00}}
\put(108.00,112.00){\line(-1,0){16.00}}
\put(94.00,114.00){\line(1,0){12.00}}
\put(104.00,116.00){\line(-1,0){8.00}}
\put(98.00,118.00){\line(1,0){4.00}}
\put(135.00,134.00){\line(1,0){10.00}}
\put(131.00,132.00){\line(1,0){18.00}}
\put(129.00,130.00){\line(1,0){22.00}}
\put(128.00,128.00){\line(1,0){24.00}}
\put(154.00,126.00){\line(-1,0){28.00}}
\put(126.00,124.00){\line(1,0){28.00}}
\put(126.00,122.00){\line(1,0){28.00}}
\put(155.00,120.00){\line(-1,0){30.00}}
\put(129.00,110.00){\line(1,0){22.00}}
\put(128.00,112.00){\line(1,0){24.00}}
\put(154.00,114.00){\line(-1,0){28.00}}
\put(126.00,116.00){\line(1,0){28.00}}
\put(126.00,118.00){\line(1,0){28.00}}
\put(135.00,106.00){\line(1,0){10.00}}
\put(131.00,108.00){\line(1,0){18.00}}
\put(20.00,45.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$m>0$}}
\put(60.00,45.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$m=0$}}
\put(100.00,45.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$-1<m<0$}}
\put(140.00,45.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$m=-1$}}
\bezier{52}(29.00,80.00)(24.00,79.00)(24.00,70.00)
\bezier{64}(24.00,70.00)(24.00,61.00)(30.00,59.70)
\bezier{100}(70.00,59.70)(62.00,59.70)(60.50,95.00)
\bezier{88}(110.00,59.70)(103.00,59.70)(100.00,75.00)
\put(51.00,108.00){\line(1,0){18.00}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Three representations of the geometry of the $t=0$ geometry of metric
(\ref{BTZ}) for different ranges of the mass parameter $m$: The BTZ
black hole for $m>0$; the extremal BTZ black hole for $m=0$; the
point particle (conical singularity) for $m<0$; and AdS (``vacuum")
space itself for $m=-1$.
{\bf Top row:} shaded regions of the Poincar\'e disk, to be identified
in each figure along the left and right boundaries, drawn in thicker lines.
{\bf Second row:} an embedding of the central part ($r\leq\ell\sqrt{1-m}$)
of these spaces as surfaces in three-dimensional flat Euclidean space.
The embedding cannot be continued beyond the outer edges of each figure.
{\bf Bottom row:} the entire surface can be embedded in a 3D space of constant
negative curvature, shown as a Poincar\'e ball. (The figure is
schematic only; for example, the angle at the conical tips ought to be the
same in the second and last row, to represent the same surface)}\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Embeddings}
To visualize the geometry of our glued-together surface --- the $t=0$ surface of a static BTZ black
hole --- it helps to embed this surface in a three-dimensional space in which the gluing can be
actually carried out. This is analogous to the embedding of the $t=0$ surface of the Schwarzschild
black hole, with one angle suppressed, in three-dimensional flat space (the surface of rotation of
the {\it Flamm parabola} \cite{MTW}). For the BTZ initial surface only a finite part can
be so embedded. The embedding stops where
the rate of increase of circumference of the circle $r=$ const with respect to the true distance
in the radial direction exceeds that rate in flat space.
(The remainder of the surface could then be embedded in Minkowski space, but the switch between
embeddings is an artifact and corresponds to no local intrinsic property.) However, the entire surface can be
embedded in $H^3$, the {\it Riemannian} (positive definite metric) space of constant negative
curvature. By the obvious generalization of the Poincar\'e disk this space can be conformally
represented as a ball in three-dimensional flat space. Fig.~7 shows this embedding, where the
surface for $m>0$ is seen to have two asymptotic sheets, similar to the corresponding Schwarzschild surface.
\subsection{Multiple Black Holes}
We saw that a single hyperbolic isometry (call it $a$) used as an identification to obtain an
AdS initial state always yields a (single) BTZ black hole state, with horizon
size and location depending on $a$. For other types of initial states we
therefore need to use more
than one such isometry, for example $a$ and $b$. Assuring that there are no fixed points
(which would lead to singularities of the quotient space) would then seem to be much more
difficult: If we know that $a$ has no fixed point, then the whole group consisting of powers
$a^n$ has no fixed points (except the identity, $n=0$); but for the group generated by two
isometries $a,\,b$ we have to check that no ``word" formed from these and their inverses,
such as $ab^{-2}a^3b$ has fixed points. Although this may seem complicated, it is easy if we
have a fundamental domain such that the isometry $a$ maps one of a pair of boundaries into the
other, and the isometry $b$ does the same for a different pair of boundaries. Now tile the
Poincar\'e disk with copies of this fundamental domain (see Fig.~10 for an example).
Once we fix the original tile (associated
with the identity isometry), there is a one-to-one correspondence between tiles and words.
Therefore every non-trivial word moves all points in the original tile to some different tile,
and there can be no fixed points in the open disk.
How to obtain such a fundamental domain? A simple way is by doubling a region bounded by any number
$k$ of non-intersecting geodesics \cite{DB}. Fig.~8a shows this for the case $k=3$. In Fig.~8b we see the
fundamental domain. Half of it is the original (heavily outlined) region, shifted to the right so that
the center of the Poincar\'e disk lies on the geodesic boundary of the region rather than at its
center. The other half is the reflection of this original region
across that geodesic boundary. Thus $2k-2 = 4$ boundaries remain to be identified in pairs, as
indicated in the figure for the top pair. To construct the
isometry that moves one member of such a pair into the other we find the unique
common normal geodesic H$_2$ (shown for the bottom pair), and its intersection with the limit circle;
these intersections are the fixed
points of one of the hyperbolic isometries that have this fundamental domain. For example,
in Fig.~8b the isometry associated with H$_2$ moves
one of the bottom boundaries into the other. Similarly we find $k-2$ other isometries,
each of them associated with a common normal. After the identification are made these
common normals are smooth closed geodesics that separate an asymptotically AdS region
from the rest of the manifold. We call such curves horizons. In addition to the
$k-1$ horizons found this way there is another one, so there is a total of $k$ horizons. The
additional one can be found in the above way from a different fundamental domain, obtained by
reflecting the original region about a different geodesic boundary, but it is
more easily found from the doubling picture, as shown by the H$_3$ in Fig.~8a.
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 0.750mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(140.50,64.00)
\thicklines
\bezier{144}(26.91,35.01)(40.88,29.00)(26.91,22.99)
\bezier{140}(40.69,38.50)(45.65,30.28)(64.67,32.29)
\bezier{140}(40.69,19.54)(45.65,27.72)(64.67,25.63)
\thinlines
\bezier{64}(26.91,35.01)(31.87,37.90)(40.69,38.50)
\bezier{64}(64.67,32.45)(67.52,29.00)(64.67,25.63)
\bezier{64}(26.91,22.99)(31.87,20.10)(40.69,19.54)
\bezier{40}(40.69,38.50)(58.52,39.02)(64.67,32.45)
\bezier{40}(26.91,35.01)(16.44,29.00)(26.91,22.99)
\bezier{40}(40.69,19.54)(58.52,18.98)(64.67,25.63)
\bezier{15}(58.55,36.37)(54.58,34.71)(52.52,32.21)
\bezier{64}(52.52,32.21)(50.47,29.00)(52.68,25.79)
\bezier{15}(52.68,25.79)(54.44,23.23)(58.55,21.63)
\put(26.00,41.00){\line(-2,-3){16.00}}
\thicklines
\put(10.00,17.00){\line(1,0){68.00}}
\thinlines
\put(78.00,17.00){\line(-2,3){16.00}}
\put(62.00,41.00){\line(-1,0){36.00}}
\thicklines
\bezier{144}(26.91,58.71)(40.88,54.00)(26.91,49.29)
\bezier{140}(40.69,61.44)(45.65,55.01)(64.67,56.57)
\bezier{140}(40.69,46.59)(45.65,52.99)(64.67,51.36)
\thinlines
\bezier{64}(26.91,58.71)(31.87,60.97)(40.69,61.44)
\bezier{64}(64.67,56.70)(67.52,54.00)(64.67,51.36)
\bezier{64}(26.91,49.29)(31.87,47.03)(40.69,46.59)
\bezier{40}(40.69,61.44)(58.52,61.85)(64.67,56.70)
\bezier{40}(26.91,58.71)(16.44,54.00)(26.91,49.29)
\bezier{40}(40.69,46.59)(58.52,46.15)(64.67,51.36)
\bezier{15}(58.55,59.78)(54.58,58.47)(52.52,56.51)
\bezier{64}(52.52,56.51)(50.47,54.00)(52.68,51.49)
\bezier{15}(52.68,51.49)(54.44,49.48)(58.55,48.22)
\multiput(26.00,63.40)(-0.12,-0.14){134}{\line(0,-1){0.14}}
\thicklines
\put(10.00,44.60){\line(1,0){68.00}}
\thinlines
\multiput(78.00,44.60)(-0.12,0.14){134}{\line(0,1){0.14}}
\put(62.00,63.40){\line(-1,0){36.00}}
\put(13.00,39.00){\vector(2,-1){21.00}}
\put(13.00,43.00){\vector(2,1){21.00}}
\put(13.00,41.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{identify}}
\put(46.00,6.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf a})}}
\thicklines
\put(120.00,20.00){\line(0,1){40.00}}
\thinlines
\put(120.00,6.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf b})}}
\bezier{36}(111.17,57.83)(115.17,60.00)(120.00,60.00)
\thicklines
\bezier{36}(120.00,60.00)(124.83,60.00)(129.00,58.00)
\thinlines
\bezier{20}(129.00,58.00)(137.17,54.17)(139.50,44.17)
\thicklines
\bezier{36}(139.50,44.17)(140.50,40.00)(139.50,35.67)
\bezier{104}(139.50,44.33)(126.83,44.50)(129.00,57.83)
\bezier{36}(120.00,20.00)(124.83,20.00)(129.00,22.00)
\thinlines
\bezier{36}(111.17,22.17)(115.17,20.00)(120.00,20.00)
\bezier{20}(129.00,22.00)(137.17,25.83)(139.50,35.83)
\thicklines
\bezier{104}(139.50,35.67)(126.83,35.50)(129.00,22.17)
\thinlines
\bezier{20}(111.00,58.00)(102.83,54.17)(100.50,44.17)
\bezier{36}(100.50,44.17)(99.50,40.00)(100.50,35.67)
\bezier{104}(100.50,44.33)(113.17,44.50)(111.00,57.83)
\bezier{20}(111.00,22.00)(102.83,25.83)(100.50,35.83)
\bezier{104}(100.50,35.67)(113.17,35.50)(111.00,22.17)
\put(71.00,41.00){\vector(-3,-1){12.00}}
\put(72.00,41.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{H$_3$}}
\put(110.00,51.00){\vector(3,-4){0.2}}
\bezier{72}(110.00,64.00)(104.00,58.33)(110.00,51.00)
\put(120.00,64.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{identify}}
\put(130.00,51.00){\vector(-3,-4){0.2}}
\bezier{72}(130.00,64.00)(136.00,58.33)(130.00,51.00)
\bezier{156}(104.33,27.33)(120.00,39.33)(135.67,27.33)
\put(145.00,20.50){\vector(-4,3){8.00}}
\put(145.00,20.50){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{H$_2$}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Initial state for an AdS spacetime containing three black holes.
({\bf a}) Representation by doubling a region on the Poincar\'e disk. The top and
bottom surfaces are to be glued together along pairs of heavily drawn curves, such as the
pair labeled ``identify". The resulting topology is that of a pair of pants, with the
waist and the legs flaring out to infinity at the limit circle. The heavier part of the
curve H$_3$ becomes a closed geodesic at the narrowest part of a leg. ({\bf b}) The
fundamental region, obtained from one of the regions of part ({\bf a}) by
adding its reflection about the geodesic labeled ``identify" in ({\bf a}).
In ({\bf b}) only two boundaries remain
to be identified; the top pair are so labeled. For the bottom pair the minimal
connecting curve H$_2$ is shown}
\end{figure}
The topology of the resulting space may be easiest to see in the doubling picture: there are $k$
asymptotically AdS regions, which can be regarded as $k$ punctures (``pants' legs") on a
2-sphere. With each
asymptotic region there is associated a horizon, namely the geodesic normal to the corresponding
adjacent boundaries of the original region (because it is normal it will become a smooth,
circular, minimal geodesic after the doubling). On the outside of each horizon the
geometry is the same as that obtained from the isometry corresponding to that horizon
alone, so it is exactly the exterior of a BTZ black hole geometry. Therefore the whole
space contains $k$ black holes, joined together inside each hole's horizon.
\subsubsection{Parameters}
The time-symmetric (zero angular momentum) BTZ black hole in AdS space of a given
cosmological constant is described by a single parameter, the mass $m$. For an
initial state of several black holes we have analogously the several masses, and in
addition the relative positions of the black holes. These are however not all independent.
Consider a $k$ black hole initial state obtained by doubling a simply-connected region
bounded by $k$ non-intersecting geodesics. Find the $k$ minimal geodesic segments
$\sigma_i$ between adjacent geodesics.\footnote{Two geodesics of a set
are adjacent if each has an end point (at infinity) such that between
those end points there is no end point of any other geodesic of the set.}
The parts $s_i$ of the original geodesics between the endpoints of those segments,
together with the segments $\sigma_i$ themselves, form a
geodesic $2k$-gon with right-angle corners. Clearly the $\sigma_i$ are half the horizon
size and hence a measure of the masses, and the $s_i$ may be considered a measure of
the distances between the black holes. If $2k-3$ of the sides of a $2k$-gon are given,
then the geodesics that will form the $2k-2$ side (orthogonal at the end of the $2k-3$
side) and the $2k$ side (orthogonal at the end of the first side) are well-defined.
They have a unique common normal geodesic that forms the $2k-1$ side, hence the whole
polygon is uniquely defined. Thus only $2k-3$ of the $2k$ numbers measuring the masses
and the distances of this type of multi-black-hole are independent. In the case $k=3$
(corresponding to a geodesic hexagon) one can show that alternating sides
(either the three masses or the three distances) can be
{\it arbitrarily} chosen.
Higher $2k$-gons can be divided by geodesics into hexagons, so at least all
the masses (or all the distances) can be chosen arbitrarily. (The remaining
$k-3$ parameters may have to satisfy inequalities.)
Composing the $2k$-gon out of geodesic hexagons means, for the doubled surface, that
the multi-black-hole geometry is made out of $k-2$ three-black-hole geometries with
$2k-6$ of the asymptotic AdS regions removed and the horizons glued together
pairwise. In the five-black-hole example of Fig.~9 the three-black-hole parts are
labeled 1, 2, and 3. One asymptotic AdS regions was removed from 1 and 3, and two
such regions are missing from 2. The geometries obtained by doubling this are
however not the most general time-symmetric five-black-hole configuration. For
example, in Fig.~9 the curve separating
regions 2 and 3 is a closed geodesic. If we cut and re-glue after a hyperbolic isometry
along this geodesic the geometry is still smooth; the operation amounts to rotating the
top and bottom part of Fig.~9b with respect to each other, as indicated by the arrows.
(In general we can make $k-3$ such re-identifications.) That the result is in
general different after this rotation is shown, for example, by the
change in angle between the boundary geodesic and another closed geodesic which,
before the rotation, is indicated by the dotted line in Fig.~9a.
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 0.89mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(141.55,62.66)(10,0)
\bezier{30}(10.44,35.00)(10.44,48.71)(22.73,56.49)
\bezier{30}(22.73,56.49)(35.00,62.63)(47.27,56.49)
\bezier{30}(47.27,56.49)(59.56,48.71)(59.56,35.00)
\bezier{30}(10.44,35.00)(10.44,21.29)(22.73,13.51)
\bezier{30}(22.73,13.51)(35.00,7.37)(47.27,13.51)
\bezier{30}(47.27,13.51)(59.56,21.29)(59.56,35.00)
\put(10.70,32.50){\oval(3.90,3.40)[r]}
\put(10.70,37.50){\oval(3.90,3.40)[r]}
\bezier{74}(11.17,28.67)(18.33,30.33)(24.33,24.50)
\bezier{70}(24.33,24.50)(29.00,18.67)(27.67,11.50)
\bezier{74}(58.83,28.67)(51.67,30.33)(45.67,24.50)
\bezier{70}(45.67,24.50)(41.00,18.67)(42.33,11.50)
\bezier{74}(58.83,41.33)(51.67,39.67)(45.67,45.50)
\bezier{70}(45.67,45.50)(41.00,51.33)(42.33,58.50)
\bezier{74}(11.17,41.33)(18.33,39.67)(24.33,45.50)
\bezier{70}(24.33,45.50)(29.00,51.33)(27.67,58.50)
\bezier{88}(104.00,60.00)(111.67,56.00)(101.00,48.00)
\bezier{80}(101.00,48.00)(91.00,45.00)(93.00,54.00)
\bezier{32}(89.00,51.00)(92.67,51.00)(90.00,47.00)
\bezier{32}(90.00,47.00)(86.67,43.33)(85.00,46.00)
\bezier{60}(85.00,41.00)(87.00,44.00)(93.00,43.00)
\bezier{80}(93.00,43.00)(99.00,40.33)(97.00,25.00)
\bezier{68}(97.00,25.00)(96.00,15.00)(91.00,14.00)
\bezier{150}(136.00,39.00)(128.67,35.00)(118.00,47.00)
\bezier{120}(118.00,47.00)(112.00,56.33)(118.00,60.00)
\bezier{68}(107.00,61.77)(101.00,60.00)(107.00,58.23)
\bezier{44}(107.00,58.23)(110.67,57.44)(116.00,58.52)
\bezier{52}(116.00,58.52)(120.00,60.00)(116.00,61.48)
\bezier{52}(116.00,61.48)(111.00,62.66)(106.00,61.48)
\thicklines
\bezier{68}(97.00,37.00)(100.00,33.00)(111.00,37.00)
\bezier{72}(111.00,37.00)(121.67,42.00)(118.00,47.00)
\bezier{92}(116.00,25.00)(129.00,32.33)(135.50,25.00)
\bezier{80}(109.00,11.00)(105.67,18.00)(116.00,25.00)
\bezier{68}(134.98,38.30)(131.95,32.00)(134.98,25.70)
\bezier{44}(134.98,25.70)(136.83,22.90)(139.53,26.75)
\bezier{52}(139.53,26.75)(141.55,32.00)(139.53,37.25)
\bezier{52}(139.53,37.25)(137.00,41.45)(134.47,37.25)
\bezier{64}(91.00,14.00)(89.67,9.22)(98.00,7.55)
\bezier{72}(98.00,7.55)(107.00,6.62)(109.00,11.00)
\bezier{24}(95.00,47.30)(96.00,45.00)(93.00,43.00)
\thinlines
\put(92.00,46.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{1}}
\put(107.00,44.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{2}}
\put(111.00,30.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{3}}
\put(24.50,24.50){\line(1,1){21.00}}
\bezier{94}(20.00,42.00)(24.00,35.00)(20.00,28.00)
\put(16.00,35.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{1}}
\put(32.00,42.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{2}}
\put(41.00,30.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{3}}
\bezier{25}(83.17,41.39)(82.43,43.50)(83.17,45.61)
\bezier{25}(83.17,45.61)(84.29,47.02)(85.41,45.61)
\bezier{25}(85.41,45.61)(86.28,43.50)(85.29,41.15)
\bezier{20}(85.29,41.15)(84.17,39.98)(83.17,41.39)
\bezier{30}(88.33,52.00)(88.17,50.33)(90.83,51.83)
\bezier{40}(90.83,51.83)(94.67,54.83)(91.83,54.33)
\bezier{30}(91.83,54.33)(89.83,53.83)(88.33,52.00)
\put(113.33,40.00){\vector(2,1){0.2}}
\bezier{36}(105.00,37.00)(109.67,38.00)(113.33,40.00)
\put(103.33,33.67){\vector(-4,-1){0.2}}
\bezier{44}(113.33,36.67)(107.67,34.00)(103.33,33.67)
\put(35.00,3.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf a})}}
\put(110.00,3.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf b})}}
\thicklines
\bezier{15}(25.00,45.00)(35.00,35.00)(45.00,25.00)
\end{picture}
\caption{A five-black-hole time-symmetric initial state is obtained by doubling the
region on the Poincar\'e disk in ({\bf a}). Part ({\bf b}) shows a somewhat fanciful picture
of the result of the doubling, cut off at the flare-outs, which should extend to infinity.}
\end{figure}
The $2k-3$ distance parameters and the $k-3$ rotation angles describe a $3k-6$-dimensional
space of $k$-black-hole geometries. Equivalently we may say that a
$k$-black-hole initial state is given by a fundamental domain bounded by $2k-2$ geodesics
to be identified in pairs by $k-1$ M\"obius transformations. Since each M\"obius
transformation depends on 3 parameters, and the whole fundamental domain can be moved by
another M\"obius transformation, the number of free parameters is $3k-6$.
Such a space of geometries is known as a Teichm\"uller space, and the
length and twist parameters are known as Fenchel-Nielsen coordinates on this
space \cite{BP}.
Instead of cutting and re-gluing along closed geodesics as in Fig.~9 one can do this
operation on the identification geodesics used in the doubling procedure.
For example, in Fig.~8a on the pair of geodesics marked ``identify" one can
identify each point on the bottom geodesic with one that is moved by a constant
distance along the top geodesic. For the fundamental region this means the
following: so far, whenever two identification geodesics on the boundary of the
fundamental domain were to be identified, it was done by the unique hyperbolic transformation
along the minimal normal geodesic between the identification geodesics.
If we follow this transformation by a hyperbolic isometry along one of the
identification geodesics, the two geodesics
will still fit together, and the identified surface will be smooth but with a
difference in global structure (like that produced by the re-gluing in
Fig.~9). Of course the two transformations
combine into one, and conversely any isometry that maps one identification geodesic
into another can be decomposed into a ``move" along the normal geodesic, and a ``shift"
along a identification geodesic. Since each hyperbolic transformation is a Lorentz
transformation in the embedding picture (Fig.~5) the combination is again
hyperbolic, so no finite fixed points (singularities) occur in this more general
identification process.
If we identify with a non-zero shift, there is of course still a minimal
geodesic between the two identified geodesics, but it is no longer
orthogonal to those geodesics. Nevertheless the identified geometry is that
of a black hole. To make the correspondence to the $\phi\rightarrow\phi+2\pi$
identification of Eq (\ref{schwmet}) one would have to change the identification
geodesics to be normal to the minimal one (which can complicate the fundamental
domain).
\subsubsection{Fixed points}
It is useful to understand the fixed points at infinity (the limiting circle of the Poincar\'e
disk) of the identifications that glue a black hole geometry out of a
fundamental domain of AdS space. The fixed points are directly
related to the minimal geodesics associated with the identification, and they
can indicate whether we have a black hole or not: there must be open sets free
of fixed points if the initial data is to be asymptotically AdS. We know that
the identifications can have some fixed points at infinity,
but if the fixed points cover all of infinity, there is no place left for an
asymptotically AdS region, and the space is not a black hole space. Thus even in
the relatively simple time-symmetric case it is useful to understand the
tiling and the fixed points of the M\"obius transformation
associated with the identifications.
As an example, consider again
the three-black-hole case. Let $a$ and $b$ be the identifications of the top and
the bottom pair of geodesics of a figure like 8b. Then the free group generated
by these, that is, any ``word" formed from $a,\,b$ and their inverses $A,\,B$ is also
an identification. Since the identified geometry is everywhere smooth, none of these can
have a fixed point in the finite part of the disk, so all fixed points
must lie on the
limit circle. The pattern of fixed points is characteristic of the identifications
and constitutes a kind of hologram \cite{Suss} of the multi-black-hole spacetime.
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 1.00mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(69.85,68.58)(20,15
\bezier{49}(20.15,50.00)(20.15,66.66)(35.08,76.12)
\bezier{48}(35.08,76.12)(50.00,83.58)(64.92,76.12)
\bezier{49}(64.92,76.12)(79.85,66.66)(79.85,50.00)
\bezier{49}(20.15,50.00)(20.15,33.34)(35.08,23.88)
\bezier{48}(35.08,23.88)(50.00,16.42)(64.92,23.88)
\bezier{49}(64.92,23.88)(79.85,33.34)(79.85,50.00)
\bezier{88}(55.19,20.56)(53.33,30.93)(61.11,39.07)
\bezier{84}(61.11,39.07)(68.70,46.48)(79.44,44.81)
\bezier{32}(59.25,21.67)(58.17,24.83)(61.50,27.33)
\bezier{32}(61.50,27.33)(65.58,29.00)(68.00,26.00)
\bezier{12}(69.75,27.42)(69.00,28.83)(70.00,29.92)
\bezier{32}(78.33,40.75)(75.17,41.83)(72.67,38.50)
\bezier{32}(72.67,38.50)(71.00,34.42)(74.00,32.00)
\bezier{12}(72.58,30.25)(71.17,31.00)(70.08,30.00)
\put(65.67,24.33){\circle{1.67}}
\put(70.67,28.33){\circle{1.00}}
\put(62.00,22.67){\circle*{1.67}}
\bezier{8}(63.50,23.00)(63.50,24.17)(64.33,23.33)
\put(67.83,38.83){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$a$}}
\put(63.00,25.80){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$a^2$}}
\put(74.67,37.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$ab$}}
\bezier{88}(79.44,55.19)(69.07,53.33)(60.93,61.11)
\bezier{84}(60.93,61.11)(53.52,68.70)(55.19,79.44)
\bezier{32}(78.33,59.25)(75.17,58.17)(72.67,61.50)
\bezier{32}(72.67,61.50)(71.00,65.58)(74.00,68.00)
\bezier{12}(72.58,69.75)(71.17,69.00)(70.08,70.00)
\bezier{32}(59.25,78.33)(58.17,75.17)(61.50,72.67)
\bezier{32}(61.50,72.67)(65.58,71.00)(68.00,74.00)
\bezier{12}(69.75,72.58)(69.00,71.17)(70.00,70.08)
\bezier{88}(44.81,79.44)(46.67,69.07)(38.89,60.93)
\bezier{84}(38.89,60.93)(31.30,53.52)(20.56,55.19)
\bezier{32}(40.75,78.33)(41.83,75.17)(38.50,72.67)
\bezier{32}(38.50,72.67)(34.42,71.00)(32.00,74.00)
\bezier{12}(30.25,72.58)(31.00,71.17)(30.00,70.08)
\bezier{32}(21.67,59.25)(24.83,58.17)(27.33,61.50)
\bezier{32}(27.33,61.50)(29.00,65.58)(26.00,68.00)
\bezier{12}(27.42,69.75)(28.83,69.00)(29.92,70.00)
\bezier{88}(20.56,44.81)(30.93,46.67)(39.07,38.89)
\bezier{84}(39.07,38.89)(46.48,31.30)(44.81,20.56)
\bezier{32}(21.67,40.75)(24.83,41.83)(27.33,38.50)
\bezier{32}(27.33,38.50)(29.00,34.42)(26.00,32.00)
\bezier{12}(27.42,30.25)(28.83,31.00)(29.92,30.00)
\bezier{32}(40.75,21.67)(41.83,24.83)(38.50,27.33)
\bezier{32}(38.50,27.33)(34.42,29.00)(32.00,26.00)
\bezier{12}(30.25,27.42)(31.00,28.83)(30.00,29.92)
\put(65.00,65.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$B$}}
\put(35.00,65.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$b$}}
\put(35.00,35.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$A$}}
\put(75.00,64.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$B\!A$}}
\put(73.00,72.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$Ba$}}
\put(63.30,75.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$B^2$}}
\put(37.00,75.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$b^2$}}
\put(30.00,71.00){\makebox(0,0)[rb]{$bA$}}
\put(25.50,63.50){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$ba$}}
\put(25.00,37.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$A\!B$}}
\put(29.50,28.00){\makebox(0,0)[rc]{$Ab$}}
\put(37.00,25.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$A^2$}}
\put(38.00,22.67){\circle*{1.67}}
\put(72.00,29.33){\circle*{1.00}}
\put(75.67,34.33){\circle*{1.67}}
\put(77.33,38.00){\circle{1.67}}
\put(77.33,62.00){\circle{1.67}}
\thicklines
\bezier{64}(38.00,23.00)(42.04,30.00)(50.00,30.00)
\bezier{64}(50.00,30.00)(58.15,30.00)(62.00,23.00)
\bezier{44}(65.17,25.17)(65.33,30.67)(70.17,28.67)
\bezier{44}(74.83,34.83)(69.33,34.67)(71.33,29.83)
\bezier{64}(77.00,62.00)(70.00,57.96)(70.00,50.00)
\bezier{64}(70.00,50.00)(70.00,41.85)(77.00,38.00)
\bezier{64}(23.00,38.00)(30.00,42.04)(30.00,50.00)
\bezier{64}(30.00,50.00)(30.00,58.15)(23.00,62.00)
\bezier{64}(62.00,77.00)(57.96,70.00)(50.00,70.00)
\bezier{64}(50.00,70.00)(41.85,70.00)(38.00,77.00)
\put(50.00,30.00){\vector(1,0){1.00}}
\put(70.00,50.00){\vector(0,1){1.00}}
\put(50.00,70.00){\vector(-1,0){1.00}}
\put(30.00,50.00){\vector(0,-1){1.00}}
\thinlines
\put(51.00,31.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$a$}}
\put(49.00,69.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$b$}}
\put(69.00,50.00){\makebox(0,0)[rc]{$B\!A$}}
\put(31.00,50.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$A\!B$}}
\put(66.70,33.30){\vector(1,-1){4.00}}
\put(67.00,33.00){\makebox(0,0)[rb]{$aB$}}
\put(62.00,17.00){\vector(0,1){5.00}}
\put(62.40,17.00){\makebox(0,0)[ct]{$a^n$}}
\put(64.00,20.00){\vector(0,1){3.00}}
\put(64.00,20.80){\makebox(0,0)[lt]{$a^2B$}}
\put(71.00,24.00){\vector(-1,0){4.00}}
\put(71.00,24.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$a(ab)^n$}}
\put(76.00,28.00){\vector(-1,0){5.00}}
\put(76.00,28.00){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$a(B\!A)^n$}}
\put(79.00,38.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$(ab)^n$}}
\put(79.00,62.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$(B\!A)^n$}}
\put(38.00,21.00){\makebox(0,0)[ct]{$A^n$}}
\put(77.00,34.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$ab^n$}}
\put(50.00,50.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{\bf 1}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Part of the tiling of the Poincar\'e disk obtained by ``unwrapping" a
three-black-hole initial geometry as in Fig.~8. A fundamental domain
{\bf 1} is imaged by combinations of identification maps $a$ and $b$ and their
inverses $A=a^{-1},\,B=b^{-1}$. Repeating $n$ times a map such as $ab$ leads to
a point $(ab)^n$ on the limit circle, in the limit $n\rightarrow\infty$.
Some geodesics (``horizons") connecting such a limit point and its inverse
limit (such as $a(ab)^n$ and $a(ab)^{-n}=a(BA)^n$) are shown as heavy curves}
\label{fig10}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~10 the initial fundamental domain
is denoted by {\bf 1}. The identifications are given by hyperbolic M\"obius
transformations $a,\,b$, with inverses $A,\,B$ that connect the top and
the bottom boundaries, respectively. Any ``word" made up of these four
letters is, first, also an identification. Secondly each word can be used to label a tile,
because each tile is some image, $a${\bf 1}, $A${\bf 1}, $aB${\bf 1},\dots of the initial
domain {\bf 1}, shown simply as $a,\,A,\,aB,$ \dots in the Figure. Finally, there is a
closed minimal geodesic associated with each pair of identified boundaries, hence
each word also corresponds to a geodesic.\footnote{In this connection we regard a
word, its inverse, and the permuted word as equal, in order to have a unique
correspondence to geodesics; see \cite{sor}.} (For example, $Ba$ connects $(Ab)^n$
to $(Ba)^n$.) Horizons are special geodesics that bound asymptotically
AdS regions. Some of these are shown by the heavy curves. The
ones that cut through the basic domain are labeled by the isometries that
leave them invariant, $a,\,b$, and $AB=BA$. The words for the
other horizons are obtained from these by conjugation, for example the
horizon connecting the points labeled $a(ab)^n$ and $a(BA)^n$ is ``called"
by the word $a(BA)A$.
Every words is a hyperbolic isometry, hence has two fixed points on the
Poincar\'e limit circle. We can find the fixed points by applying the word
(or its inverse) many times to any finite region, because in the limit
the images will converge to a point on the limit circle (see,
for example, the equidistant curves in Fig.~2). Some of these fixed
points are shown by open and by filled circles in the Figure, and labeled
by an $n$th power, where the limit $n\rightarrow\infty$ is understood.
The two fixed points of a hyperbolic transformation define a geodesic that
ends at them, and that is the minimal geodesic along which the transformation
acts.
Because the infinity side of a horizon is isometric to the asymptotic region
of a single black hole, there are no fixed points on that side of the
horizon. (Cf.~Fig.~2, where the only fixed points of the horizon isometry
$\phi\rightarrow\phi+$ const are on the horizon $r=\ell$.) Between two
different horizons (between open and filled circles of the Figure)
there will however be further horizons, with fixed points at their ends.
Thus the set of fixed points for multi-black-holes has the fractal structure
of a Cantor set.
By contrast, for some identifications the fixed points are everywhere dense
on the limit circle. This happens, for example, if we try to build, by
analogy to the multi-black-hole construction, a geometry containing three
$m=0$ black holes. The tiles, analogs of those of Fig.~10, would be ``ideal"
quadrilaterals, that is, each tile is a geodesic polygon whose four corners
lie on the limit circle. This space is smooth and contains three ends of the
type shown in the second column of Fig.~7 (instead of the ``legs" in such
pictures as Fig.~9); but since there is then no fixed-point-free region on
the limit circle, this space is not asymptotically AdS and hence does not
contain BTZ-type black holes.
\subsection{Other Topologies}
It is well known that time-symmetric AdS initial states, that is,
spaces of constant negative curvature, admit a large variety of topologies.
In the context of (orientable) black hole spaces one can construct all of these
out of pieces of the three-black-hole space as in Fig.~7. These pieces are:
three BTZ-exteriors, that is, the regions outside each of the three horizons;
and one region interior to the horizons. The interior piece is sometimes
called the ``convex core" or ``trousers."\footnote{Previously we have used
the image of flared pants' legs for the asymptotically AdS regions, which
need to be cut off to obtain the core, so it would be more consistent to
call the latter ``cut-offs" or ``shorts," but we will use ``trousers."} Fig.~11
shows how other topologies can be constructed out of these pieces.
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 1.00mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(117.00,70.00)(10,0)
\put(30.00,30.00){\circle{10.00}}
\put(27.00,46.00){\line(-1,0){8.00}}
\put(19.00,46.00){\line(-1,1){6.00}}
\thicklines
\put(13.00,52.00){\line(1,0){17.00}}
\thinlines
\put(33.00,46.00){\line(1,0){8.00}}
\put(41.00,46.00){\line(1,1){6.00}}
\thicklines
\put(47.00,52.00){\line(-1,0){17.00}}
\put(30.00,49.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\cal E$}}
\bezier{32}(19.78,30.00)(19.78,34.14)(22.71,37.07)
\bezier{32}(39.78,30.00)(39.78,34.14)(36.85,37.07)
\bezier{32}(19.78,30.00)(19.78,25.86)(22.71,22.93)
\bezier{32}(22.71,22.93)(25.64,20.00)(29.78,20.00)
\bezier{32}(39.78,30.00)(39.78,25.86)(36.85,22.93)
\bezier{32}(36.85,22.93)(33.92,20.00)(29.78,20.00)
\bezier{8}(27.13,44.00)(27.13,44.53)(27.95,44.91)
\bezier{8}(27.95,44.91)(28.77,45.29)(29.94,45.29)
\bezier{8}(32.75,44.00)(32.75,44.53)(31.93,44.91)
\bezier{8}(31.93,44.91)(31.10,45.29)(29.94,45.29)
\thinlines
\bezier{8}(27.13,44.00)(27.13,43.47)(27.95,43.09)
\bezier{8}(27.95,43.09)(28.77,42.71)(29.94,42.71)
\bezier{8}(32.75,44.00)(32.75,43.47)(31.93,43.09)
\bezier{8}(31.93,43.09)(31.10,42.71)(29.94,42.71)
\bezier{24}(32.75,44.00)(32.75,47.00)(37.00,48.40)
\bezier{24}(27.21,44.00)(27.21,47.00)(22.96,48.40)
\thicklines
\bezier{8}(27.13,40.40)(27.13,40.93)(27.95,41.31)
\bezier{8}(27.95,41.31)(28.77,41.69)(29.94,41.69)
\bezier{8}(32.75,40.40)(32.75,40.93)(31.93,41.31)
\bezier{8}(31.93,41.31)(31.10,41.69)(29.94,41.69)
\bezier{16}(36.84,37.07)(35.64,38.40)(33.38,39.60)
\bezier{4}(33.38,39.60)(32.98,39.87)(32.71,40.53)
\bezier{16}(22.84,37.07)(24.04,38.40)(26.31,39.60)
\bezier{4}(26.31,39.60)(26.71,39.87)(26.98,40.53)
\thinlines
\bezier{16}(30.18,24.93)(31.24,25.07)(31.38,22.40)
\bezier{12}(31.38,22.40)(30.98,20.53)(30.04,20.13)
\put(97.00,64.00){\line(-1,0){8.00}}
\put(89.00,64.00){\line(-1,1){6.00}}
\thicklines
\put(83.00,70.00){\line(1,0){17.00}}
\put(117.00,70.00){\line(-1,0){17.00}}
\thinlines
\put(103.00,64.00){\line(1,0){8.00}}
\put(111.00,64.00){\line(1,1){6.00}}
\put(100.00,67.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\cal E$}}
\thicklines
\bezier{8}(97.13,62.00)(97.13,62.53)(97.95,62.91)
\bezier{8}(97.95,62.91)(98.77,63.29)(99.94,63.29)
\bezier{8}(102.75,62.00)(102.75,62.53)(101.93,62.91)
\bezier{8}(101.93,62.91)(101.10,63.29)(99.94,63.29)
\thinlines
\bezier{8}(97.13,62.00)(97.13,61.47)(97.95,61.09)
\bezier{8}(97.95,61.09)(98.77,60.71)(99.94,60.71)
\bezier{8}(102.75,62.00)(102.75,61.47)(101.93,61.09)
\bezier{8}(101.93,61.09)(101.10,60.71)(99.94,60.71)
\bezier{24}(102.75,62.00)(102.75,65.00)(107.00,66.40)
\bezier{24}(97.21,62.00)(97.21,65.00)(92.96,66.40)
\put(100.00,51.00){\circle{8.00}}
\thicklines
\bezier{8}(97.13,59.00)(97.13,59.53)(97.95,59.91)
\bezier{8}(97.95,59.91)(98.77,60.29)(99.94,60.29)
\bezier{8}(102.75,59.00)(102.75,59.53)(101.93,59.91)
\bezier{8}(101.93,59.91)(101.10,60.29)(99.94,60.29)
\bezier{8}(96.84,42.05)(96.84,42.64)(97.74,43.05)
\bezier{8}(97.74,43.05)(98.64,43.47)(99.93,43.47)
\bezier{8}(103.03,42.05)(103.03,42.64)(102.13,43.05)
\bezier{8}(102.13,43.05)(101.21,43.47)(99.93,43.47)
\thinlines
\bezier{8}(96.84,42.05)(96.84,41.47)(97.74,41.05)
\bezier{8}(97.74,41.05)(98.64,40.63)(99.93,40.63)
\bezier{8}(103.03,42.05)(103.03,41.47)(102.13,41.05)
\bezier{8}(102.13,41.05)(101.21,40.63)(99.93,40.63)
\thicklines
\bezier{12}(102.81,58.97)(102.81,57.90)(104.09,57.44)
\bezier{36}(104.09,57.44)(107.94,55.38)(107.94,51.03)
\bezier{36}(104.09,44.40)(107.94,46.67)(107.94,51.03)
\bezier{20}(104.09,44.40)(103.00,44.00)(103.00,42.26)
\bezier{12}(97.19,58.97)(97.19,57.90)(95.91,57.44)
\bezier{36}(95.91,57.44)(92.06,55.38)(92.06,51.03)
\bezier{36}(95.91,44.40)(92.06,46.67)(92.06,51.03)
\bezier{20}(95.91,44.40)(97.00,44.00)(97.00,42.26)
\thinlines
\put(100.00,28.00){\circle{10.00}}
\thicklines
\bezier{32}(89.78,28.00)(89.78,32.14)(92.71,35.07)
\bezier{32}(109.78,28.00)(109.78,32.14)(106.85,35.07)
\bezier{32}(89.78,28.00)(89.78,23.86)(92.71,20.93)
\bezier{32}(92.71,20.93)(95.64,18.00)(99.78,18.00)
\bezier{32}(109.78,28.00)(109.78,23.86)(106.85,20.93)
\bezier{32}(106.85,20.93)(103.92,18.00)(99.78,18.00)
\bezier{8}(97.13,38.40)(97.13,38.93)(97.95,39.31)
\bezier{8}(97.95,39.31)(98.77,39.69)(99.94,39.69)
\bezier{8}(102.75,38.40)(102.75,38.93)(101.93,39.31)
\bezier{8}(101.93,39.31)(101.10,39.69)(99.94,39.69)
\bezier{16}(106.84,35.07)(105.64,36.40)(103.38,37.60)
\bezier{4}(103.38,37.60)(102.98,37.87)(102.71,38.53)
\bezier{16}(92.84,35.07)(94.04,36.40)(96.31,37.60)
\bezier{4}(96.31,37.60)(96.71,37.87)(96.98,38.53)
\thinlines
\bezier{16}(100.18,22.93)(101.24,23.07)(101.38,20.40)
\bezier{12}(101.38,20.40)(100.98,18.53)(100.04,18.13)
\bezier{20}(92.14,50.97)(94.02,52.0)(95.91,50.97)
\bezier{20}(107.79,50.97)(105.91,52.0)(104.02,50.97)
\put(100.00,57.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\cal T$}}
\put(100.00,44.00){\makebox(0,0)[cb]{$\cal T$}}
\put(100.00,36.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\cal T$}}
\put(30.00,38.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\cal T$}}
\put(51.00,42.00){\vector(-1,0){16.00}}
\put(52.00,42.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{Minimal circles}}
\put(76.00,43.00){\vector(2,1){15.00}}
\put(75.74,41.49){\vector(1,0){19.00}}
\put(32.00,19.00){\vector(-1,1){0.2}}
\bezier{172}(52.00,40.00)(40.00,10.51)(32.00,19.00)
\put(30.00,10.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf a})}}
\put(100.00,10.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf b})}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Examples of the class of spaces considered here, constructed by sewing
together one or several trousers and one asymptotic region. The latter looks
asymptotically flat in this topological picture, but metrically it has constant
negative curvature everywhere, just like the trousers}
\end{figure}
The resulting
geometry is smooth if we choose the freely specifiable mass parameters of
each exterior or core to match those of its neighbors at the connection
horizons\footnote{The horizons along which the legs were cut off from
the cores may no longer be horizons of the space-time if the cores are
re-assembled differently. Nonetheless, in the present section we will still
call them by that name.}: the intrinsic geometries then match, and
the extrinsic geometries match because the horizons are geodesics. Conversely
we can decompose a given $k$-black-hole initial geometry of genus $g$ into
asymptotic regions and
trousers by cutting it along minimal circles of different and non-trivial
homotopy types. We can choose $3g+2k-3$ such circles that divide the
space into $k$ exteriors $\cal E$ and $2g+k-2$ trousers $\cal T$. Fig.~11
illustrates the construction for $k=1$ and $g=1$ (left) resp.\ $g=2$ (right).
A fundamental region on the Poincar\'e disk, and hence the M\"obius transformations
that implement the identifications, can be constructed for these spaces in
a similar way, by putting together geodesic, right-angle octagons
representing trousers and analogous asymptotic regions. For example, the $k=1,\,
g=1$ geometry can be represented by identifying two of the horizon geodesics
of a trousers octagon and adding an exterior to the third. The resulting
fundamental domain is bounded by geodesics, but it is not
unique. We can cut it into pieces and re-assemble it in a different way
\cite{DBS}, or we can cut the original space along some geodesics (not
necessarily those of the trousers decomposition) only until it becomes
one simply connected piece. If we can lay these geodesics so that they
start and end at infinity and therefore do not cross we obtain a simple
fundamental region bounded only by complete geodesics. Figure 12a shows
the two geodesic cuts necessary for the case of our example of Fig.~11a, and
the fundamental domain so obtained is seen in Fig.~12b.
The pattern of tiling for this case is identical to that of Fig.~10, but the
labeling is different. For example, rather than three horizon words there
is only one, $abAB$, corresponding to the existence of only one horizon
in the identified manifold.
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 0.80mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(121.27,66.23)
\bezier{44}(76.73,33.00)(76.73,45.43)(87.87,52.49)
\bezier{40}(87.87,52.49)(99.00,58.06)(110.13,52.49)
\bezier{44}(110.13,52.49)(121.27,45.43)(121.27,33.00)
\bezier{44}(76.73,33.00)(76.73,20.57)(87.87,13.51)
\bezier{40}(87.87,13.51)(99.00,7.94)(110.13,13.51)
\bezier{44}(110.13,13.51)(121.27,20.57)(121.27,33.00)
\thicklines
\bezier{88}(117.28,45.81)(110.69,40.84)(110.69,33.00)
\bezier{88}(117.28,20.19)(110.69,25.16)(110.69,33.00)
\bezier{88}(80.72,45.81)(87.31,40.84)(87.31,33.00)
\bezier{88}(80.72,20.19)(87.31,25.16)(87.31,33.00)
\bezier{64}(90.66,53.65)(93.28,47.92)(99.00,47.92)
\bezier{64}(107.34,53.65)(104.72,47.92)(99.00,47.92)
\bezier{64}(90.66,12.35)(93.28,18.08)(99.00,18.08)
\bezier{64}(107.34,12.35)(104.72,18.08)(99.00,18.08)
\thinlines
\put(99.00,18.08){\vector(0,1){29.85}}
\put(87.43,33.00){\vector(1,0){23.13}}
\put(40.00,28.67){\circle{12.00}}
\thicklines
\bezier{64}(21.67,30.00)(21.67,40.23)(30.84,46.04)
\bezier{64}(49.16,46.04)(58.33,40.23)(58.33,30.00)
\bezier{64}(21.67,30.00)(21.67,19.77)(30.84,13.96)
\bezier{60}(30.84,13.96)(40.00,9.38)(49.16,13.96)
\bezier{64}(49.16,13.96)(58.33,19.77)(58.33,30.00)
\bezier{48}(30.84,46.04)(36.67,50.00)(37.00,54.00)
\bezier{68}(37.00,54.00)(37.67,63.00)(28.00,63.00)
\bezier{48}(49.16,46.04)(43.33,50.00)(43.00,54.00)
\bezier{68}(43.00,54.00)(42.33,63.00)(52.00,63.00)
\thinlines
\bezier{64}(27.59,63.00)(27.59,61.40)(33.80,60.49)
\bezier{60}(33.80,60.49)(40.00,59.77)(46.20,60.49)
\bezier{64}(46.20,60.49)(52.41,61.40)(52.41,63.00)
\bezier{64}(27.59,63.00)(27.59,64.60)(33.80,65.51)
\bezier{60}(33.80,65.51)(40.00,66.23)(46.20,65.51)
\bezier{64}(46.20,65.51)(52.41,64.60)(52.41,63.00)
\thicklines
\bezier{68}(40.00,35.00)(45.00,34.00)(42.00,45.00)
\bezier{64}(42.00,45.00)(40.00,55.33)(42.00,60.00)
\bezier{14}(40.00,35.00)(34.67,35.00)(37.50,49.17)
\bezier{10}(37.50,49.17)(38.83,56.33)(38.17,60.17)
\bezier{32}(38.17,60.17)(36.83,64.83)(33.67,65.50)
\thinlines
\bezier{14}(40.24,22.39)(38.86,22.39)(38.07,19.69)
\bezier{10}(38.07,19.69)(37.45,16.98)(38.07,14.28)
\bezier{14}(38.07,14.28)(38.86,11.56)(40.24,11.56)
\bezier{34}(40.24,22.39)(41.63,22.39)(42.42,19.69)
\bezier{30}(42.42,19.69)(43.03,16.98)(42.42,14.28)
\bezier{34}(42.42,14.28)(41.63,11.56)(40.24,11.56)
\put(95.67,33.33){\makebox(0,0)[cb]{$a$}}
\put(99.33,39.67){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$b$}}
\put(42.87,17.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$a$}}
\put(46.33,28.33){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$b$}}
\put(44.33,33.00){\vector(-1,1){0.17}}
\put(41.76,21.44){\vector(-1,3){0.2}}
\put(40.00,3.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf a})}}
\put(100.00,3.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf b})}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Construction of a BTZ exterior with toroidal interior. Rather than
cutting the geometry shown in part ({\bf a}) by minimal geodesics as in
Fig.~11, the cuts, shown by the heavy lines, are chosen to reach infinity
and divide this into four regions. Thus one obtains the fundamental domain
shown in part ({\bf b}). The identifications $a$ and $b$ are shown as
arrows. The lines of these arrows are also the minimal geodesics between
the lines that are to be identified. In the identified manifold these are
closed geodesics, as shown in part ({\bf a}). The possible geometries are
characterized by the lengths of these two closed geodesics, and the angle
between them (shown here as $90^\circ$)}
\end{figure}
Out of an even number of trousers only one can construct locally AdS initial
data that contain
no asymptotically AdS region at all. Such compact spaces can be interpreted
as closed universes, and for lack of other physical content they can be
considered to contain several black holes, associated with the horizons
that were glued together in the construction. (Of course these horizons
and black holes are only analogies, for example there are no observers that
see them as black, i.e.\ of infinite redshift.)
Our reasoning about the number of parameters that specify a $k$-black-hole
geometry can be generalized to the case that the internal geometry has
genus $g$. If we cut off two asymptotic AdS regions and identify the two
horizons that go with them, we decrease $k$ by two and increase $g$ by one.
The number of parameters does not change: we lose one mass parameter,
since the masses of the two horizons that will be identified have to be
equal, but we gain one rotation parameter which specifies with what shift
the horizons are to be identified. Thus from the formula in section 2.4
we find that the (orientable) time-symmetric initial states, of genus $g$
and $k$ asymptotic AdS regions, form a $(6g+3k-6)$-dimensional
Teichm\"uller space.
If this number is non-positive, no state of that type is possible.
(However, the formula cannot be applied to the time-symmetric BTZ
initial state itself:
it has one free parameter, the mass $m$, but no integral value of $k$
makes the formula valid; the BTZ state is not a multi-black-hole geometry
in the sense of this section.)
For example, if we want a single exterior region ($k=1$) we need a genus
of at least $g=1$ (Fig.~12). Here the number of parameters is $6g+3k-6=3$,
for example the minimal distances (lengths of closed geodesics $a$ and $b$)
for each of the two identifications, and the angle between these
geodesics. It is clear from the figure that these distances
must be large enough, and the angle close enough to a right angle,
that an asymptotic region remains in Fig.~12b. (If the
geodesics crossed and formed
a quadrilateral, there would be an angle deficit at the crossing point,
which could be interpreted as a toroidal universe that is not empty,
but contains one point particle.)
The formula for the number of free parameters tells us that there is
no time-symmetric torus ($k=0,\,g=1$) initial state. However,
all topologies of higher genus or with at least one asymptotic AdS region
do occur; and the spatial torus topology does
occur among all locally AdS spacetimes, for example as Eq~(\ref{schwmet})
for $r^2<\ell^2$ with $\phi$ and $t$ periodically identified --- the analog
of a closed Kantowski-Sachs universe.
\section{Time Development}
The identifications used on a time-symmetric surface of AdS space to
generate black hole and other initial values have a unique extension
to all of AdS space, and thus define a unique time development (even
beyond any Cauchy horizon). A fundamental domain in
3-dimensional AdS space can be generated by extending normal
timelike geodesics from the geodesic boundaries of the two-dimensional
fundamental domain on the initial surface. Due to the negative curvature
of AdS space such {\it timelike} geodesics accelerate towards each other
and will eventually cross. Such crossing of fundamental domain boundaries
is the space-time analog of a conical singularity. A prototype of this is the
``non-Hausdorff singularity" of Misner space \cite{Mis}. Although not a curvature singularity,
these points are considered not to be part of the space-time. This in turn
provides an end of {\curs I}\ and hence the possibility of a black hole horizon.
A metric for the time development of the finite part of any multi-black-hole
or multiply-connected time-symmetric initial geometry is provided by Eq (\ref{cmc})
when we replace the expression in the bracket by the initial multi-black-hole
metric. The result is a metric adapted to free-fall observers, and it shows
that they all reach the singularity after the same proper time, $\tau=\pi\ell/2$,
when the $\cos^2$ factor vanishes. (This can be seen geometrically from Fig.~4a, where
geodesics are intersections with planes through the origin, and the
collapse time is one quarter of the period around the hyperboloid.)
But these coordinates do not cover the time development of conformal
infinity (cf.\ the dotted curves in Fig.~2).
A more complete picture emerges from the continuation of the
identification group to AdS spacetime, for example
via the embedding of AdS space according to Eq (\ref{ads}). In
the embedding of the initial surface in the 3-dimensional Minkowski space
$V=0$, each identification corresponds to a Lorentz ``rotation" about
some (spacelike) axis $A$. This is uniquely extended to an SO(2,2)
``rotation" of the four-dimensional embedding space by requiring that
the $V$-axis also remain invariant; that is, we rotate by the same
hyperbolic angle about the $A,V$ plane. This plane intersects the AdS
space (\ref{ads}) in a spacelike geodesic of fixed points. All such
geodesics from all the identifications are to be considered
singularities after the identifications are made, so they are not points
in the identified spacetime.
Three-dimensional pictures that include conformal infinity and all of the
singularities can be had in sausage and in stereographic coordinates,
Eqs (\ref{sausge}) and (\ref{stm}). Because all timelike geodesics starting
normally on a time-symmetric initial surface collapse together to a point C,
all the totally geodesic boundaries of the fundamental
domain also meet at C, forming a tent-like structure with a tip
at C. Their intersections may be timelike or spacelike. If an
intersection is timelike, the sides typically intersect there at a right
angle ``corner," and the intersection passes through the initial surface. If
the initial geometry is smooth, such intersections are
innocuous.\footnote{We have not encountered such corners in our pictures,
but they must appear in spaces composed only of trousers, for example in
the time development of a $k=0,\,g=2$ surface that can be represented by
a right-angled octagon on the Poincar\'e disk, as in Fig.~3b of \cite{DBS}.}
Spacelike intersections are called ``folds" of
the tent, and they are the geodesics of fixed points, which likewise meet
at C.\footnote{The reason that corners can be regular and but folds are
not is that four corners can be put together to make a line without angle
deficit, but no finite number of folds can eliminate the
Misner-space singularity.}
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 1.00mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(84.04,55.00)(-7,15)
\bezier{30}(20.15,32.00)(20.15,38.59)(35.08,42.34)
\bezier{30}(64.92,42.34)(79.85,38.59)(79.85,32.00)
\bezier{30}(20.15,32.00)(20.15,25.41)(35.08,21.66)
\bezier{40}(35.08,21.66)(50.00,18.71)(64.92,21.66)
\bezier{30}(64.92,21.66)(79.85,25.41)(79.85,32.00)
\bezier{14}(34.17,60.00)(34.17,63.17)(42.09,64.97)
\bezier{20}(42.09,64.97)(50.00,66.39)(57.91,64.97)
\bezier{14}(57.91,64.97)(65.83,63.17)(65.83,60.00)
\bezier{14}(34.17,60.00)(34.17,56.83)(42.09,55.03)
\bezier{20}(42.09,55.03)(50.00,53.61)(57.91,55.03)
\bezier{14}(57.91,55.03)(65.83,56.83)(65.83,60.00)
\bezier{264}(24.00,35.00)(50.00,55.00)(76.00,35.00)
\bezier{56}(39.30,55.79)(46.32,39.30)(56.32,20.53)
\bezier{56}(60.70,55.79)(53.68,39.30)(43.68,20.53)
\put(50.00,31.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(49.00,30.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(50.00,29.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(49.00,28.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(50.00,27.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(48.00,27.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(49.00,26.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(47.00,26.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(48.00,25.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(50.00,25.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(49.00,24.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(47.00,24.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(46.00,23.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(48.00,23.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(50.00,23.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(49.00,22.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(47.00,22.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(45.00,22.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(46.00,21.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(48.00,21.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(50.00,21.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(44.00,21.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(47.02,20.18){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(48.95,20.18){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(51.00,30.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(52.00,29.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(51.00,28.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(52.00,27.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(51.00,26.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(53.00,26.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(52.00,25.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(54.00,25.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(51.00,24.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(53.00,24.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(54.00,23.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(52.00,23.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(51.00,22.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(53.00,22.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(55.00,22.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(54.00,21.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(52.00,21.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(56.00,21.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(52.98,20.18){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(51.05,20.18){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(54.00,68.00){\vector(-1,-2){3.50}}
\put(55.00,68.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{C (Center of projection)}}
\put(29.00,65.00){\vector(1,-1){4.50}}
\put(28.50,65.00){\makebox(0,0)[rc]{Conformal infinity}}
\put(20.00,40.00){\vector(1,0){5.0}}
\put(19.50,40.00){\makebox(0,0)[rc]{P}}
\bezier{36}(23.86,35.09)(21.75,31.75)(24.74,28.25)
\bezier{92}(38.25,22.63)(49.82,20.88)(61.40,22.63)
\bezier{60}(24.91,28.07)(28.77,24.39)(38.42,22.63)
\bezier{36}(76.14,35.09)(78.25,31.75)(75.26,28.25)
\bezier{60}(75.09,28.07)(71.23,24.39)(61.58,22.63)
\put(50.00,32.63){\line(0,-1){14.56}}
\put(15.96,31.75){\line(5,-2){4.91}}
\put(24.74,28.25){\line(5,-2){13.68}}
\put(44.04,20.53){\line(5,-2){5.96}}
\put(15.96,31.75){\line(5,2){4.56}}
\bezier{30}(25.61,39.65)(33.16,47.54)(39.30,55.80)
\bezier{26}(34.04,60.00)(34.04,50.35)(25.09,39.30)
\put(25.79,39.82){\line(-6,-5){9.82}}
\put(71.93,47.37){\vector(-3,-2){9.65}}
\put(72.28,47.37){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{Initial surface}}
\put(84.04,31.75){\line(-5,-2){4.91}}
\put(75.26,28.25){\line(-5,-2){13.68}}
\put(84.04,31.75){\line(-5,2){4.56}}
\bezier{30}(74.39,39.65)(66.84,47.54)(60.70,55.80)
\bezier{26}(65.96,60.00)(65.96,50.35)(74.91,39.30)
\put(74.21,39.82){\line(6,-5){9.82}}
\put(55.96,20.53){\line(-5,-2){5.96}}
\thicklines
\put(20.88,29.79){\line(5,-2){3.86}}
\put(38.42,22.77){\line(5,-2){5.61}}
\bezier{16}(20.53,33.68)(19.47,31.75)(20.53,29.82)
\bezier{36}(44.00,20.50)(50.00,19.65)(56.00,20.50)
\put(44.04,20.70){\line(1,2){5.88}}
\put(49.91,32.46){\line(0,1){27.54}}
\bezier{16}(20.53,33.51)(22.11,34.39)(23.68,35.09)
\put(20.53,33.51){\line(5,6){5.12}}
\put(50.00,60.00){\line(-6,-5){24.21}}
\put(20.53,29.87){\line(1,2){4.87}}
\put(79.12,29.79){\line(-5,-2){3.86}}
\put(61.58,22.77){\line(-5,-2){5.61}}
\bezier{16}(79.47,33.68)(80.53,31.75)(79.47,29.82)
\put(55.96,20.70){\line(-1,2){5.88}}
\bezier{16}(79.47,33.51)(77.89,34.39)(76.32,35.09)
\put(79.47,33.51){\line(-5,6){5.12}}
\put(50.00,60.00){\line(6,-5){24.21}}
\put(79.47,29.87){\line(-1,2){4.87}}
\bezier{80}(75.00,28.00)(65.67,32.33)(62.00,23.00)
\bezier{80}(25.00,28.00)(34.33,32.33)(38.00,23.00)
\end{picture}
\caption{The identification surfaces near the collapse point C in stereographic
coordinates. AdS spacetime is the interior of the lightly dotted hyperboloid.
The hyperboloid itself represents conformal infinity. The initial surface is
a Minkowski hyperboloid (like that of Fig.~5) and in that sense is shown in
its true metric. The triangular regions on the infinity hyperboloid,
one of which is dotted, are the part of {\curs I}\ that can be shown in this
coordinate neighborhood}
\end{figure}
The tent has a simple, pyramid shape in a stereographic mapping centered
at C. Since all geodesics through the center of the map are represented
by straight lines in such a map, the sides of the tent are timelike planes
(that is, linear spaces in stereographic coordinates), and the folds are
spacelike straight lines. Figure~13 shows a tent with no
corners but four folds. This can be the
spacetime fundamental domain for the $k=3,\,g=0$ three-black-hole of
Fig.~10 or for the $k=1,\,g=1$ toroidal black hole of Fig.~12, depending
on the identification rule.
In the three-black-hole case two of the folds, on opposite sides, are fixed
points of the identifications $a$ and $b$ of Fig.~10 that generate the
group. The other two folds are fixed points of $ab$ and of $ba$. For the
toroidal black hole the fixed points of $a$ and of $b$ of Fig.~12 are not
folds, they would be horizontal lines through the tip of the tent.
Instead the folds are fixed points of $aba^{-1}b^{-1}$ and its three
cyclic permutations. In each
case the folds are fixed points of transformations associated with a horizon.
All the other fixed points lie outside of the fundamental domain.
Because the stereographic picture is centered at a particular time, it
can be misleading in that it does not exhibit the
time symmetry about the initial surface, nor the early history before
the time-symmetric moment. The time-independent sausage coordinates
are more suitable for the global view of a black hole spacetime.
Since the BTZ black hole (Fig.~14a) involves
only one identification, its fundamental domain has only one geodesic of
fixed points to the future of the initial surface,
the $r=0$ line in Fig.~2a. The sides of the tent are the surfaces
$\phi=0$ and $\phi=2\pi$. Fig.~14b is the sausage coordinate version of
Fig.~13.
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 0.90mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(121.81,77.01)(0,0)
\bezier{80}(42.21,16.71)(42.21,13.47)(35.11,11.84)
\bezier{80}(35.11,11.84)(28.00,10.22)(20.89,11.84)
\bezier{80}(20.89,11.84)(13.79,13.47)(13.79,16.71)
\bezier{80}(42.21,44.56)(42.21,41.88)(35.11,40.55)
\bezier{80}(35.11,40.55)(28.00,39.22)(20.89,40.55)
\bezier{80}(20.89,40.55)(13.79,41.88)(13.79,44.56)
\bezier{32}(32.26,40.16)(31.40,40.97)(33.69,41.78)
\bezier{44}(33.69,41.78)(36.61,42.47)(39.37,41.78)
\bezier{32}(23.74,48.95)(24.60,48.14)(22.31,47.34)
\bezier{44}(22.31,47.34)(19.39,46.64)(16.63,47.34)
\bezier{80}(42.21,72.40)(42.21,74.71)(35.11,75.86)
\bezier{80}(35.11,75.86)(28.00,77.01)(20.89,75.86)
\bezier{80}(20.89,75.86)(13.79,74.71)(13.79,72.40)
\bezier{80}(42.21,72.40)(42.21,70.09)(35.11,68.94)
\bezier{80}(35.11,68.94)(28.00,67.78)(20.89,68.94)
\bezier{80}(20.89,68.94)(13.79,70.09)(13.79,72.40)
\put(13.79,16.71){\line(0,1){55.68}}
\put(42.21,16.71){\line(0,1){55.68}}
\put(28.00,5.58){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf a})}}
\thicklines
\multiput(16.98,69.89)(0.46,0.12){46}{\line(1,0){0.46}}
\multiput(16.63,13.37)(0.38,0.12){58}{\line(1,0){0.38}}
\bezier{536}(16.98,69.89)(47.90,38.66)(16.63,13.37)
\bezier{148}(37.95,75.18)(42.92,67.01)(42.21,55.69)
\bezier{128}(40.79,33.98)(37.95,41.96)(40.79,50.13)
\bezier{80}(40.79,50.13)(42.21,55.69)(42.21,55.69)
\bezier{88}(40.79,33.98)(42.21,29.52)(42.21,27.85)
\bezier{44}(42.21,27.85)(42.21,23.40)(38.66,20.33)
\bezier{34}(37.95,75.18)(29.90,67.57)(25.87,59.03)
\bezier{228}(25.87,59.03)(19.47,45.30)(30.13,30.64)
\bezier{23}(30.13,30.64)(32.97,25.81)(38.66,20.33)
\bezier{148}(16.63,13.37)(13.08,22.10)(13.79,33.42)
\bezier{128}(15.21,56.25)(18.05,47.16)(15.21,38.99)
\bezier{80}(15.21,38.99)(13.79,33.42)(13.79,33.42)
\bezier{88}(15.21,56.25)(13.79,59.59)(13.79,62.38)
\bezier{44}(13.79,62.93)(13.79,65.72)(16.98,69.89)
\thinlines
\put(15.92,69.43){\vector(4,1){0.2}}
\multiput(8.10,67.39)(0.43,0.11){18}{\line(1,0){0.43}}
\put(7.39,67.94){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{P}}
\put(42.92,44.56){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$t=0$}}
\bezier{40}(42.21,16.71)(42.21,18.66)(38.66,20.33)
\bezier{19}(38.66,20.33)(31.55,22.84)(25.87,22.28)
\bezier{17}(25.87,22.28)(18.41,21.73)(14.85,18.94)
\bezier{20}(14.85,18.94)(13.79,18.00)(13.79,16.71)
\bezier{32}(13.79,44.56)(13.50,46.12)(16.63,47.38)
\bezier{10}(16.63,47.38)(19.85,48.64)(23.45,49.01)
\bezier{40}(23.45,49.01)(27.05,49.38)(30.75,49.16)
\bezier{14}(30.75,49.16)(36.24,48.72)(39.94,47.08)
\bezier{24}(39.94,47.08)(41.84,46.41)(42.21,44.56)
\bezier{80}(109.73,16.71)(109.73,19.96)(102.62,21.59)
\bezier{28}(88.41,21.59)(90.90,21.95)(93.03,22.00)
\bezier{28}(102.62,21.59)(100.13,21.95)(98.00,22.00)
\bezier{80}(88.41,21.59)(81.30,19.96)(81.30,16.71)
\bezier{80}(109.73,16.71)(109.73,13.47)(102.62,11.84)
\bezier{80}(102.62,11.84)(95.51,10.22)(88.41,11.84)
\bezier{80}(88.41,11.84)(81.30,13.47)(81.30,16.71)
\bezier{20}(109.73,44.56)(109.73,47.23)(102.62,48.57)
\bezier{20}(102.62,48.57)(95.51,49.90)(88.41,48.57)
\bezier{20}(88.41,48.57)(81.30,47.23)(81.30,44.56)
\bezier{80}(109.73,44.56)(109.73,41.88)(102.62,40.55)
\bezier{80}(102.62,40.55)(95.51,39.22)(88.41,40.55)
\bezier{80}(88.41,40.55)(81.30,41.88)(81.30,44.56)
\bezier{32}(82.01,43.17)(84.50,43.45)(86.99,42.71)
\bezier{44}(86.99,42.71)(89.12,41.76)(86.99,40.85)
\bezier{32}(99.78,40.16)(99.78,41.49)(101.20,41.78)
\bezier{44}(101.20,41.78)(104.12,42.47)(106.89,41.78)
\bezier{36}(91.20,49.01)(92.35,47.68)(88.27,47.08)
\bezier{6}(88.27,47.08)(86.47,46.78)(84.00,47.38)
\bezier{12}(109.02,45.95)(108.26,45.84)(107.31,45.87)
\bezier{15}(107.31,45.87)(100.58,46.63)(104.19,48.27)
\bezier{80}(109.73,72.40)(109.73,74.71)(102.62,75.86)
\bezier{80}(102.62,75.86)(95.51,77.01)(88.41,75.86)
\bezier{80}(88.41,75.86)(81.30,74.71)(81.30,72.40)
\bezier{80}(109.73,72.40)(109.73,70.09)(102.62,68.94)
\bezier{80}(102.62,68.94)(95.51,67.78)(88.41,68.94)
\bezier{80}(88.41,68.94)(81.30,70.09)(81.30,72.40)
\put(81.30,16.71){\line(0,1){55.68}}
\put(109.73,16.71){\line(0,1){55.68}}
\thicklines
\bezier{252}(93.38,25.62)(80.59,42.51)(93.38,54.02)
\bezier{248}(93.38,54.02)(106.17,40.29)(93.38,25.62)
\bezier{208}(109.02,29.52)(104.54,40.84)(109.02,57.92)
\bezier{36}(109.02,57.92)(109.73,54.86)(109.73,52.35)
\bezier{116}(109.73,52.35)(108.31,46.51)(109.73,36.20)
\bezier{52}(109.73,36.20)(109.73,32.86)(109.02,29.52)
\bezier{96}(81.30,51.80)(82.72,42.89)(81.30,38.43)
\bezier{52}(82.01,59.03)(81.30,54.86)(81.30,51.80)
\bezier{48}(82.01,31.75)(81.30,36.20)(81.30,38.43)
\thinlines
\bezier{50}(82.01,59.03)(86.77,46.97)(82.01,31.75)
\bezier{16}(97.65,35.65)(99.54,36.94)(99.78,37.87)
\bezier{54}(99.78,37.87)(109.49,46.97)(97.65,62.38)
\bezier{108}(97.65,35.65)(90.94,42.39)(91.25,49.01)
\bezier{28}(91.25,49.01)(90.94,49.07)(91.96,52.91)
\bezier{20}(91.96,52.91)(93.30,56.75)(97.65,62.93)
\bezier{44}(97.65,35.65)(96.94,34.26)(96.23,29.52)
\bezier{23}(96.23,29.52)(95.87,23.68)(95.51,16.71)
\thicklines
\bezier{152}(82.01,31.75)(91.25,29.15)(95.51,16.71)
\bezier{156}(95.51,16.71)(99.07,29.52)(109.02,29.52)
\bezier{84}(93.38,25.62)(95.28,26.74)(95.51,16.71)
\bezier{148}(82.01,59.03)(92.67,61.26)(95.51,72.40)
\bezier{148}(95.51,72.40)(99.78,60.71)(109.02,57.92)
\bezier{132}(93.38,54.02)(95.28,60.33)(95.51,72.40)
\thinlines
\bezier{19}(95.51,72.40)(96.94,62.56)(97.65,62.93)
\put(92.67,54.16){\vector(4,-1){0.2}}
\multiput(70.64,58.48)(0.61,-0.12){36}{\line(1,0){0.61}}
\put(70.64,59.03){\vector(1,0){11.02}}
\put(69.93,59.03){\makebox(0,0)[rc]{P}}
\put(121.10,57.92){\vector(-1,0){11.73}}
\bezier{76}(121.10,59.03)(115.41,62.38)(109.73,63.49)
\put(97.65,63.49){\vector(-4,-1){0.2}}
\bezier{68}(109.73,63.49)(104.52,64.60)(97.65,63.49)
\put(121.81,58.48){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{P}}
\put(95.51,5.58){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf b})}}
\bezier{130}(88.53,47.62)(87.34,39.27)(89.24,32.40)
\end{picture}
\caption{Fundamental regions and their boundary ``tents" in sausage
coordinates, for ({\bf a}) the BTZ black hole and ({\bf b}) a
three-black-hole or toroidal black hole configuration}
\end{figure}
Since folds are spacelike they extend to infinity, and therefore the
initial fundamental domain must also have asymptotic regions. Conversely,
the tent of an initial state without asymptotic regions has only corners
and a tip but no folds: any closed time-symmetric AdS universe always
collapses to a point in the finite time $\pi\ell/2$.
The holes in the tent are important for the black hole interpretation, for
they are the regions at infinity, {\curs I}. The edges of the holes of course
disappear once the identifications are made, and the only remaining
boundaries of {\curs I}\ appear as points such as those marked P in
the figure. The backwards lightcone from P is the boundary of the past of
{\curs I}, i.e.\ the horizon. It surrounds the singularity whose end is P.
It is now clear that all the initial configurations that have a horizon
in the sense of section 2.4 do have spacetime horizons and hence are black
holes: a horizon word extended to spacetime is an identification that has
fixed points along some fold of the tent-shaped boundary of the spacetime
fundamental domain. The intersection of the fold with conformal infinity
is an endpoint of a {\curs I}, and the backwards
lightcone of that endpoint is the spacetime horizon.
For a given fold we can consider a region in the fundamental domain
sufficiently near infinity (spatially) and the fold (temporally) so that
the only relevant identification is the one that has fixed points on that
fold (because the other identifications would move points out of the
region). In that region the spacetime is then indistinguishable from that
of a BTZ black hole, and the spacetime horizon behaves in the same
way as a BTZ black hole horizon. For example, the backward lightcone
from P does intersect the initial surface in the minimal horizon
geodesic. As we follow the horizon further backward in time it changes from the BTZ
behavior only when it encounters other horizons or another part of
itself, coming from another copy of the point P in the fundamental domain.
For example, in the toroidal black hole interpretation of Fig.~14, all
four openings of the tent are parts of one {\curs I}, and there is a single
spacetime horizon consisting of the four ``quarter" backwards lightcones
from the four copies of the point P. As we go backwards in time below
the initial surface these lightcones eventually touch and merge and shown
in Fig.~15.
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 1.05mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(120.00,30.00)(9,0)
\bezier{15}(10.00,20.00)(10.00,24.14)(12.93,27.07)
\bezier{15}(12.93,27.07)(15.86,30.00)(20.00,30.00)
\bezier{15}(30.00,20.00)(30.00,24.14)(27.07,27.07)
\bezier{15}(27.07,27.07)(24.14,30.00)(20.00,30.00)
\bezier{15}(10.00,20.00)(10.00,15.86)(12.93,12.93)
\bezier{15}(12.93,12.93)(15.86,10.00)(20.00,10.00)
\bezier{15}(30.00,20.00)(30.00,15.86)(27.07,12.93)
\bezier{15}(27.07,12.93)(24.14,10.00)(20.00,10.00)
\bezier{15}(40.00,20.00)(40.00,24.14)(42.93,27.07)
\bezier{15}(70.00,20.00)(70.00,24.14)(72.93,27.07)
\bezier{15}(100.00,20.00)(100.00,24.14)(102.93,27.07)
\bezier{15}(42.93,27.07)(45.86,30.00)(50.00,30.00)
\bezier{15}(72.93,27.07)(75.86,30.00)(80.00,30.00)
\bezier{15}(102.93,27.07)(105.86,30.00)(110.00,30.00)
\bezier{15}(60.00,20.00)(60.00,24.14)(57.07,27.07)
\bezier{15}(90.00,20.00)(90.00,24.14)(87.07,27.07)
\bezier{15}(120.00,20.00)(120.00,24.14)(117.07,27.07)
\bezier{15}(57.07,27.07)(54.14,30.00)(50.00,30.00)
\bezier{15}(87.07,27.07)(84.14,30.00)(80.00,30.00)
\bezier{15}(117.07,27.07)(114.14,30.00)(110.00,30.00)
\bezier{15}(40.00,20.00)(40.00,15.86)(42.93,12.93)
\bezier{15}(70.00,20.00)(70.00,15.86)(72.93,12.93)
\bezier{15}(100.00,20.00)(100.00,15.86)(102.93,12.93)
\bezier{15}(42.93,12.93)(45.86,10.00)(50.00,10.00)
\bezier{15}(72.93,12.93)(75.86,10.00)(80.00,10.00)
\bezier{15}(102.93,12.93)(105.86,10.00)(110.00,10.00)
\bezier{15}(60.00,20.00)(60.00,15.86)(57.07,12.93)
\bezier{15}(90.00,20.00)(90.00,15.86)(87.07,12.93)
\bezier{15}(120.00,20.00)(120.00,15.86)(117.07,12.93)
\bezier{15}(57.07,12.93)(54.14,10.00)(50.00,10.00)
\bezier{15}(87.07,12.93)(84.14,10.00)(80.00,10.00)
\bezier{15}(117.07,12.93)(114.14,10.00)(110.00,10.00)
\bezier{30}(46.38,29.13)(47.25,27.25)(50.00,26.96)
\bezier{30}(53.62,29.13)(52.75,27.25)(50.00,26.96)
\bezier{30}(40.87,23.62)(42.75,22.75)(43.04,20.00)
\bezier{30}(40.87,16.38)(42.75,17.25)(43.04,20.00)
\bezier{50}(12.78,12.93)(15.71,15.86)(15.71,20.00)
\bezier{50}(12.93,27.03)(15.86,24.10)(20.00,24.10)
\bezier{50}(27.07,27.03)(24.14,24.10)(20.00,24.10)
\bezier{50}(27.22,12.93)(24.29,15.86)(24.29,20.00)
\bezier{50}(27.22,27.07)(24.29,24.14)(24.29,20.00)
\bezier{50}(27.07,12.97)(24.14,15.90)(20.00,15.90)
\bezier{50}(12.93,12.97)(15.86,15.90)(20.00,15.90)
\bezier{50}(12.78,27.07)(15.71,24.14)(15.71,20.00)
\thicklines
\bezier{12}(42.90,21.16)(47.83,22.17)(48.84,27.10)
\bezier{12}(42.90,18.84)(47.83,17.83)(48.84,12.90)
\bezier{12}(57.10,21.16)(52.17,22.17)(51.16,27.10)
\bezier{12}(57.10,18.84)(52.17,17.83)(51.16,12.90)
\thinlines
\bezier{30}(46.38,10.87)(47.25,12.75)(50.00,13.04)
\bezier{30}(53.62,10.87)(52.75,12.75)(50.00,13.04)
\bezier{30}(59.13,23.62)(57.25,22.75)(56.96,20.00)
\bezier{30}(59.13,16.38)(57.25,17.25)(56.96,20.00)
\bezier{40}(74.44,28.33)(76.33,25.33)(80.00,25.33)
\bezier{40}(85.56,28.33)(83.67,25.33)(80.00,25.33)
\bezier{40}(88.33,14.44)(85.33,16.33)(85.33,20.00)
\bezier{40}(88.33,25.56)(85.33,23.67)(85.33,20.00)
\bezier{40}(71.67,25.56)(74.67,23.67)(74.67,20.00)
\bezier{40}(71.67,14.44)(74.67,16.33)(74.67,20.00)
\bezier{40}(85.56,11.67)(83.67,14.67)(80.00,14.67)
\bezier{40}(74.44,11.67)(76.33,14.67)(80.00,14.67)
\thicklines
\bezier{8}(80.00,25.33)(82.00,22.00)(85.33,20.00)
\bezier{8}(80.00,25.33)(78.00,22.00)(74.67,20.00)
\bezier{8}(80.00,14.67)(82.00,18.00)(85.33,20.00)
\bezier{8}(80.00,14.67)(78.00,18.00)(74.67,20.00)
\thinlines
\bezier{30}(106.22,20.00)(106.22,22.50)(105.22,24.78)
\bezier{10}(105.22,24.78)(104.56,26.20)(103.56,27.30)
\bezier{30}(106.22,20.00)(106.22,17.50)(105.22,15.22)
\bezier{10}(105.22,15.22)(104.56,13.80)(103.56,12.70)
\bezier{30}(110.00,16.22)(107.50,16.22)(105.22,15.22)
\bezier{10}(105.22,15.22)(103.80,14.56)(102.70,13.56)
\bezier{30}(110.00,16.22)(112.50,16.22)(114.78,15.22)
\bezier{10}(114.78,15.22)(116.20,14.56)(117.30,13.56)
\bezier{30}(113.78,20.00)(113.78,17.50)(114.78,15.22)
\bezier{30}(113.78,20.00)(113.78,22.50)(114.78,24.78)
\bezier{30}(110.00,23.78)(112.50,23.78)(114.78,24.78)
\bezier{30}(110.00,23.78)(107.50,23.78)(105.22,24.78)
\bezier{10}(114.78,15.22)(115.44,13.80)(116.44,12.70)
\bezier{10}(114.78,24.78)(115.44,26.20)(116.44,27.30)
\bezier{10}(114.78,24.78)(116.20,25.44)(117.30,26.44)
\bezier{10}(105.22,24.78)(103.80,25.44)(102.70,26.44)
\thicklines
\bezier{3}(110.00,21.50)(109.50,20.50)(108.50,20.00)
\bezier{3}(110.00,21.50)(110.50,20.50)(111.50,20.00)
\bezier{3}(110.00,18.50)(109.50,19.50)(108.50,20.00)
\bezier{3}(110.00,18.50)(110.50,19.50)(111.50,20.00)
\thinlines
\put(27.50,27.50){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{P}}
\put(12.50,27.50){\makebox(0,0)[rb]{P}}
\put(12.50,12.50){\makebox(0,0)[rt]{P}}
\put(27.50,12.50){\makebox(0,0)[lt]{P}}
\put(110.00,3.30){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{d}}
\put(20.00,3.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{a}}
\put(50.00,3.30){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{b}}
\put(80.00,3.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{c}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Slices of the sausage in Fig.~14 to show the time development
of the horizon. Part a is the latest and part d the earliest sausage time.
The geometry of each time slice is the constant curvature space
represented by a Poincar\'e disk. The geodesics shown by solid lines are
to be identified as before for the toroidal black hole. Where these
geodesics intersect we have a fixed point of some identification, a
physical singularity. Slice a is at the sausage time of the
end point P of {\curs I}. As we go backwards in time, the horizon
(dotted arcs of circles) spreads out from those points at infinity.
Slice b is the moment of time-symmetry. The horizon remains smooth
until slice c, when its different parts meet
each other at the identification surfaces. Prior to that time the event
horizon has four kinks}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Fixed Points at Infinity}
As the above examples of multi-black-hole time developments show,
any time-symmetric initial state with an asymptotic region ending at a
horizon is isometric to a corresponding region of
a BTZ black hole, so that each such region will look like a black hole
from infinity for at least a finite time. It is maybe not so clear
whether this is also true for the unlimited time necessary for a true black
hole, for example because other singularities (fixed points) might intervene.
By an interesting method due to {\AA}minneborg, Bengtsson and Holst
\cite{ABH} one can directly find all of
the universal covering space of {\curs I}\ from a knowledge of spatial infinity
on an initial surface. (The universal covering space gives information
about horizons and is natural in many contexts, for example
topological censorship questions reduce to existence of certain geodesics
in AdS space \cite{DBS}.)
Since our black holes are quotient spaces of AdS space, the covering
space of their {\curs I}\ will be a subset of conformal infinity of AdS space.
To describe this conformal infinity in a finite way we follow the
usual Penrose procedure and multiply
the AdS metric by a factor so that the resulting metric is finite in the
asymptotic region. An obviously suitable
conformal factor in Eq (\ref{sausge}) is $(1-(\rho/\ell)^2)^2$, giving the
metric at infinity, $\rho=\ell$,
$$ds^2_\infty = 4 (dt^2 + \ell^2 d\theta^2)$$
This is the flat metric of a cylinder of radius $\ell$.
Consider first the covering space of {\curs I}\ of a single black hole in
this description, and recall that the identification is a ``Lorentz
boost" in the
embedding space (\ref{ads}). As we apply this transformation $n$ times to
get the $n$th tile of the covering space, we are boosting the fundamental
domain to the limiting velocity, and since the identification boundaries
are timelike in our description, they become two null surfaces in the limit
$n\rightarrow\pm\infty$. These null surfaces (called ``singularity
surfaces" in \cite{HP}) are then of
course invariant under the identification transformation. Hence, if
${\bf K}=\partial/\partial\phi$ is the Killing vector corresponding to
the identification, these surfaces are described by ${\bf K}^2=0$. They
intersect where the vector {\bf K} itself vanishes, that is at the fixed
points at infinity on
the initial surface and at the singularity inside the black hole.
The intersection of these surfaces with
conformal infinity of AdS space is the boundary ($n\rightarrow\infty$)
of the covering space of {\curs I}. To find it we only need to draw
null lines from the endpoints of the horizon at $t=0$ toward each other
(Fig.~16a). Their future
intersection is the nearest future fixed point to this initial
surface, it is the end of {\curs I}, and the covering space of {\curs I}\ is the
diamond-shaped region between the future and past null lines. Furthermore
the future null lines are also the intersection of the covering space of the
horizon with conformal
infinity, since the horizon is the backward null cone from the end of {\curs I}.
Thus a knowledge of the initial fixed points gives us the ``holographic"
information about the exterior and the horizon of the black hole.
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 1.20mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(106.00,32.00)(10,0)
\put(10.00,20.00){\line(1,-1){10.00}}
\put(20.00,10.00){\line(1,1){20.00}}
\put(40.00,30.00){\line(1,-1){10.00}}
\put(50.00,20.00){\line(-1,-1){10.00}}
\put(40.00,10.00){\line(-1,1){20.00}}
\put(20.00,30.00){\line(-1,-1){10.00}}
\put(10.00,8.00){\line(0,1){24.00}}
\put(50.00,32.00){\line(0,-1){24.00}}
\thicklines
\bezier{104}(40.00,30.00)(48.00,20.00)(40.00,10.00)
\thinlines
\bezier{72}(40.00,30.00)(47.00,22.33)(47.00,20.00)
\bezier{76}(40.00,30.00)(48.67,21.00)(48.67,20.00)
\bezier{72}(40.00,10.00)(47.00,17.67)(47.00,20.00)
\bezier{76}(40.00,10.00)(48.67,19.00)(48.67,20.00)
\thicklines
\bezier{104}(20.00,30.00)(12.00,20.00)(20.00,10.00)
\thinlines
\bezier{72}(20.00,30.00)(13.00,22.33)(13.00,20.00)
\bezier{76}(20.00,30.00)(11.33,21.00)(11.33,20.00)
\bezier{72}(20.00,10.00)(13.00,17.67)(13.00,20.00)
\bezier{76}(20.00,10.00)(11.33,19.00)(11.33,20.00)
\thicklines
\put(40.00,10.00){\vector(0,1){20.00}}
\put(20.00,30.00){\line(0,-1){20.00}}
\thinlines
\put(30.00,20.00){\vector(1,0){20.00}}
\put(30.00,20.00){\vector(-1,0){20.00}}
\put(51.00,20.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$\phi$}}
\put(65.00,20.00){\line(1,-1){10.00}}
\put(75.00,10.00){\line(1,1){20.00}}
\put(95.00,30.00){\line(1,-1){10.00}}
\put(105.00,20.00){\line(-1,-1){10.00}}
\put(95.00,10.00){\line(-1,1){20.00}}
\put(75.00,30.00){\line(-1,-1){10.00}}
\put(65.00,8.00){\line(0,1){24.00}}
\put(105.00,32.00){\line(0,-1){24.00}}
\bezier{84}(85.00,20.00)(81.79,17.95)(75.00,20.00)
\bezier{84}(85.00,20.00)(88.21,22.05)(95.00,20.00)
\put(65.00,20.00){\vector(-2,-1){0.2}}
\bezier{84}(75.00,20.00)(68.21,22.05)(65.00,20.00)
\put(105.00,20.00){\vector(2,1){0.2}}
\bezier{84}(95.00,20.00)(102.05,17.95)(105.00,20.00)
\put(106.00,20.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{$\varphi$}}
\thicklines
\bezier{64}(95.00,10.00)(92.95,13.21)(95.00,20.00)
\put(95.00,30.00){\vector(-1,2){0.2}}
\bezier{84}(95.00,20.00)(96.92,26.67)(95.00,30.00)
\thinlines
\put(95.00,30.51){\makebox(0,0)[cb]{$\tau$}}
\put(40.00,30.51){\makebox(0,0)[cb]{$t$}}
\thicklines
\bezier{84}(75.00,10.00)(72.95,13.21)(75.00,20.00)
\bezier{84}(75.00,20.00)(76.92,26.67)(75.00,30.00)
\bezier{60}(95.00,10.00)(99.00,17.00)(98.83,19.00)
\bezier{68}(98.83,19.00)(98.00,25.17)(95.00,30.00)
\thinlines
\bezier{88}(95.00,10.00)(101.50,17.50)(101.50,19.00)
\bezier{86}(101.50,19.00)(101.50,20.67)(95.00,30.17)
\bezier{86}(95.00,10.00)(103.50,18.83)(102.83,19.00)
\bezier{84}(102.83,19.00)(104.50,19.50)(95.00,30.00)
\thicklines
\bezier{60}(75.00,30.00)(71.00,23.00)(71.17,21.00)
\bezier{68}(71.17,21.00)(72.00,14.83)(75.00,10.00)
\thinlines
\bezier{88}(75.00,30.00)(68.50,22.50)(68.50,21.00)
\bezier{86}(68.50,21.00)(68.50,19.33)(75.00,9.83)
\bezier{86}(75.00,30.00)(66.50,21.17)(67.17,21.00)
\bezier{84}(67.17,21.00)(65.50,20.50)(75.00,10.00)
\put(85.00,3.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf b})}}
\put(30.00,3.00){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{({\bf a})}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Universal covering spaces of conformal infinity {\curs I}\ for
({\bf a}) non-rotating, ({\bf b})~rotating black holes on the conformal
infinity cylinder of AdS space. To show the cylinder in this
flat picture it has been cut along the vertical lines, which are
to be identified with each other in each part of the figure. The
angle $\phi$ resp.\ $\varphi$ runs from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$, in
the direction of the arrow, in each of the diamond-shaped regions. The
intersection of the fundamental domain with conformal infinity of AdS
space is shown by the heavier boundaries. These
boundaries are at the values $0$ and $2\pi$ of $\phi$ resp.\ $\varphi$. A
few of the tiles obtained by the isometries that change these angles by
$2\pi n$ are shown for positive multiples $n$. In the limit
$n\rightarrow\pm\infty$ the tiles converge to the null boundaries of the two
diamond-shaped regions. These null boundaries intersect on the initial
surface ($t=0$ resp.\ $\tau=0$) at the $n\rightarrow\infty$ limit at
conformal infinity of the initial surface, and they end in the future at the
end of {\curs I}}
\end{figure}
The situation for time-symmetric multi-black-holes is similar, except
that the construction yields an infinite number of copies of the
covering space of {\curs I}. We saw in Fig.~10 that each horizon word has two
fixed points at spatial infinity. Each such pair yields a diamond-shaped
region for which the transformation of its horizon word looks like
that of Fig.~16a, and which is free of fixed points.
\section{Angular Momentum}
In the metric (\ref{BTZ}) for the static BTZ black hole, introduce new
coordinates $T,\,\varphi,\,R$,
\begin{eqnarray}
t = T + \left({J\over 2m}\right)\varphi\nonumber \\
\phi = \varphi + \left({J\over 2m\ell^2}\right)T \\
R^2=r^2\left(1-{J^2\over 4m^2\ell^2}\right) + {J^2\over 4m}\nonumber
\label{coord}
\end{eqnarray}
where $J<2m\ell$ is a constant with dimension of length, and define another new
constant
\begin{equation}
M = m + {J^2\over 4m\ell^2}.
\label{mass}
\end{equation}
In terms of these new quantities the metric (\ref{BTZ}) may be written as
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = -N^2 dT^2 + N^{-2}dR^2 + R^2\left(d\varphi + {J\over 2R^2}
dT\right)^2
\label{BTZJ}
\end{equation}
where
$$N^2 = \left({R\over\ell}\right)^2 - M + \left({J\over 2R}\right)^2.$$
The metric (\ref{BTZJ}) now looks like a (2+1)-dimensional analog of the
metric for a black hole that carries angular momentum. Although metric (\ref{BTZJ})
was obtained by a coordinate transformation from (\ref{BTZ}) and is therefore
locally isometric to the latter (as all of our spaces are locally isometric to
AdS space), it differs in its global structure: we have silently assumed that
the new metric (\ref{BTZJ}) is periodic with period $2\pi$ in the {\it new}
angular variable $\varphi$, rather than in the old variable $\phi$. This means,
in coordinate-independent language, that we have changed the identification
group that creates this new spacetime from AdS space. As for the non-rotating
BTZ black hole, the new group for this ``single" rotating black hole is still
generated by all the powers of a single isometry of AdS space, but this
isometry does not leave invariant a totally geodesic spacelike surface of time
symmetry. The surface $T =$ const that is obviously left invariant by a
displacement of $\varphi$ is twisted, as measured by its extrinsic curvature,
and this is one indication of the global difference from the static metric.
When only the one new coordinate $\varphi$ changes by $2\pi$, the old
coordinates of (\ref{BTZ}) change by
\begin{equation}
t\rightarrow t+{\pi J\over m} \qquad \phi \rightarrow \phi + 2\pi.
\label{twist}
\end{equation}
A change in either $t$ or $\phi$ is of course an isometry of the metric
(\ref{BTZ}), and because $t$ and $\phi$ are coordinates, the two changes
commute. The identification
for a rotating black hole involves the two isometries applied simultaneously.
Either one is a ``boost" about an axis of fixed points;
the change in $\phi$ has fixed points in the future, at $r=0$, and the
change in $t$ has fixed points at $r=\ell\sqrt{m}$, the horizon of
(\ref{BTZ}).\footnote{Since these
isometries are also isometries of the
periodically identified embedding (\ref{ads}), each axis of fixed points is
really repeated an infinite number of times in AdS space itself.} The
combination of the two does not have any fixed points at all (either one
moves points on the fixed axis of the other in the direction of the axis): the
length $R^2$ of the corresponding Killing vector $\partial/\partial\varphi$
vanishes where the vector is null but not zero,
since its scalar product with the finite $\partial/\partial T$ is the finite
constant $J$. Earlier we argued
that a spacelike set of fixed points of the identification isometry becomes a
kind of singularity after the identification, and its removal from the
spacetime gave us the end of {\curs I}\ and associated horizon. What happens
when we do not have this singularity?
\subsection{Is it a Black Hole?}
The geometry of metric (\ref{BTZJ}) --- more properly speaking, the
geometry of its analytic extension, or of AdS space identified according
to the $\varphi\rightarrow\varphi+2\pi$ isometry exhibited by this
metric --- satisfies the definition of a black hole
if we are somewhat creative about the definition of ``singularity." We
expect the singularity to occur at $R=0$, but because there are no fixed
points, the identified spacetime is regular there, and can be continued to
negative $R^2$. But then the closed $\varphi$-direction becomes timelike,
hence the spacetime has a region of closed timelike lines. We shall follow the
usual practice to regard these as sufficiently unphysical that they should be
eliminated from the spacetime, like a singularity. So we confine attention
to $R>0$.
Our spacetime then ends at the singularity surfaces where the square of
the Killing vector $\partial/\partial\varphi$ vanishes, $R^2=0$. The
corresponding $r^2$ of Eq (\ref{coord}) is negative. We recall from
Sect.~2.1 that this occurs on two timelike surfaces in a region where
$\phi$ is timelike, unlike the non-rotating black hole whose singularity
occurs on the spacelike line $r=0$. Since there is a singularity-free
region between the two singularity surfaces, not all timelike lines that
``fall into the black hole" (cross the horizon) end at the singularity;
they can escape through the hole left open by the singularity surfaces,
as is the case in a three-dimensional Kerr black hole.
However, at conformal infinity the difference between $R$ and $r$
disappears, the two singularity surfaces come together at the point where the
spacelike line $r=0$ meets conformal infinity.\
Thus the covering space of {\curs I}\ for the rotating black hole looks the
same as that of the non-rotating one that corresponds to it via
Eq (\ref{mass}), only the identification is different, as shown in Fig.~16b.
We see that {\curs I}\ has an endpoint,
there is a horizon, so the identified spacetime is a black hole.
We can recognize a (rotating) black hole in a spacetime by the presence
of a closed, non-contractible spacelike geodesic $\gamma$. If we have
such a $\gamma$ we consider all spacelike geodesics that start normal
to $\gamma$. We assume that these can be divided into two types, which
we might call right-starting and left-starting (with respect to an
arbitrarily chosen direction of $\gamma$). If all geodesics of one type
reach infinity, then they cover the outside of a black hole. In this region
the totally geodesic timelike surfaces normal to $\gamma$ are surfaces
of constant $\phi$. Within these surfaces one can introduce
coordinates so that the metric takes the form (\ref{BTZJ}). (If the normals
to those surfaces, not at $\gamma$, also integrate to closed curves
after one circuit of $\gamma$, we have $J=0$.)
\subsection{Does it rotate?}
The asymptotically measurable properties of (2+1)-dimensional black holes
can be defined in various way, for example: from the ADM form of the Einstein
action; as the conserved
quantities that go with the Killing vectors $\partial/\partial t$ and
$\partial/\partial\varphi$; as the Noether charges associated with $t$-
and $\varphi$-displacements; and so on \cite{mass,BTZ}. All of these yield
$M$ as the mass and $J$ as the angular momentum.
$J$ can also be measured ``quasi-locally" in the neighborhood of the
horizon. We find an extremal closed spacelike geodesic (corresponding to
$r=\ell$) and parallel transport an orthogonal vector around this
geodesic. According to Eq (\ref{twist}) the hyperbolic ``holonomy" angle
between the original and rotated vectors is $\pi J/m\ell$.
\subsection{Multiple Black Holes with Angular Momentum}
It is fairly straightforward to
extend the methods of section 2.4 to obtain metrics with several asymptotic
regions, or with non-standard topologies, that have angular momentum as
measured in these asymptotic regions; the main difference is that we will
deal with spacetimes rather than initial values.
Our aim is only to show that rotating multi-black-holes are possible, and to
indicate what the free parameters are.
We begin with a three-black-hole spacetime, whose time development can be
described by the geometry of Fig.~13. We suppose that the front
left and right surfaces are identified, and similarly the back left and
right surfaces. The corresponding fixed points are the front and back
edges of the pyramid. As we have seen, there is then a third black hole
associated with the left and right edges (which are identified with each
other). We cut this figure into two halves by the plane $S$ (a totally geodesic
surface) spanned by these left and right edges. This surface cuts
the third black hole
into two equal parts, which we can think of, for example, as $\phi = 0$ to
$\phi = \pi$ and $\phi = \pi$ to $\phi = 2\pi$, respectively. Now we
re-identify the two halves with a ``boost" between them,
that is an isometry with fixed points along the normal to the plane $S$
at the center of the initial surface, as illustrated in Fig.~17.
\begin{figure}
\unitlength 1.0mm
\linethickness{0.4pt}
\begin{picture}(86.00,68.00)(-7,10)
\bezier{30}(20.15,32.00)(20.15,38.59)(35.08,42.34)
\bezier{30}(64.92,42.34)(79.85,38.59)(79.85,32.00)
\bezier{30}(20.15,32.00)(20.15,25.41)(35.08,21.66)
\bezier{40}(35.08,21.66)(50.00,18.71)(64.92,21.66)
\bezier{30}(64.92,21.66)(79.85,25.41)(79.85,32.00)
\bezier{14}(34.17,60.00)(34.17,63.17)(42.09,64.97)
\bezier{20}(42.09,64.97)(50.00,66.39)(57.91,64.97)
\bezier{14}(57.91,64.97)(65.83,63.17)(65.83,60.00)
\bezier{14}(34.17,60.00)(34.17,56.83)(42.09,55.03)
\bezier{20}(42.09,55.03)(50.00,53.61)(57.91,55.03)
\bezier{14}(57.91,55.03)(65.83,56.83)(65.83,60.00)
\bezier{264}(24.00,35.00)(50.00,55.00)(76.00,35.00)
\put(54.00,68.00){\vector(-1,-2){3.50}}
\put(55.00,68.00){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{C (Center of projection)}}
\put(29.00,65.00){\vector(1,-1){4.50}}
\put(28.50,65.00){\makebox(0,0)[rc]{Conformal infinity}}
\bezier{36}(23.86,35.09)(21.75,31.75)(24.74,28.25)
\bezier{92}(38.25,22.63)(49.82,20.88)(61.40,22.63)
\bezier{60}(24.91,28.07)(28.77,24.39)(38.42,22.63)
\bezier{36}(76.14,35.09)(78.25,31.75)(75.26,28.25)
\bezier{60}(75.09,28.07)(71.23,24.39)(61.58,22.63)
\bezier{26}(34.04,60.00)(34.04,50.35)(25.09,39.30)
\put(71.93,47.37){\vector(-3,-2){9.65}}
\put(72.28,47.37){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{Initial surface}}
\bezier{26}(65.96,60.00)(65.96,50.35)(74.91,39.30)
\thicklines
\put(44.00,56.00){\line(6,1){12.00}}
\put(44.00,56.00){\line(1,-6){6.33}}
\bezier{20}(43.00,62.00)(42.30,61.20)(36.00,54.00)
\bezier{14}(42.90,62.00)(43.05,61.20)(43.85,56.00)
\bezier{18}(43.00,62.00)(43.70,61.50)(50.00,57.00)
\bezier{18}(57.00,62.00)(56.30,61.50)(50.00,57.00)
\bezier{20}(57.00,62.00)(57.70,61.30)(64.00,55.00)
\put(50.00,60.00){\circle*{0.00}}
\put(56.00,58.00){\line(6,-5){30.00}}
\put(85.9,32.58){\line(-5,-2){36.00}}
\put(44.00,56.00){\line(-6,-5){28.50}}
\put(15.25,32.1){\line(5,-2){34.50}}
\thinlines
\bezier{10}(57.00,62.00)(56.90,61.60)(56.00,58.00)
\put(56.00,58.00){\line(-1,-4){3.25}}
\put(86.00,33.00){\line(-5,2){16.00}}
\put(15.50,32.20){\line(5,2){10.00}}
\end{picture}
\begin{caption}
{A three-black-hole geometry obtained by cutting Fig.~13 into two
tetrahedra by the plane $S$ of the paper (passing through C),
and re-gluing after an isometry with axis normal to that plane.
The isometry moves the top of the front tetrahedron from C
to the left (and up), and the top of the back tetrahedron
from C to the right (and up). The dotted outlines show these two tops.
The solid figure approximates the convex region bounded by the four planes
that are
identified pairwise (but it is {\em not} the fundamental domain). The
edges where the planes intersect are drawn only to identify these planes;
they are simplified as straight lines (but ought to be hyperbolic arcs,
representing geodesics). Unlike in Fig.~13 the edges are not to be
considered as singularities, except for the front and back edges, which are
fixed points of the two basic identifications that generate this
spacetime.
The other ``singularities" are the boundaries of the regions of closed
timelike lines, not drawn (and not easily identified) in this figure.}
\end{caption}
\end{figure}
The four planes stick out of the conformal infinity surface at the four
bottom corners, uncovering four parts of conformal infinity. As in Fig.~13,
the left and right infinity parts combine into one continuous region due to the
identifications. So this spacetime has three conformal infinities with ends,
and therefore represents three black holes.
The two black holes associated with the front and back edges, as seen from
their respective asymptotic regions, are unchanged by this re-identification:
by a ``boost" isometry either of these edges and
associated planes (but not both together) can be moved back to their old position.
Since the two planes alone determine the asymptotic behavior of the black hole,
either of these holes has the same mass, and vanishing angular momentum, as
before. But the third black hole changes, because the left and
right edges no longer lie in the same plane. As we go once around this third black
hole, we cross the surface $S$ twice, and its effects add (as a right-handed screw
is right-handed from either end). The black hole therefore acquires angular momentum.
Unfortunately this is not directly described by Eqs (19-22), because the ``boost" in
Eq (\ref{twist}) has fixed points at the horizon of the non-rotating black hole,
whereas the fixed points of the boost of Fig.~17 lie along a geodesic connecting
the asymptotic regions of the two other holes. However, for the third black hole
this difference is asymptotically negligible: as seen from its own infinity it
does have angular momentum. (Its
standard form (\ref{BTZJ}) would correspond to identification surfaces different
from any of those drawn in Fig.~17.)
By a similar re-identification any one of a $k$-black-hole time-symmetric
spacetime can be given angular momentum; further momentum parameters will be
needed to describe how the asymptotic regions fit to an interior.
Generally we expect one momentum parameter for each configuration
parameter of the corresponding time-symmetric spacetime. For example,
the toroidal black hole constructed as in Fig.~12 should allow three
independent momenta. Of these the state in which there is angular momentum
of the black hole as seen from infinity has been constructed \cite{ABH}.
(Another state with momentum can be obtained from Fig.~17 by identifying
opposite rather than adjacent planes.)
\section{Conclusions}
We have seen that a considerable variety of black hole and
multiply-connected spacetimes can be constructed by cutting a region out
of anti-de Sitter space and identifying the cuts in various ways. Many of
the properties, such as horizon structure and topological
features of the time-symmetric spacetimes, have been investigated in
detail. Comparatively little beyond existence is known about the
spacetimes with angular momentum (but see \cite{ABH}).
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant
No.~PHY94-07194.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
The galactic black hole candidate (BHC) GX~339$-$4 is unique among
persistent sources in that it shows a wide variety of spectral states and
transitions among these states. In presumed order of increasing bolometric
luminosity, GX~339$-$4 exhibits states with hard, power-law spectra (`off
state', \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{ilovaisky:86a}; `low state', \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{grebenev:91a}); a soft
state with \emph{no} evidence of a power law tail (`high state';
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{grebenev:91a}); and a very bright, soft state with extended power-law
tail (`very high state'; \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{miyamoto:91a}). There also are apparently
times when the flux is high, but the spectrum is not as soft as the `high'
or `very high state'. \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{mendez:97a} refer to this as the
`intermediate state'. We also note that there is some evidence of overlap
between the states. The broad-band (GRANAT/SIGMA) hard state data
presented by \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{grebenev:91a} apparently represents a more luminous
state than does the broad-band soft state data taken with the same
instrument. [\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{miyamoto:95a} has suggested the possibility of
hysteresis in galactic BHC state transitions.] Similarly diverse sets of
states have been observed in X-ray transients such as Nova Muscae
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{kitamoto:92a,miyamoto:94a}); however, GX~339$-$4 is closer to being
a persistent source.
Although there have been a number of observations of GX~339$-$4 in the
near-infrared and optical
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{doxsey:79a,motch:83a,motch:85a,steiman:90a,imamura:90a,cowley:91b}),
including detection of a 14.8\,hr periodicity in the optical
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{callanan:92a}), there is no convincing mass function for the system.
In the optical, the system is faint, variable ($M_{\rm V} \approx
16$--$20$), and reddened ($A_{\rm V} = 3.5$). The physical source of the
optical emission is unknown. It has been hypothesized that it is
\emph{entirely} dominated by the accretion disk, as the optical flux is
apparently anticorrelated with the soft X-ray emission
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{steiman:90a,imamura:90a}). These properties of the emission have
made it difficult to obtain a good distance measurement, with estimates
ranging from 1.3\,kpc (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{predhel:91a}) to 8\,kpc (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{grindlay:79a}),
with many authors choosing 4\,kpc
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{doxsey:79a,cowley:87a}). A careful study of these
distance estimates is presented by \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98a} who argue for a
distance of $\approx 4$\,kpc.
GX~339$-$4 also has been detected in the radio (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{sood:94a}), and
possibly even has exhibited extended emission (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{fender:97a}). Within
the hard state, the radio spectrum is flat/inverted with a spectral index
of $\alpha=0.1$--0.2 (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{fender:97a,corbel:98a}), where the radio flux
density $S_\nu \propto \nu^{\alpha}$. Furthermore, in this state the radio
flux is correlated with the X-ray and gamma-ray fluxes (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{hanni:98a}),
but the radio flux disappears as GX~339$-$4 transits to a higher X-ray
flux/softer state (Fender 1998, priv.\ comm.), which is comparable to the
behavior of Cyg~X-1 (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{pooley:98a}).
During the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) Cycle~2 observing phase
(1996~December -- 1998~February), we performed a series of eight RXTE
observations of GX~339$-$4. The first three observations were spaced a week
apart from one another from 1997 February~4 to 1997 February~18. These
three observations were scheduled to be simultaneous with 8.3--9.1\,GHz
radio observations that were conducted at the Australian Telescope Compact
Array (ATCA). The results of the radio observations have been reported by
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{corbel:98a}. Additionally, three 843\,MHz observations performed at
the Molongolo Observatory Synthesis Telescope (MOST) and reported by
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{hanni:98a} are also simultaneous with these RXTE observations.
This paper is structured as follows. We discuss the spectral analysis of
archival Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics (ASCA) data in
section~\ref{sec:asca}. We look for evidence of Fe lines in the data and
we characterize the soft ($\aproxlt 1$\,keV) X-ray data. In
section~\ref{sec:xte} we present the RXTE data. We first discuss the All
Sky Monitor (ASM) data, and then we discuss the pointed observations. We
perform spectral analysis much akin to that which we considered for Cyg~X-1
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{dove:98a}). Here, however, we consider Advection Dominated
Accretion Flow (ADAF) models as well by using the models described by
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{dimatteo:98a}. We discuss the implications of the simultaneous
radio data in section~\ref{sec:radio}. In section~\ref{sec:discuss} we
discuss the implications of the X-ray observations for theoretical models.
We summarize our results in section~\ref{sec:summ}. We present timing
analysis of the RXTE data in a companion paper (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{nowak:98c},
henceforth paper~II).
\section{Archival ASCA Observations}\label{sec:asca}
\begin{table*}
\caption{\small Log of the ASCA observations. \label{tab:ascalog}}
\smallskip
\center{
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\hline
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
Obs. & Date & Integration time & SIS0 & 3--9\,keV
Flux \\
& & (ksec) & (cts s$^{-1}$)&
($10^{-9}~{\rm ergs~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}}$)\\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
1 & 1994 August 24 & 15 & 3.6 & 0.11 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
2 & 1994 September 12 & 17 & 6.4 & 0.19 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
3 & 1995 September 8 & 30 & 17.5 & 0.63 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\tablecomments{All observations were taken in Bright 1-CCD mode. SIS0:
filtered SIS0 count rate.}
\end{table*}
The ASCA archives contain four observations of the GX~339$-$4 region. A
log of the observations is given in in Table~\ref{tab:ascalog}. In
appendix~\ref{sec:ascaapp}, we describe the methods that we used to
extract, filter, and analyze these ASCA observations. To the best of our
knowledge, an analysis of these observations has not been published
previously, except for a power spectrum for one of the observations (date
not given, \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{dobrin:97a}). The first of the observations (1993
September 16) did not detect the source, with the upper limit to the
3--9\,keV flux being $\approx 10^{-12}~{\rm ergs~s^{-1}~cm^{2}}$. As we
will discuss further below, the inferred 3--9\,keV fluxes for the remaining
three observations (Table~\ref{tab:ascalog}) are lower by a factor of two
to ten than the fluxes of the RXTE observations discussed in
\S\ref{sec:xte}.
We chose to fit the ASCA data with a phenomenological model consisting of a
multicolor blackbody spectrum plus a broken power law, considered with and
without a narrow Gaussian line at $\approx 6.4$\,keV. These fits are
similar to those performed for ASCA observations of the hard state of
Cyg~X-1 (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{ebisawa:96b}), which shows evidence for a weak and narrow Fe
line with equivalent width $\approx 40$\,eV, as well as for a soft excess
well-modeled as a multicolor blackbody with peak temperature $\approx
150$\,eV.
\begin{table*}
\caption{\small Parameters for a multicolor blackbody plus broken power law
plus Gaussian line fits to ASCA data. \label{tab:ascafita}}
\smallskip
{\small
\center{
\begin{tabular}{llllllllllll}
\hline
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
Date & $T_{\rm in}$ & $A_{\rm dbb}$ & $\Gamma_1$ & $E_{\rm b}$ & $\Gamma_2$
& $A_{\rm bpl}$ & $E_{\rm l}$ & $A_{\rm l}$ & EW & $\chi^2$/dof &
$\chi^2_{\rm red}$ \\
& (keV) & ($\times 10^4)$ & & (keV) & & ($\times 10^{-2}$) & (keV) &
($\times 10^{-4}$) & (eV) \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
1994 Aug. 24 & \errtwo{0.14}{0.01}{0.02} & \errtwo{2.2}{0.9}{1.6} &
\errtwo{1.78}{0.03}{0.03} & \errtwo{3.4}{0.4}{0.5} &
\errtwo{1.62}{0.04}{0.03} & \errtwo{4.2}{0.1}{0.1} & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
1500/1439 & 1.04 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
1994 Aug. 24 & \errtwo{0.14}{0.01}{0.02} & \errtwo{2.2}{0.7}{1.6} &
\errtwo{1.78}{0.03}{0.03} & \errtwo{3.3}{0.5}{0.6} &
\errtwo{1.64}{0.03}{0.03} & \errtwo{4.2}{0.1}{0.1} & {\it 6.4} &
\errtwo{0.6}{0.4}{0.3} & \errtwo{34}{25}{19} & 1494/1438 & 1.04 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
1994 Sept. 12 & \errtwo{0.15}{0.01}{0.01} & \errtwo{2.5}{0.6}{1.0} &
\errtwo{1.81}{0.02}{0.01} & \errtwo{3.8}{0.2}{0.2} &
\errtwo{1.56}{0.03}{0.03} & \errtwo{7.2}{0.1}{0.1} & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
1603/1621 & 0.99 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
1994 Sept. 12 & \errtwo{0.15}{0.00}{0.00} & \errtwo{2.5}{0.1}{0.4} &
\errtwo{1.81}{0.01}{0.01} & \errtwo{3.8}{0.1}{0.1} &
\errtwo{1.59}{0.01}{0.02} & \errtwo{7.2}{0.0}{0.1} &
\errtwo{6.36}{0.08}{0.09} & \errtwo{1.6}{0.7}{0.2} & \errtwo{56}{26}{7} &
1580/1619 & 0.98 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
1995 Sept. 08 & \errtwo{0.19}{0.00}{0.01} & \errtwo{2.4}{0.1}{0.3} &
\errtwo{1.93}{0.02}{0.01} & \errtwo{3.7}{0.1}{0.1} &
\errtwo{1.60}{0.01}{0.02} & \errtwo{25.6}{0.3}{0.3} & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata &
2597/1838 & 1.41 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
1995 Sept. 08 & \errtwo{0.19}{0.00}{0.00} & \errtwo{2.4}{0.0}{0.1} &
\errtwo{1.93}{0.01}{0.00} & \errtwo{3.7}{0.1}{0.0} &
\errtwo{1.63}{0.01}{0.01} & \errtwo{25.6}{0.0}{0.1} &
\errtwo{6.51}{0.07}{0.06} & \errtwo{3.3}{0.6}{0.5} & \errtwo{40}{7}{6} &
2523/1836 & 1.37 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
\hline
\end{tabular} }
}
\tablecomments{$T_{\rm in}$: peak
multicolor blackbody temperature. $A_{\rm dbb}$: multicolor blackbody
normalization. $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$: broken power law photon indices.
$E_{\rm b}$: break energy. $A_{\rm bpl}$: Power law normalization
(photons\,keV$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$ at 1\,keV). $E_{\rm l}$: line
energy. $A_{\rm l}$: Line normalization
(photons\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$ in the line). EW: line equivalent width.
Uncertainties are at the 90\% confidence level for one interesting
parameter ($\Delta \chi^2 = 2.71$). }
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=Fig1.ps,width=0.55\textwidth,angle=270} }
\caption{\small GX~339$-$4 ASCA observation of 1994 August~24 with
energy bins rebinned by a factor of 25 for clarity.
Model and associated residuals (data/model) are for the best
fit multicolor blackbody plus broken power law \emph{without} a Gaussian
line component. For clarity, only the SIS0 (circles) and GIS2
(triangles) data are shown.}
\label{fig:ascaphem}
\end{figure*}
The fits with the phenomenological models yield $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ ranging
from $0.98$ to $1.4$. The brightest data set showed the greatest evidence
for structure beyond this simple model. A sample fit is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:ascaphem}. Note that the neutral hydrogen column was fixed
to $6 \times 10^{21}~{\rm cm}^{-2}$. Allowed to freely vary, the neutral
hydrogen column tended to float between $4$ and $8 \times 10^{21}~{\rm
cm}^{-2}$, depending upon what combination of phenomenological models was
chosen, with minimal changes in the $\chi^2$ of the fits. Associated with
these changes in best fit neutral hydrogen column were $\aproxgt \pm 30\%$
changes of the best fit peak temperature of the multicolor blackbody and
even larger changes (factors of $\approx 3$) in the best fit normalization
of the multicolor blackbody component. We should thus associate
systematic error bars with these two parameters that are somewhat
larger than the statistical error bars presented in
Table~\ref{tab:ascafita}.
All fits improved with the addition of a narrow Gaussian line. In all fits
we fixed the line width to $0.1$\,keV (see \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{ebisawa:96b}; who always
found $\sigma < 0.1$\,keV in fits to ASCA data of Cyg~X-1), and for the
lowest flux data set we also fix the line energy to 6.4\,keV. For the
lowest flux data set the $\Delta \chi^2 = 5.5$ for one additional
parameter. By the F-test (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{bevington}), this is an improvement to the
fit for one additional parameter at the 98\% confidence level. The other
two data sets show even more significant improvements to the $\chi^2$. The
best fit line equivalent widths ranged from $\approx 30$ to 60\,eV. There
is no compelling evidence for a strong flux dependence to the equivalent
width of the line.
The transition to the bright, soft state typically occurs at 3--9\,keV
luminosities $\aproxgt 10^{-9}~{\rm ergs~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}}$; i.e., a factor
of two to ten brighter than these ASCA observations. Thus these
observations offer useful tests of ADAF models, which are hypothesized to
be most relevant to low-luminosity, hard state systems
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{narayan:96e,esin:97c}). ADAF models predict a detectable
correlation between the temperature of the soft excess, the strength of the
Fe line, and the source luminosity. They hypothesize that the luminosity
decay of BH transients is due, in part, to an increase of the radius at
which the accretion flow transits from cold, geometrically thin, and
radiatively efficient to hot, geometrically thick, and advective
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{esin:97c}). In some models, the transition radius can grow to as
large as ${\cal O}(10^4~R_{\rm G})$, where $R_{\rm G} \equiv GM/c^2$.
(Such large transition radii are \emph{not} a strict requirement of ADAF
models; in \S\ref{sec:adaf} we show that somewhat smaller transition
radii, $\approx 200$--$400~R_{\rm G}$, are preferred for ADAF models of the
RXTE data.) As discussed by \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{esin:97c}, one then expects the peak
temperature of the soft excess to decrease below $150$\,eV and the
equivalent width of any Fe line to decrease to values less than $\approx
30$\,eV.
The best fit equivalent widths found for GX~339$-$4 are greater than can be
accommodated in ADAF models with a large transition radius, and they are
also slightly larger than predicted by the `sphere+disk' corona models
described in \S\ref{sec:corona} (see also \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{dove:97b,dove:98a}). These
latter models have a similar geometry to the ADAF models, and they often
posit a coronal radius $\aproxlt 100~R_{\rm G}$. Likewise, we do not
detect any large decreases in the best-fit disk temperatures with
decreasing luminosity. Although it is dangerous to make a one-to-one
correspondence between a phenomenological fit component and a
\emph{physical} component, these best-fit values are suggestive of, but not
definitive proof of, temperatures hotter than can be accommodated in models
where cold, soft X-ray emitting material exists at very large radii.
\section{RXTE Observations}\label{sec:xte}
\subsection{The Monitoring Campaign}\label{sec:asm}
To study the long-term behavior of GX~339$-$4, and to place our pointed
observations within the context of the overall behavior of the source, we
used data from the All Sky Monitor (ASM) on RXTE. The ASM provides
lightcurves in three energy bands, 1.3--3.0\,keV, 3.0--5.0\,keV,
and 5.0--12.2\,keV, typically consisting of several 90\,s
measurements per day (see \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{levine:96a,remillard:97a,lochner:97a}).
In Figure~\ref{fig:asm} we present the ASM data of GX~339$-$4 up until
Truncated Julian Date (TJD) $\approx 1000$ (1998 July 6). We also indicate
the dates of our RXTE observations, as well as the dates of
ATCA and MOST radio observations (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{fender:97a,corbel:98a,hanni:98a}).
We discuss the long timescale variability of this lightcurve in paper~II.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=Fig2a.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}
\psfig{figure=Fig2b.eps,width=0.45\textwidth} }
\caption{\small \emph{Left:} RXTE All Sky Monitor data for GX~339$-$4 (5 day
averages in the 1.3--12.2\,keV band) vs. Truncated Julian Date (TJD)
$\equiv$ Julian Date (JD) $-2450000.5$. Dashes indicate dates of our
RXTE pointed observations, diamonds indicate dates of MOST radio
observations (Hannikainnen et al. 1998), and triangles indicate dates of
ATCA radio observations (Fender et al. 1997, Corbel et al. 1998).
\emph{Right:} ASM colors for GX~339$-$4 vs TJD. Colors shown are:
(1.3--3\,keV)/(3-5\,keV), (3--5\,keV)/(5--12\,keV)+5, and
(1.3--3\,keV)/(5--12.2\,keV)+10 (the latter two ratios have been offset
for clarity).}
\label{fig:asm}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{\small Approximate expected ASM colors for the different states of
GX~339$-$4. \label{tab:asmcol}}
\smallskip
\center{
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
State & count rate & 1.3--3\,keV/
& 1.3--3\,keV/ \\
& cts\,s$^{-1}$ & 3--5\,keV & 5--12.2\,keV \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
low & 7 & $2$ & $2$ \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
high & 15 & $4$ & $30$\\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
very high & 60 & $4$ & $15$\\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table*}
Based upon model fits to the observations of \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{grebenev:91a} (low and
high state), and \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{miyamoto:91a} (very high state), we expect the
different states of GX~339$-$4 to have ASM count rates as indicated in
Table~\ref{tab:asmcol}. The ASCA and RXTE observations discussed here are
most characteristic of weak to average luminosity hard states. Confirmation
that the eight RXTE observations taken between TJD 481 and 749 do indeed
represent a typical low/hard state comes from the broad band spectral
analysis presented in \S\ref{sec:xte}, as well as from the timing analysis
presented in paper II. The X-ray variability of these observations show
root mean square variability of ${\cal O}(30\%)$ and show a power spectrum
(PSD) that, roughly, is flat below 0.1\,Hz, $\propto f^{-1}$ between
0.1--3\,Hz, and $\propto f^{-2}$ above 3\,Hz. Time lags and coherence
functions were also comparable to previously observed hard states of Cygnus
X-1 (see paper II, and references therein). Further discussion and analyses
of the timing data can be found in paper II.
The transition to a higher flux level that occurs at TJD $\approx 800$
appears to have a characteristic flux of a high state, but is not as soft
in the 2--10\,keV bands as expected from the above cited high and very high
states. This might be an example of what \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{mendez:97a} refer to as an
`intermediate state' between hard and soft. No pointed RXTE observations
were taken during the transition, and four pointed observations, which were
not part of our monitoring campaign, occured shortly after the transition.
Detailed confirmation of the spectral state suggested by the ASM data
awaits analysis of these pointed observations. Note that the radio flux
became quenched over the course of this transition to a higher ASM flux
level (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{hanni:98a}).
The variations observed in both the ASM lightcurve (prior to TJD $\approx
800$) and the pointed RXTE observations discussed below represent more than
a factor five variation in observed flux. Comparable variations have been
observed in the radio, and furthermore the radio lightcurves show evidence
of a correlation with both the ASM and Burst and Transient Survey Explorer
(BATSE) lightcurves (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{hanni:98a}).
\subsection{PCA and HEXTE Observations}
In this section we present the results from our analysis of the data
from the two pointed instruments on RXTE: the Proportional Counter Array
(PCA), and the High Energy X-ray Timing Experiment (HEXTE). See
appendix~\ref{sec:rxteapp} for a description of the instruments and of the
details of the data extraction and processing. A log of the
RXTE pointed observations and the simultaneous radio observations is given
in Table~\ref{tab:log}.
\begin{table*}
\caption{\small Log of RXTE and radio observations. \label{tab:log}}
\smallskip
\centerline{\small
\begin{tabular}{lllcccccccc}
\hline
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
Obs & Date & TJD & $T$ & Rate & 3--9\,keV & 9--30\,keV &
30--100\,keV & ATCA & MOST & $\alpha$ \\
& & & (ksec) & (cps) &
& (${\rm 10^{-9}~erg~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}}$)
& & (mJy)
& (mJy) \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
01 & 1997 Feb. 02 & 481 & 11 & 830 & 1.07 & 1.68 & 2.65
& $9.1\pm0.2$ & $7.0\pm0.7$ & 0.11 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
02 & 1997 Feb. 10 & 489 & 10 & 730 & 0.94 & 1.50 & 2.41
& $8.2\pm0.2$ & $6.3\pm0.7$ & 0.11 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
03 & 1997 Feb. 17 & 496 & 8 & 700 & 0.90 & 1.43 & 2.35
& $8.7\pm0.2$ & $6.1\pm0.7$ & 0.15 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
04 & 1997 Apr. 29 & 567 & 10 & 470 & 0.60 & 0.97 & 1.55 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
05 & 1997 Jul. 07 & 636 & 10 & 200 & 0.25 & 0.43 & 0.75 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
06 & 1997 Aug. 23 & 683 & 11 & 650 & 0.74 & 1.18 & 1.98 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
07 & 1997 Sep. 19 & 710 & 10 & 730 & 0.96 & 1.48 & 2.36 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
08 & 1997 Oct. 28 & 749 & 10 & 480 & 0.63 & 1.01 & 1.68 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{1mm}}
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\tablecomments{We list: $T$, the
duration of the RXTE observations; the average PCA count rate; the
average (3--9\,keV), (9--30\,keV), and (30--100\,keV) energy fluxes (all
normalized to the PCA calibration); the flux density of the 8.3--9.1\,GHz
ATCA observations; the flux density of the 843\,MHz MOST observations;
and $\alpha = \Delta \log \nu / \Delta \log S_\nu$, the spectral index of
the radio observations
(\protect\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{fender:97a,corbel:98a,hanni:98a}).}
\end{table*}
As we show in appendix~\ref{sec:rxteapp}, there is a difference in the
power-law slopes obtained from an analysis of spectra of the Crab with both
instruments upon RXTE. In order to minimize the impact of this difference
in the instrumental calibration onto the data analysis, we primarily
analyze the data from both instruments individually and use the difference
in model parameters between instruments as a gauge of the systematic
uncertainties. We do perform some joint analysis of PCA and HEXTE data
using various reflection models. In the following sections we discuss in
detail the implications of the calibration uncertainty for our analysis.
For our analysis of the RXTE broad band spectrum, we used several different
spectral models consistent with the range of parameterizations currently
used in the literature to describe the spectra of BHC. As in the ASCA
analysis (\S\ref{sec:asca}), we fixed $N_{\rm H} = 6 \times 10^{21}~{\rm
cm^2}$. We first used the purely phenomenological exponentially cutoff
power law and broken power law models as a broad characterization of the
data. The results of this modeling are given in \S\ref{sec:phenom} and in
Tables~\ref{tab:jwstud} and \ref{tab:jwstudb}. We then applied the three
more physically motivated models that are currently discussed in the
literature: reflection of a power law off an (ionized) accretion disk
(\S\ref{sec:reflect} and Table~\ref{tab:jwstud2}), `sphere and disk' corona
Comptonization models (\S\ref{sec:corona} and Table~\ref{tab:jwstud3}), and
ADAF models (\S\ref{sec:adaf}). The ADAF models are only applied to the
unfolded data. Residuals for each of the best fits to the data from
Observations~5 and~7 are shown in
Figures~\ref{fig:pcaalone},~\ref{fig:hextealone}, and \ref{fig:jointfit}
(except for the ADAF models, where we present Observations 1 and 5). We
chose to present these former two observations because not only are they at
extremes in terms of observed luminosity (Observation~5 is the faintest,
and Observation~7 is the second brightest, Table~\ref{tab:log}), but also
because they show detectable differences in their timing properties
(paper~II).
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=Fig3a.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}
\psfig{figure=Fig3b.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}}
\caption{\small Spectral modeling of the PCA data from Observation~5
(left) and~7 (right). Residues are shown as the contribution to $\chi$.
a) Count rate spectrum and the best-fit broken power-law with Gaussian
line, b) Contribution to $\chi$ from the broken power-law with Gaussian
line, c) Contribution to $\chi$ from the ionized reflection model
(pexriv) with Gaussian line, d) Contribution to $\chi$ from the
sphere+disk model with additional Gaussian line.}
\label{fig:pcaalone}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=Fig4a.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}
\psfig{figure=Fig4b.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}}
\caption{\small Spectral modeling of the HEXTE data from observation~5
(left) and~7 (right). Residues are shown as the contribution to
$\chi$. a) Count rate spectrum and the best-fit power-law with
exponential cutoff, b) Contribution to $\chi$ from the power-law with
exponential cutoff, c) Contribution to $\chi$ from the sphere+disk
model.}
\label{fig:hextealone}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=Fig5a.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}
\psfig{figure=Fig5b.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}}
\caption{\small Spectral modeling of the joint PCA and HEXTE data for
Observation~5 and~7. Residues are shown as the contribution to $\chi$. a)
Count rate spectrum and the best fit broken power-law with Gaussian line.
b) Contribution to $\chi$ from the best fit broken power-law with a
Gaussian line (parameters not given in text). c) Contribution to $\chi$
from the best fit ionized reflector model with a Gaussian line.}
\label{fig:jointfit}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Phenomenological Models}\label{sec:phenom}
Results from the purely phenomenological fits to the data, i.e., the broken
power law and exponentially cutoff power law, are presented in
Tables~\ref{tab:jwstud} and \ref{tab:jwstudb}. We see that a broken power
law plus a Gaussian models the PCA data very well. The low
$\chi^2_{\rm red}$ (0.15--0.32) indicates that to some extent we may be
fitting systematic features in the PCA response. The same may be true for
the best fit parameters of the Fe line. The line widths ($\sigma \approx
0.6$\,keV) and equivalent widths ($\approx 130$\,eV) are larger than for
the ASCA observations, with the exception of Observation~5 which has line
parameters comparable to the ASCA observations. As Observation~5 has the
lowest count rate, it is more dominated by statistical errors and less
dominated by systematic errors than the other observations. Even ignoring
the possible systematic effects, however, we see that any observed line is
narrower and weaker than is commonly observed in AGN.
\begin{table*}
\caption{\small Parameters for Gaussian line plus broken power law models
(PCA only).}
{\small
\begin{center}
{Model: $\exp(-N_{\rm H}\sigma_a)\left( {\sf gauss}(E_{\rm
line},\sigma,A_{\rm line}) + {\sf bknpower}(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,E_{\rm
break},A_{\rm bkn}) \right)$}\\[3mm]
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\hline
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
Obs & $E_{\rm line}$ & $\sigma $ &
$A_{\rm line}$ & EW & $\Gamma_1 $ &
$E_{\rm break}$ & $\Gamma_2$ & $A_{\rm bkn} $
& $\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ \\
& $\,({\rm keV})$ & $\,({\rm keV})$ & ($\times 10^{-3}$) & $\,({\rm
eV})$ & & $\,({\rm keV})$ & & \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
01 & $\errtwa{ 6.48}{ 0.14}{ 0.15}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.6}{ 0.2}{ 0.2}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.97}{ 0.42}{ 0.36}$
& $\errtwa{ 130}{24}{22}$ &
$\errtwa{ 1.80}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & $\errtwa{ 11.2}{ 0.3}
{ 0.4}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.53}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.44}
{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & 13.6/ 52 & 0.26 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
02 & $\errtwa{ 6.47}{ 0.15}{ 0.16}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.6}{ 0.2}{ 0.2}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.73}{ 0.40}{ 0.35}$
& $\errtwa{129}{ 26}{24}$ &
$\errtwa{ 1.80}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & $\errtwa{ 10.9}{ 0.4}
{ 0.4}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.53}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.38}
{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & 16.6/52 & 0.32 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
03 & $\errtwa{ 6.47}{ 0.14}{ 0.15}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.5}{ 0.2}{ 0.2}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.55}{ 0.29}{ 0.31}$
& $\errtwa{121}{24}{23}$ &
$\errtwa{ 1.79}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & $\errtwa{ 10.9}{ 0.4}
{ 0.4}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.53}{ 0.02}{ 0.03}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.37}
{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & 13.5/ 52 & 0.26 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
04 & $\errtwa{ 6.45}{ 0.08}{ 0.15}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.5}{ 0.2}{ 0.2}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.05}{ 0.25}{ 0.22}$ &
$\errtwa{121}{28}{23}$ &
$\errtwa{ 1.78}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & $\errtwa{ 10.8}{ 0.4}
{ 0.5}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.54}{ 0.03}{ 0.03}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.24}
{ 0.00}{ 0.00}$ & 20.7/ 52 & 0.38 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
05 & $\errtwa{ 6.43}{ 0.15}{ 0.17}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.2}{ 0.3}{ 0.2}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.31}{ 0.09}{ 0.08}$
& $\errtwa{84}{25}{21}$ &
$\errtwa{ 1.72}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & $\errtwa{ 10.8}{ 0.8}
{ 0.8}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.49}{ 0.04}{ 0.05}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.09}
{ 0.00}{ 0.00}$ & 22.9/ 52 & 0.44 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
06 & $\errtwa{ 6.40}{ 0.14}{ 0.15}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.5}{ 0.2}{ 0.2}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.32}{ 0.28}{ 0.27}$
& $\errtwa{123}{23}{23}$ &
$\errtwa{ 1.80}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & $\errtwa{ 10.9}{ 0.4}
{ 0.4}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.51}{ 0.03}{ 0.03}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.30}
{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & 25.2/ 52 & 0.48 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
07 & $\errtwa{ 6.45}{ 0.13}{ 0.13}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.6}{ 0.2}{ 0.2}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.92}{ 0.38}{ 0.34}$
& $\errtwa{140}{23}{23}$ &
$\errtwa{ 1.83}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & $\errtwa{ 10.9}{ 0.3}
{ 0.4}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.55}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.42}
{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & 27.3/ 52 & 0.53 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
08 & $\errtwa{ 6.40}{ 0.14}{ 0.15}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.5}{ 0.2}{ 0.2}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.20}{ 0.27}{ 0.23}$
& $\errtwa{130}{26}{23}$ &
$\errtwa{ 1.79}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & $\errtwa{ 10.8}{ 0.5}
{ 0.5}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.54}{ 0.03}{ 0.03}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.26}
{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & 28.3/ 52 & 0.54 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
"
}
\label{tab:jwstud}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{\small Parameters for
exponentially cutoff power law models (HEXTE
only).}
{\small
\begin{center}
{Model: ${\sf const.}\left( A_{\rm PL} E^{-\Gamma} \exp\left(-E/E_{\rm cut}\right) \right)$}\\[3mm]
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
Obs & ${\rm const.}$ & $\Gamma $ & $E_{\rm cut} $ & $A_{\rm PL} $ &
${\rm const.}$& $\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ \\
& & & $\,({\rm keV})$ & & & & \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
01 & ${\it 1.00}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.25}{ 0.06}{ 0.06}$ & $\errtwa{ 101}
{ 18}{ 14}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.082}{ 0.014}{ 0.012}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.99}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & 69.2/ 80 & 0.87 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
02 & ${\it 1.00}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.12}{ 0.08}{ 0.08}$ & $\errtwa{ 79}
{ 13}{ 10}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.052}{ 0.011}{ 0.009}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.92}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & 69.0/ 80 & 0.86 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
03 & ${\it 1.00}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.16}{ 0.17}{ 0.18}$ & $\errtwa{ 94}
{ 63}{ 28}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.052}{ 0.029}{ 0.019}$ & $\errtwa
{ 1.08}{ 0.04}{ 0.04}$ & 71.8/ 80 & 0.90 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
04 & ${\it 1.00}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.15}{ 0.11}{ 0.11}$ & $\errtwa{ 85}
{ 25}{ 16}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.035}{ 0.011}{ 0.009}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.98}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & 76.2/ 80 & 0.95 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
05 & ${\it 1.00}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.18}{ 0.19}{ 0.23}$ & $\errtwa{ 115}
{ 85}{ 46}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.016}{ 0.011}{ 0.007}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.99}{ 0.05}{ 0.05}$ & 71.3/ 80 & 0.89 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
06 & ${\it 1.00}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.19}{ 0.09}{ 0.09}$ & $\errtwa{ 103}
{ 29}{ 19}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.049}{ 0.012}{ 0.010}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.93}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & 87.9/ 80 & 1.10 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
07 & ${\it 1.00}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.21}{ 0.07}{ 0.08}$ & $\errtwa{ 95}
{ 20}{ 14}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.066}{ 0.014}{ 0.012}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.96}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & 101.5/ 80 & 1.27 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
08 & ${\it 1.00}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.08}{ 0.10}{ 0.10}$ & $\errtwa{ 81}
{ 19}{ 13}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.031}{ 0.009}{ 0.007}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.98}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & 106.6/ 80 & 1.33 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
}
\label{tab:jwstudb}
\end{table*}
The $\approx 3$--$10$\,keV spectral power-law slope is close to the
`canonical value' of $\Gamma = 1.7$; however, the PCA shows evidence for a
hardening of this spectral slope above $\approx 10$\,keV. HEXTE data alone
also show the high energy spectrum to be harder than the 3--10\,keV
spectrum (Fig.~\ref{fig:hextealone} and Table~\ref{tab:jwstudb}). Note
that the difference between the PCA and HEXTE photon indices is
\emph{greater} than the discrepancy between the PCA and HEXTE best fit Crab
photon indices (appendix~\ref{sec:rxteapp}), and therefore it is unlikely
to be a systematic effect.
Such a hard HEXTE spectrum is consistent with previous observations by the
Oriented Scintillation Spectrometer Experiment (OSSE) on board the Compton
Gamma-ray Observatory (CGRO) (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{grabelsky:95a}; see also
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98a}). \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{grabelsky:95a} found a slightly harder
photon index of $\Gamma = 0.88$ and an exponential cutoff of $E_{\rm cut} =
68$\,keV, somewhat lower than observed here. Note, however, that the OSSE
observations extended to $\approx 500$\,keV as opposed to the $\sim
110$\,keV of our HEXTE observation. Therefore, the HEXTE data for
GX~339$-$4 do not strongly constrain the exponential rollover, and slightly
harder power laws with lower exponential cutoffs are permitted.
\subsubsection{Reflection Models}\label{sec:reflect}
A spectral hardening above $\approx 7$\,keV is the expected signature of
reflection of a hard continuum off of cold material (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{magdziarz:95a}).
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{ueda:94a} applied reflection models to \textsl{Ginga} data of
GX~339$-$4 and found strong evidence of reflection, whereas
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{grabelsky:95a} found no evidence of reflection in OSSE data.
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98a} jointly fit these simultaneously observed data sets
and find that reflection models, albeit with a large Fe abundance, provide
a very good description of the data. We have applied the models of
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{magdziarz:95a}, as implemented in XSPEC (\emph{pexrav},
\emph{pexriv}), to the GX~339$-$4 data. These models consider an
exponentially cutoff power law reflected off of neutral (\emph{pexrav}) or
partially ionized (\emph{pexriv}) cold material.
\begin{table*}
\caption{\small Parameters for Gaussian line plus multicolor disk plus
ionized reflection models after Magdziarz \& Zdziarski
(1995). \label{tab:jwstud2}}
{\small
\begin{sideways} \begin{minipage}{0.95\textheight}
\begin{center}
{Model: ${\sf const.} \cdot \exp(-N_{\rm H}\sigma_{a}) \left
( {\sf diskbb}(A_{\rm dbb},kT_{\rm dbb}) + {\sf pexriv}(E_{\rm
fold},\Gamma,f,z,A_{\rm X}, A_{\rm Fe},\cos i, A_{\rm pex}) +
{\sf gauss}(E_{\rm line},\sigma, A_{\rm line}) \right ) $} \nl
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccccc}
\hline
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
Obs & $A_{\rm dbb}$ & $\Gamma$ & $\Gamma_{\rm HEXTE}$ & $f$ & $A_{\rm
Fe}$ & $\xi$ & $A_{\rm pex}$ & $E_{\rm line}$ & $A_{\rm line}$
& EW & const. & const. & $\chi^2/$dof & $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ \nl &
$(\times 10^{5})$ & & & & & $({\rm erg~cm~s^{-1}})$ & & (keV) &
($\times 10^{-4}$) & (eV) \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
01& $\errtwa{ 1.64}{ 0.82}{ 0.83}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.81}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & --- & $ \errtwa{ 0.41}{ 0.06}{ 0.05}$ & $ \errtwa{ 1.54}{ 0.67}{ 0.40}$ & $ \errtwa{ 78.2}{ 28.7}{ 23.7}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.43}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & $ \errtwa{ 6.22}{ 0.22}{ 0.23}$ & $ \errtwa{ 7.00}{ 2.95}{ 3.10}$ & $ \errtwa{ 41}{ 18}{ 18}$ & --- & --- & $ 25./51$ & 0.49 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
01& $ \errtwa{ 1.54}{ 0.81}{ 0.82}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.81}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.76}{ 0.04}{ 0.03}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.47}{ 0.07}{ 0.06}$ & $ \errtwa{ 2.26}{ 1.01}{ 0.65}$ & $ \errtwa{ 60.5}{ 20.8}{ 21.8}$ & $ \errtwa{ 5.85}{ 2.75}{ 2.98}$ & {\it 6.4} & $ \errtwa{ 5.85}{ 2.75}{ 2.98}$ & $ \errtwa{ 35}{ 18}{ 17}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.57}{ 0.09}{ 0.07}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.57}{ 0.09}{ 0.07}$ & $ 113./132$ & 0.86 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
02& $\errtwa{ 1.68}{ 0.73}{ 0.73}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.81}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & --- & $ \errtwa{ 0.41}{ 0.06}{ 0.05}$ & $ \errtwa{ 1.36}{ 0.58}{ 0.36}$ & $ \errtwa{ 82.2}{ 31.6}{ 23.9}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.37}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & $ \errtwa{ 6.16}{ 0.23}{ 0.25}$ & $ \errtwa{ 5.96}{ 2.60}{ 2.82}$ & $ \errtwa{ 40}{ 17}{ 19}$ & --- & --- & $ 21./51$ & 0.41 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
02& $ \errtwa{ 1.49}{ 0.73}{ 0.73}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.80}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.75}{ 0.05}{ 0.04}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.52}{ 0.09}{ 0.07}$ & $ \errtwa{ 2.46}{ 1.50}{ 0.80}$ & $ \errtwa{ 54.0}{ 21.3}{ 22.5}$ & $ \errtwa{ 4.08}{ 2.45}{ 2.68}$ & {\it 6.4} & $ \errtwa{ 4.08}{ 2.45}{ 2.68}$ & $ \errtwa{ 18}{ 28}{ 10}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.57}{ 0.12}{ 0.08}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.52}{ 0.11}{ 0.07}$ & $ 124./132$ & 0.94 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
03& $\errtwa{ 1.34}{ 0.70}{ 0.69}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.81}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & --- & $ \errtwa{ 0.42}{ 0.06}{ 0.05}$ & $ \errtwa{ 1.49}{ 0.62}{ 0.42}$ & $ \errtwa{ 59.8}{ 24.1}{ 24.8}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.36}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & $ \errtwa{ 6.22}{ 0.24}{ 0.27}$ & $ \errtwa{ 5.56}{ 2.53}{ 2.66}$ & $ \errtwa{ 39}{ 16}{ 18}$ & --- & --- & $ 14./51$ & 0.28 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
03& $ \errtwa{ 1.23}{ 0.70}{ 0.70}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.81}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.68}{ 0.05}{ 0.05}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.44}{ 0.07}{ 0.06}$ & $ \errtwa{ 1.61}{ 0.76}{ 0.46}$ & $ \errtwa{ 50.9}{ 22.6}{ 22.9}$ & $ \errtwa{ 4.96}{ 2.46}{ 2.56}$ & {\it 6.4} & $ \errtwa{ 4.96}{ 2.46}{ 2.56}$ & $ \errtwa{ 36}{ 19}{ 18}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.42}{ 0.09}{ 0.07}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.45}{ 0.09}{ 0.07}$ & $ 89./132$ & 0.68 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
04& $\errtwa{ 1.13}{ 0.47}{ 0.48}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.79}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & --- & $ \errtwa{ 0.37}{ 0.07}{ 0.06}$ & $ \errtwa{ 1.33}{ 0.77}{ 0.43}$ & $ \errtwa{ 70.2}{ 31.3}{ 27.3}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.23}{ 0.00}{ 0.01}$ & $ \errtwa{ 6.17}{ 0.23}{ 0.23}$ & $ \errtwa{ 4.56}{ 1.80}{ 1.90}$ & $ \errtwa{ 47}{ 18}{ 19}$ & --- & --- & $ 15./51$ & 0.30 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
04& $ \errtwa{ 1.03}{ 0.47}{ 0.47}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.79}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.73}{ 0.07}{ 0.05}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.46}{ 0.12}{ 0.08}$ & $ \errtwa{ 2.26}{ 1.78}{ 0.86}$ & $ \errtwa{ 44.2}{ 24.1}{ 23.7}$ & $ \errtwa{ 3.61}{ 1.60}{ 1.88}$ & {\it 6.4} & $ \errtwa{ 3.61}{ 1.60}{ 1.88}$ & $ \errtwa{ 39}{ 18}{ 20}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.54}{ 0.14}{ 0.09}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.52}{ 0.14}{ 0.08}$ & $ 100./132$ & 0.76 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
05& $\errtwa{ 0.39}{ 0.23}{ 0.24}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.73}{ 0.03}{ 0.02}$ & --- & $ \errtwa{ 0.43}{ 0.49}{ 0.13}$ & $ \errtwa{ 2.43}{11.04}{ 1.35}$ & $ \errtwa{ 10.1}{ 35.8}{ 10.1}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.09}{ 0.00}{ 0.00}$ & $ \errtwa{ 6.32}{ 0.27}{ 0.27}$ & $ \errtwa{ 1.84}{ 1.06}{ 0.94}$ & $ \errtwa{ 48}{ 29}{ 25}$ & --- & --- & $ 18./51$ & 0.34 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
05& $ \errtwa{ 0.36}{ 0.22}{ 0.23}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.73}{ 0.03}{ 0.02}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.65}{ 0.12}{ 0.08}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.44}{ 0.24}{ 0.12}$ & $ \errtwa{ 2.41}{ 3.49}{ 1.22}$ & $ \errtwa{ 6.1}{ 25.2}{ 6.1}$ & $ \errtwa{ 1.87}{ 1.09}{ 0.96}$ & {\it 6.4} & $ \errtwa{ 1.87}{ 1.09}{ 0.96}$ & $ \errtwa{ 50}{ 30}{ 48}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.49}{ 0.24}{ 0.12}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.49}{ 0.23}{ 0.12}$ & $ 88./132$ & 0.67 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
06& $\errtwa{ 1.61}{ 0.57}{ 0.57}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.80}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & --- & $ \errtwa{ 0.47}{ 0.10}{ 0.07}$ & $ \errtwa{ 1.87}{ 1.05}{ 0.56}$ & $ \errtwa{ 55.0}{ 24.0}{ 24.2}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.29}{ 0.00}{ 0.01}$ & $ \errtwa{ 6.08}{ 0.22}{ 0.23}$ & $ \errtwa{ 5.45}{ 2.16}{ 2.30}$ & $ \errtwa{ 45}{ 18}{ 19}$ & --- & --- & $ 17./51$ & 0.33 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
06& $ \errtwa{ 1.46}{ 0.55}{ 0.55}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.81}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.71}{ 0.05}{ 0.04}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.52}{ 0.10}{ 0.07}$ & $ \errtwa{ 2.38}{ 1.26}{ 0.74}$ & $ \errtwa{ 36.7}{ 22.0}{ 19.2}$ & $ \errtwa{ 4.06}{ 2.08}{ 2.05}$ & {\it 6.4} & $ \errtwa{ 4.06}{ 2.08}{ 2.05}$ & $ \errtwa{ 26}{ 30}{ 8}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.50}{ 0.10}{ 0.07}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.47}{ 0.09}{ 0.07}$ & $ 113./132$ & 0.86 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
07& $\errtwa{ 2.29}{ 0.73}{ 0.73}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.83}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & --- & $ \errtwa{ 0.42}{ 0.06}{ 0.05}$ & $ \errtwa{ 1.37}{ 0.58}{ 0.37}$ & $ \errtwa{ 84.8}{ 32.5}{ 23.9}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.40}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & $ \errtwa{ 6.16}{ 0.18}{ 0.19}$ & $ \errtwa{ 8.36}{ 2.67}{ 2.96}$ & $ \errtwa{ 54}{ 18}{ 19}$ & --- & --- & $ 25./51$ & 0.48 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
07& $ \errtwa{ 2.10}{ 0.72}{ 0.72}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.83}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.74}{ 0.04}{ 0.03}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.48}{ 0.07}{ 0.06}$ & $ \errtwa{ 1.97}{ 0.93}{ 0.57}$ & $ \errtwa{ 61.5}{ 21.9}{ 22.7}$ & $ \errtwa{ 6.23}{ 2.76}{ 2.48}$ & {\it 6.4} & $ \errtwa{ 6.23}{ 2.76}{ 2.48}$ & $ \errtwa{ 43}{ 20}{ 17}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.50}{ 0.08}{ 0.06}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.48}{ 0.08}{ 0.06}$ & $ 144./132$ & 1.09 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
08& $\errtwa{ 1.25}{ 0.47}{ 0.47}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.80}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & --- & $ \errtwa{ 0.38}{ 0.06}{ 0.05}$ & $ \errtwa{ 1.36}{ 0.67}{ 0.42}$ & $ \errtwa{ 72.6}{ 30.7}{ 26.6}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.25}{ 0.01}{ 0.01}$ & $ \errtwa{ 6.15}{ 0.19}{ 0.20}$ & $ \errtwa{ 5.55}{ 1.95}{ 1.87}$ & $ \errtwa{ 55}{ 19}{ 18}$ & --- & --- & $ 18./51$ & 0.35 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
08& $ \errtwa{ 1.14}{ 0.47}{ 0.47}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.80}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.71}{ 0.07}{ 0.05}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.50}{ 0.15}{ 0.09}$ & $ \errtwa{ 2.81}{ 2.23}{ 1.11}$ & $ \errtwa{ 39.0}{ 24.8}{ 21.7}$ & $ \errtwa{ 4.14}{ 1.89}{ 1.72}$ & {\it 6.4} & $ \errtwa{ 4.14}{ 1.89}{ 1.72}$ & $ \errtwa{ 44}{ 20}{ 19}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.51}{ 0.14}{ 0.09}$ & $ \errtwa{ 0.50}{ 0.14}{ 0.09}$ & $ 141./132$ & 1.07 \nl
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center} \end{minipage} \end{sideways} }
\vskip -0.5 true in
\tablecomments{Models have been fit to: PCA data
only (51~dof), and PCA and HEXTE data where the photon index of the
reflected power law has been allowed to differ between the PCA and the
HEXTE data (132~dof). Fit parameters are: the normalization of the
multicolor disk blackbody, $A_{\rm dbb}$ (the disk temperature has been
fixed to 250\,eV); the power law slope, $\Gamma$;
cutoff energy, $E_{\rm fold}$; relative reflection fraction, $f\equiv
\Delta \Omega/2 \pi$; Fe abundance relative to solar, $A_{\rm Fe}$;
the disk ionization parameter, $\xi\equiv$ luminosity/(density $\times$
radius$^2$); and a normalization, $A_{\rm pex}$. The ionized
reflection models also have parameters for the temperature of the disk,
$T_{\rm disk}$ (fixed at $10^6$\,K); abundances of elements heavier than
He relative to solar, $A_{\rm X}$ (fixed at unity); and disk inclination
angle, $i$ (fixed at $45^\circ$). Parameters typeset in italics
have been held constant for that particular fit. The iron line width was
fixed at 0.1\,keV. }
\end{table*}
In Table~\ref{tab:jwstud2} we show the fit results for reflection off of
partially ionized material similar to the models presented by
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98a}. Just as in \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98a}, we include a disk
component where we fix the inner disk temperature to 250\,eV. As PCA does
not usefully constrain models below 3\,keV, the disk component is not
strongly constrained; typically the $\chi^2$ values were higher by 5--20
without this component. We also fix the reflector inclination angle at
$45^\circ$, fix the disk temperature at $T_{\rm disk} = 10^6$\,K, freeze
the abundances at solar, but let the Fe abundance be a free parameter. In
all our fits we found that the Gaussian line width, $\sigma$, would tend to
drift toward $0$, so we fixed $\sigma = 0.1$\,keV. For the combined PCA
and HEXTE data, we also fixed the Gaussian line energy to 6.4\,keV. For
fits to PCA data alone and joint PCA/HEXTE data, the exponential cutoff
energy, $E_{\rm fold}$, would drift towards very large energy ($\gg
1000$\,keV). We therefore only considered pure power laws without cutoffs.
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98a} have argued that the high energy cutoff is sharper
than exponential, which one would not expect to be strongly constrained by
the combined PCA/HEXTE data.
As for the \textsl{Ginga} data of GX~339$-$4 (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{ueda:94a}), the PCA
data alone were extremely well described by reflection models. Again,
however, the extremely low $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ (as low as 0.28) makes us
caution that these models might partly be fitting systematics in the PCA
response. PCA and \textsl{Ginga} are also very similar instruments in
terms of design, and so to some extent they should exhibit similar
systematic effects (as discussed in appendix~\ref{sec:rxteapp}, the
internal consistency of the PCA calibration is now as good as or better
than that for the \textsl{Ginga} calibration.). Note that the best fit Fe
line equivalent widths here are significantly smaller than those found with
the purely phenomenological models discussed in \S\ref{sec:phenom}.
The fits for the HEXTE data alone (not shown) were similar to the OSSE
results of \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{grabelsky:95a}. Namely, if one allows for an exponential
cutoff (typically $\approx 100$\,keV) to the power law, the best fit
reflection fraction becomes $f \aproxlt 0.01$. Such a small reflection
fraction is not surprising considering how well a pure exponentially cutoff
power law fits the HEXTE data (Table~\ref{tab:jwstudb}). If one does
not allow an exponential cutoff, the reflection fraction becomes $f
\aproxgt 3$. Such a fit is trying to mimic a hard power law with a
high energy cutoff.
A joint analysis of the PCA and the HEXTE data should be similar to a joint
analysis of the Ginga and OSSE data. Indeed, such an analysis yields
results comparable to those presented by \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98a} if we
constrain the photon index of the incident power law to be the same for
both the PCA and HEXTE data. Notable for the results of such fits (not
presented) is the fairly large overabundance of Fe ($A_{\rm Fe} =
3.2$--$5.2$). Similarly, \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98a} find a large $A_{\rm
Fe}=2.5$--$3.0$ \emph{except} for a short data set, more likely dominated
by statistical errors rather than systematic errors, where they find
$A_{\rm Fe}=1.6$--$2.0$. For our joint PCA/HEXTE data, the best-fit
reflection fractions were approximately 20\% larger than the best-fit
reflection fraction for PCA data alone. Such an increase in reflection
fraction in general will reproduce the spectral hardening seen in the HEXTE
energy bands. Increasing the average best fit Fe abundance from $\langle
A_{\rm Fe} \rangle = 1.6$ (PCA data alone) to $\langle A_{\rm Fe} \rangle =
4.0$ (joint PCA/HEXTE data) also leads to an increased spectral hardening
above $\approx 7$\,keV, while leaving the spectrum below $\approx 7$\,keV
relatively unchanged. That is, such a fit helps to reproduce the spectral
break at $\approx 10$\,keV.
For the joint PCA/HEXTE analysis, there is clearly a worry that these
results are influenced by the systematic differences between the PCA and the
HEXTE responses. We therefore performed reflection model fits where we
constrained all fit parameters to be the same for the PCA and the HEXTE
data \emph{except} for the incident power law photon index, which we
allowed to vary between the two instruments\footnote{The photon index was
constrained to be the same for HEXTE Cluster~A and~B. The necessary
different normalizations between the PCA and the HEXTE models were
subsumed into the constants multiplying the HEXTE models. As HEXTE
requires a harder power law, these constants were now $0.42$--$0.57$, as
opposed to $\approx 0.7$. Furthermore, the constants showed larger
uncertainties, as the uncertainty of the HEXTE photon index now couples
strongly to the value of the constants.}. Such models provided
reasonably good fits to the data, with $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ ranging from 0.67
to 1.09. The difference between the PCA and the HEXTE best fit photon
indices ranged from 0.05 to 0.13, with an average value of 0.08. This is
consistent with the systematic difference between the best-fit photon
indeces for the Crab spectrum. For these models we find $\langle A_{\rm Fe}
\rangle = 2.3$, which is more consistent with the results for fits to the
PCA data only, and is slightly smaller than the results found by
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98a}. Note that we also find smaller values of the
ionization parameter, $\xi$, than were found by \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98a}.
\subsubsection{Corona Models}\label{sec:corona}
We considered `sphere+disk' Comptonization models (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{dove:97b}) of the
GX~339$-$4 observations. We have previously applied these models to an RXTE
observation of Cygnus~X--1 (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{dove:98a}). The models consist of a
central, spherical corona surrounded by a geometrically thin, flat disk.
Seed photons for Comptonization come from the disk, which has a radial
temperature distribution $kT_{\rm disk}(R) \propto R^{-3/4}$ and a
temperature of 150\,eV at the inner edge of the disk. Hard flux from the
corona further leads to reflection features from the disk or to soft
photons due to thermalization of the hard radiation. The (non-uniform)
temperature and pair balance within the corona are self-consistently
calculated from the radiation field (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{dove:97b}).
As described by \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{dove:97b}, we parameterize our models by the coronal
compactness
\begin{equation}
\ell_{\rm c} \equiv \frac{\sigma_{\rm T}}{m_{\rm e} c^3}\frac{L_{\rm
C}}{R_{\rm C}} ~~,
\label{eq:compact}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{\rm T}$ is the Thomson cross section, $m_{\rm e}$ is the
electron mass, $L_{\rm C}$ is the luminosity of the corona, and $R_{\rm C}$
is the radius of the corona. Likewise, we define a disk compactness,
$\ell_{\rm d} \equiv (1-f_{\rm c}) (\sigma_{\rm T}/m_{\rm e} c^3) P_{\rm
G}/R_{\rm C}$, where $P_{\rm G}$ is the \emph{total} rate of
gravitational energy dissipated in the system, and $f_{\rm c}$ is the
fraction dissipated in the corona. In calculating the numerical models, we
set $\ell_{\rm d} = 1$. Models with other values of $\ell_{\rm d}$ yield
the same ranges of self-consistent coronal temperatures and opacities. In
general $f_{\rm c} = \ell_{\rm c} / (\ell_{\rm d} + \ell_{\rm c})$
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{dove:97b}). Based upon the `sphere+disk' geometry, a fraction $f
\approx 0.32$ of the coronal flux is absorbed by the disk
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{dove:97b}). The models are further parameterized by an initial
electron coronal optical depth, $\tau_{\rm c}$ (approximately equal to the
total optical depth, as pair production is negligible for the parameters of
interest to us), and a normalization constant $A_{\rm kot}$. From the
best-fit compactness and optical depth, the average coronal temperature can
be calculated \emph{a posteriori}.
\begin{table*}
\caption{\small Models of `sphere+disk' Comptonization plus a Gaussian line
fit to PCA data only and HEXTE data only. \label{tab:jwstud3}}
\smallskip
{\small
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
\hline
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
Obs & $E_{\rm Line}$ & $\sigma$ & $A_{\rm Line}$ & EW &
$l_{\rm c}$ & $\tau_{\rm c}$ & $A_{\rm kot}$ & ${\rm const.}$
& $kT_{\rm c}$ & $\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ \\
& (keV) & (keV) & ($\times 10^{-3}$) & (eV) & & & & & (keV) \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\hline
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
01 & $\errtwa{ 6.39}{ 0.18}{ 0.17}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.8}{ 0.2}{ 0.1}$ & $\errtwa{ 3.09}{ 0.60}{ 0.53}$
& $\errtwa{197}{30}{30}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.62}{ 0.05}{ 0.04}$ &
$\errtwa{ 3.3}
{ 0.1}{ 0.1}$ & $\errtwa{ 2.38}{ 0.06}{ 0.08}$
& \nodata & $\errtwa{28.6}{0.4}{0.4}$ & 19.2/53 & 0.36 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
01 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $\errtwa{1.83}{0.17}{0.13}$ & $\errtwa{2.9}{0.5}{0.3}$ &
$\errtwa{0.91}{0.09}{0.09}$ & $\errtwa{0.99}{0.01}{0.01}$ &
$\errtwa{43.9}{8}{8}$ & 71.2/80 &
0.89 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
02 & $\errtwa{ 6.36}{ 0.19}{ 0.19}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.8}{ 0.2}{ 0.1}$ & $\errtwa{ 2.69}{ 0.57}{ 0.50}$
& $\errtwa{194}{41}{36}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.63}{ 0.06}{ 0.05}$ &
$\errtwa{ 3.3}
{ 0.1}{ 0.1}$ & $\errtwa{ 2.07}{ 0.06}{ 0.07}$
& \nodata & $\errtwa{27.9}{0.4}{0.4}$ & 15.7/53 & 0.30 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
02 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $\errtwa{1.96}{0.12}{0.12}$ &
$\errtwa{3.6}{0.3}{0.3}$ &
$\errtwa{0.73}{0.04}{0.03}$ & $\errtwa{0.92}{0.02}{0.02}$ &
$\errtwa{34.0}{3}{2}$ & 67.6/80 &
0.84 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
03 & $\errtwa{ 6.36}{ 0.21}{ 0.16}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.8}{ 0.2}{ 0.2}$ & $\errtwa{ 2.42}{ 0.44}{ 0.49}$
& $\errtwa{182}{33}{37}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.66}{ 0.06}{ 0.06}$ &
$\errtwa{ 3.4}
{ 0.1}{ 0.1}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.95}{ 0.06}{ 0.06}$
& \nodata & $\errtwa{27.9}{0.4}{0.4}$ & 16.7/53 & 0.31 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
03 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $\errtwa{2.21}{0.48}{0.34}$ &
$\errtwa{3.4}{0.7}{1.1}$ &
$\errtwa{0.61}{0.17}{0.08}$ & $\errtwa{1.08}{0.04}{0.04}$ &
$\errtwa{37.4}{26}{7}$ & 72.4/80 &
0.90 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
04 & $\errtwa{ 6.40}{ 0.22}{ 0.17}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.8}{ 0.2}{ 0.2}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.53}{ 0.32}{ 0.34}$
& $\errtwa{174}{36}{39}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.70}{ 0.08}{ 0.07}$ &
$\errtwa{ 3.6}
{ 0.1}{ 0.1}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.27}{ 0.05}{ 0.05}$
& \nodata & $\errtwa{26.6}{0.4}{0.4}$ & 13.5/53 & 0.25 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
04 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $\errtwa{2.09}{0.19}{0.22}$ &
$\errtwa{3.4}{0.6}{0.5}$ &
$\errtwa{0.46}{0.04}{0.04}$ & $\errtwa{0.98}{0.02}{0.02}$ &
$\errtwa{36.9}{9}{6}$ & 78.1/80 &
0.98 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
05 & $\errtwa{ 6.28}{ 0.31}{ 0.97}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.9}{ 0.3}{ 0.3}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.52}{ 0.73}{ 0.17}$
& $\errtwa{138}{100}{100}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.68}{ 0.15}{ 0.08}$ &
$\errtwa{ 4.4}
{ 0.3}{ 0.1}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.53}{ 0.02}{ 0.02}$
& \nodata & $\errtwa{20.6}{0.4}{0.4}$ & 20.5/53 & 0.39 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
05 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $\errtwa{2.89}{0.78}{0.65}$ &
$\errtwa{3.1}{1.1}{2.0}$ &
$\errtwa{0.16}{0.03}{0.03}$ & $\errtwa{0.99}{0.05}{0.05}$ &
$\errtwa{44.9}{103}{13}$ & 71.8/80 &
0.90 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
06 & $\errtwa{ 6.26}{ 0.24}{ 0.22}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.9}{ 0.2}{ 0.2}$ & $\errtwa{ 2.06}{ 0.50}{ 0.46}$
& $\errtwa{186}{45}{42}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.66}{ 0.07}{ 0.05}$ &
$\errtwa{ 3.6}
{ 0.1}{ 0.1}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.57}{ 0.04}{ 0.06}$
& \nodata & $\errtwa{26.2}{0.4}{0.4}$ & 16.5/53 & 0.31 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
06 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $\errtwa{2.33}{0.21}{0.18}$ &
$\errtwa{3.1}{0.6}{0.4}$ &
$\errtwa{0.54}{0.08}{0.04}$ & $\errtwa{0.93}{0.02}{0.02}$ &
$\errtwa{42.3}{11}{8}$ & 88.7/80 &
1.11 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
07 & $\errtwa{ 6.40}{ 0.19}{ 0.18}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.8}{ 0.2}{ 0.2}$ & $\errtwa{ 2.67}{ 0.56}{ 0.49}$
& $\errtwa{192}{41}{35}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.65}{ 0.06}{ 0.05}$ &
$\errtwa{ 3.3}
{ 0.1}{ 0.1}$ & $\errtwa{ 2.06}{ 0.05}{ 0.07}$
& \nodata & $\errtwa{28.4}{0.4}{0.4}$ & 15.6/53 & 0.30 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
07 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $\errtwa{1.99}{0.13}{0.16}$ &
$\errtwa{3.1}{0.4}{0.4}$ &
$\errtwa{0.75}{0.09}{0.04}$ & $\errtwa{0.96}{0.02}{0.02}$ &
$\errtwa{40.7}{10}{6}$ & 102.9/80 &
1.29 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
08 & $\errtwa{ 6.34}{ 0.23}{ 0.21}$ & $\errtwa
{ 0.9}{ 0.2}{ 0.2}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.74}{ 0.40}{ 0.40}$
& $\errtwa{189}{43}{43}$ & $\errtwa{ 0.71}{ 0.08}{ 0.07}$ &
$\errtwa{ 3.7}
{ 0.1}{ 0.1}$ & $\errtwa{ 1.30}{ 0.05}{ 0.05}$
& \nodata & $\errtwa{25.9}{0.4}{0.4}$ & 15.5/53 & 0.29 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
08 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & $\errtwa{2.37}{0.29}{0.23}$ &
$\errtwa{3.7}{0.4}{0.5}$ &
$\errtwa{0.43}{0.03}{0.03}$ & $\errtwa{0.98}{0.02}{0.02}$ &
$\errtwa{34.6}{7}{5}$ & 109.0/80 &
1.36 \\
\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\tablecomments{The three fit parameters of the Comptonization
model are the compactness of the corona, $\ell_{\rm c}$, the coronal
optical depth, $\tau_{\rm c}$, and a normalization constant, $A_{\rm
kot}$. The Gaussian line is parameterized as in the previous tables. From
the best fit parameters, the equivalent width of the line, EW, and the
density averaged coronal temperature, $kT_{\rm c}$, are derived.}
\end{table*}
Attempts to fit these models to the joint PCA/HEXTE data failed. Typical
$\chi^2_{\rm red}$ values, even allowing for the inclusion of an extra
Gaussian line component, were $\aproxgt 1.3$. These fits showed a clear
tendency for a hardening in the HEXTE band, and therefore we considered
them to be influenced by the cross-calibration uncertainties between the
PCA and the HEXTE instruments (Note that our previous fits of Cyg~X-1 used
an earlier version of the PCA response where we applied 1.5\% systematic
uncertainties across the \emph{entire} PCA band; these fits yielded
$\chi^2_{\rm red} \approx 1.6$, \emph{without} considering an additional
Gaussian component). We therefore considered `sphere+disk' models fit to
the PCA and the HEXTE data separately. In Table~\ref{tab:jwstud3}, we
present the best-fit parameters for these models applied to our GX~339$-$4
data.
Although our numerical `sphere+disk' models do include reflection and a
fluorescent Fe line (typical equivalent width $\approx 25$\,eV) from the
disk, the PCA data showed residuals in the 5--7\,keV band, similar
as in in our fits to RXTE data of Cyg~X--1 (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{dove:98a}).
We included an additional Gaussian component to our fits. The equivalent
widths of the additional lines were $\approx 150$\,eV, and they appeared to
be broad ($\sigma \approx 0.8$\,keV). This additional line may be
attributable partly to uncertainties in the PCA response. For these
fits, as well as for the reflection model fits, lines with energies
significantly less than 6.4\,keV can be fit, and this is likely a
systematic effect. Part of the discrepancy between the data and the model,
however, is significant. As we have discussed for our fits to
the RXTE Cyg~X--1 data, there are several possible physical interpretations
for the additional required equivalent width: There may be an overlap
between the disk and the sphere (our models invoke a sharp transition), the
disk may be flared (we model a flat disk), the disk may have non-solar
abundances, or alternatively one might invoke a `patchy disk' embedded in
the corona (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98a}). The best-fit reflection fractions
of $f \approx 0.4$--$0.5$ found above are further indication that our
models may require an additional source of reflected flux.
Allowing an additional Gaussian line component, the fits to the PCA data
yield extremely low $\chi^2_{\rm red}$, which could be indicating that we
are partly fitting systematic features in the PCA response. Note also that
the PCA data fits yielded consistently larger optical depths and
consistently lower compactness parameters than the HEXTE data fits. The
latter was more significant, and is again indicative of the HEXTE response
being harder than the PCA response. Both instruments yielded optical depths
$\tau_{\rm c} \approx 3$--4; however, due to the discrepancy in the
best-fit spectral slopes between the PCA and the HEXTE bands, the best-fit
average coronal temperatures range from 21--30\,keV (PCA) to 34--45\,keV
(HEXTE).
\subsubsection{ADAF Models}\label{sec:adaf}
The basic picture of mass accretion via an ADAF in the context of galactic
BHC was introduced by \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{ichimaru:77a} and has been elaborated upon in
a series of papers by Narayan and collaborators
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{narayan:97a,esin:97c}). The accretion flow is divided into two
distinct zones: the inner part is modeled as a hot, optically thin ADAF
similar in some respects to the spherical corona discussed above, while the
outer part consists of a standard optically thick, geometrically thin disk.
The transition radius between the two zones, $r_{\rm tr}=R_{tr}/R_{\rm G}$,
is one of the model parameters. We compute the ADAF spectrum according to
the procedure described by \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{dimatteo:98a}. The electrons in an ADAF
cool via three processes: bremsstrahlung, synchrotron radiation, and inverse
Compton scattering. In addition we add the emission from a thin disk---
calculated as a standard multicolor blackbody--- and include the Compton
reflection component due to the scattering of high energy photons incident
on the disk.
In the ADAF models discussed here, we fix the black hole mass to be $m
\equiv M/M_\odot = 6$, assume the magnetic field to be in equipartition
with thermal pressure ($\beta =0.5$), and set the standard Shakura-Sunyaev
viscosity parameter (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{shakura:73a}) to be $\alpha_{\rm SS} =0.3$. We
normalize the accretion rate to $\dot m \equiv \dot M c^2 / L_{\rm Edd}$,
where $L_{\rm Edd}$ is the Eddington luminosity of the source. The hard
state corresponds to mass accretion rates $\dot{m} \le \dot{m}_{\rm
crit}=10^{-2}$, where $\dot{m}_{\rm crit}$ is the critical value above
which an ADAF no longer exists. As $\dot{m}$ increases towards
$\dot{m}_{\rm crit}$, the scattering optical depth of the ADAF goes up
which causes the spectrum to become harder and smoother. Most of the flux
from the ADAF plus disk configuration is emitted around 100\,keV and the
spectrum falls off at higher energies.
The model spectrum changes mainly as a function of $r_{\rm tr}$ and
$\dot{m}$. The various spectral states correspond to different values of
these parameters. For example, \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{esin:97c} attempt to explain the
initial transition from soft to hard seen in the decay of Nova Muscae by a
large change in $r_{\rm tr}$ (from $r_{\rm tr} \approx 10$ to $r_{\rm tr}
\approx 10^4$), followed by an exponential decay in $\dot{m}$ for the
subsequent evolution of this transient system. The ASCA data of GX~339$-$4
discussed in \S\ref{sec:asca} imply that comparably large changes in
$r_{\rm tr}$ are not relevant to those observations. Here, however,
unfolded RXTE data from Observation~1 and Observation~5, the brightest and
faintest observation respectively, can be described by ADAF models with
$r_{\rm tr} = 200$, $\dot m = 0.08$ and $r_{\rm tr} = 400$, $\dot m =
0.05$, respectively. These model spectra and RXTE spectra for Observations
1 and 5 unfolded with a cutoff broken power law plus Gaussian line are
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tiz}. In these ADAF models, the observed spectral
and luminosity changes of GX~339$-$4 are predominantly driven by changes in
the transition radius; the implied accretion rate change is substantially
smaller than the factor of 5 for the observed luminosity change.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=Fig6.ps,width=0.45\textwidth} }
\caption{\small Advection Dominated Accretion Flow models for the unfolded
RXTE data from Observation 1 (solid line) and Observation 5 (dash-dot
line). Parameters consistent with the unfolded data are described in the
text. A source distance of 4 kpc was assumed.}
\label{fig:tiz}
\end{figure*}
For $r_{\rm tr} \sim 200$, which provides a rough description of
Observation~1, the disk blackbody emission peaks in the far UV/soft X-rays
and dominates over the synchrotron emission, which peaks in the optical/UV
(see also \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98a}). The peak synchrotron emission frequency
scales as $\propto m^{-1/2}\dot{m}^{1/2}r_{\rm tr}^{5/4}$ and peaks in the
range $\nu = 10^{11}$--$10^{12}$\,Hz for supermassive black holes and $\nu
= 10^{15}$--$10^{16}$\,Hz for galactic black holes. The spectrum below the
peak is approximately $S_\nu \propto \nu^{2}$. The synchrotron emission
can contribute significantly to the radio emission of super-massive black
holes (although see \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{dimatteo:98a}); however, the predicted radio flux
of GX~339$-$4 is ten orders of magnitude below the observed 7 mJy flux at
843 MHz. Thus, there must be an extended source of radio emission, which
we further discuss in the next section.
\section{Simultaneous Radio Observations}\label{sec:radio}
The first three of our RXTE observations were simultaneous with 843\,MHz
observations taken with the Molongolo Observatory Synthesis Telescope
(MOST), and with 8.3--9.1\,GHz observations taken at the Australian
Telescope Compact Array (ATCA). Extensive discussion of the MOST and ATCA
observations can be found in \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{hanni:98a} and \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{corbel:98a},
respectively (see also Table~\ref{tab:log}).
An estimate of the minimum size of the radio emitting region can be
obtained by noting that observationally the brightness temperatures of
radio sources usually are not larger than $10^{12}$\,K, else the electrons
will suffer catastrophic inverse Compton losses. The brightness
temperature of a uniformly bright spherical source is given by $(c D/d
\nu)^2 S_\nu/2\pi k$, where $d$ is the diameter of the source, $D$ is its
distance, $\nu$ is the observed radio frequency, $S_\nu$ is the observed
radio flux density, $c$ is the speed of light, and $k$ is the Boltzmann
constant. Taking the 7\,mJy observed at 843\,Mz by MOST and the fact that
GX~339$-$4 is unresolved, we derive
\begin{equation}
d \aproxgt 4 \times 10^{12}\,{\rm cm} \left ( {{D}\over{4\,{\rm kpc}}}
\right ) \approx 3 \times 10^6\,R_{\rm G} \left ( {{D}\over{4\,{\rm kpc}}}
\right ) \left ( {{M}\over{10\,M_\odot}} \right )^{-1} ,
\label{eq:bright}
\end{equation}
which is orders of magnitude larger than the inferred size of the X-ray
emitting region, even for models that posit extremely extended coronae
(e.g., \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{esin:97c,kazanas:97a}).
This size scale is $\propto \nu^{-1}$, so that emission at 8.6 GHz could
arise in a region an order of magnitude smaller than that responsible for
the emission at 843 MHz. Indeed, the flat spectrum emission is likely to
arise in a conical jet with a radially decreasing optical depth (e.g.,
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{hjellming:88a}). Thus the outflow likely has an extent of ${\cal
O}(10^7~GM/c^2)$ or greater. Similar estimates for source size have been
made for the other persistent black hole candidate and Z-source neutron
star X-ray binaries by \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{fender:99a}.
Assuming a radio spectral index of $\alpha = 0.1$ and a sharp cutoff at
$10\mu {\rm m}$ (a reasonable upper limit for where the radio flux becomes
optically thin, and typical of where ADAF models become optically thin in
the radio), the radio flux is approximately 0.1\% of the 3--100\,keV X-ray
flux. The correlation between the X-ray and radio fluxes found by
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{hanni:98a}, comparable to the X-ray/radio correlation observed in
Cyg~X-1 (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{pooley:98a}), suggests that there is a coupling between the
inner accretion disk and the extended outflow on timescales of 7 days or
less. Matter leaving the corona at the escape velocity (0.25$c$ at $30
R_{\rm G}$) and thereafter decelerating under the influence of gravity
would take roughly 7~days to travel a distance of $10^7 R_{\rm G}$. As 7
days is the upper bound to the correlation timescale, the radio emitting
outflow must leave at slightly greater than escape velocity, or there must
be at least some amount of acceleration of the outflow.
Although the radio observations are strictly simultaneous with our first
three RXTE observations, GX~339$-$4 exhibits less than 1\% rms variability
over the shortest timescales for which a reasonable radio flux estimate can
be made ($\aproxgt 10$ minutes). Thus there are no strong features to
correlate between the radio and X-ray bands.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discuss}
\smallskip
\noindent \emph{Coronal Size and Luminosity Variation:}
The relationship between the inferred size of the corona and the magnitude
of the observed flux depends upon which spectral model we are considering.
As discussed in \S\ref{sec:adaf}, for ADAF models one can associate lower
fluxes with \emph{increased} coronal radii. A larger coronal radius implies
a lower efficiency and hence a decreased observed flux, even for constant
accretion rates. Paper~II shows that the characteristic power spectral
density (PSD) timescale for GX~339$-$4 decreases for the lowest observed
flux (Observation 5). If one associates the PSD timescale with
characteristic disk timescales, this could be in agreement with an
increased coronal radius. However, in paper~II we also show that the time
lags between hard and soft X-ray variability \emph{decreases} with
decreasing flux, which seems counter to a positive correlation between flux
and coronal size.
The `sphere+disk' coronal models make no assumptions about the radiative
efficiency of the accretion. The flux can be either positively or
negatively correlated with coronal radius, depending upon the variations of
the coronal compactness, $\ell_{\rm c}$, and the temperature, $T_{\rm d}$,
at the inner edge of the accretion disk that surrounds the corona
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{dove:97b}). Note that the `sphere+disk' models used in this work,
contrary to many ADAF models, do not consider synchrotron photons as a
source of seed photons for Comptonization.
Using the definitions of $\ell_{\rm c}$, $\ell_{\rm d}$, and $f$ given in
\S\ref{sec:corona}, energy balance in the `sphere+disk' system determines
the coronal radius, to within factors of order unity, to be given by
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\rm C} &\approx& 160
\left ( \frac{\ell_{\rm d}+f \ell_{\rm c}}{\ell_{\rm d} + \ell_{\rm c}}
\right )^{1/2}
\left ( \frac{k T_{\rm d}}{150~{\rm eV}} \right )^{-2}
\left ( \frac{6~M_\odot}{M} \right )
\cr
&\times&
\left ( \frac{D}{4~{\rm kpc}} \right )
\left ( \frac{F_{\rm tot}}{10^{-8}{\rm ergs~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}}} \right )^{1/2}
R_{\rm G} ~~,
\label{eq:coronarad}
\end{eqnarray}
where $M$ is the mass of the compact object, $D$ is the distance to the
source, and $F_{\rm tot}$ is the bolometric flux of the source. If $T_{\rm
d}$, $f$, $\ell_{\rm d}$, and $\ell_{\rm c}$ were held fixed, then the
coronal radius would be positively correlated with flux. Whereas this
might pose some problems for understanding the flux dependence of the
characteristic timescales observed in the PSD, this would agree with the
flux dependence of the X-ray variability time lags (paper~II). However, as
the RXTE bandpass does not usefully extend below $\approx 3$\,keV, we do
not have a good handle on the flux dependence of $T_{\rm d}$. If $T_{\rm
d} \propto F_{\rm tot}^\beta$ with $\beta > 1/4$, then increasing flux
could imply decreasing coronal radius.
\smallskip
\noindent \emph{Correlations Among Spectral Parameters:}
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{
\psfig{figure=Fig7a.eps,width=0.33\textwidth}
\psfig{figure=Fig7b.eps,width=0.33\textwidth}
\psfig{figure=Fig7c.eps,width=0.33\textwidth}
}
\caption{\small {\it Left:} Reflection fraction vs. photon
index, $\Gamma$, for models fit to PCA data only (squares), and models
fit to PCA plus HEXTE data that allowed the PCA and HEXTE photon indeces
and normalizations to be different (diamonds; HEXTE photon index shown).
{\it Middle:} Photon index, $\Gamma$, vs. observed 3--9\,keV flux for the
same reflection models as on the left. Also shown, without error bars, is
the best fit compactness, $\ell_c$, for `sphere+disk' coronal models fit
to HEXTE data (small triangles). {\it Right:} Disk ionization
parameter, $\xi$, in units of ${\rm ergs~cm~s^{-1}}$ for the same
reflection models as on the left. \label{fig:reflect}}
\end{figure*}
\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{ueda:94a} claimed that reflection models of GX~339$-$4 exhibited a
correlation between photon index, $\Gamma$, and reflection fraction, $f$,
with softer spectra implying greater reflection. \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98b} has
claimed that this correlation extends to reflection models of Seyfert~1
galaxies as well. Such a correlation is not unreasonable to expect. For
example, if we allow the corona and disk to overlap to some extent in the
`sphere+disk' model (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{poutanen:97b}), then we expect the increase in
the flux of seed photons to cool the corona and lead to a softer spectral
index. Likewise, the covering fraction of the disk would be increased, in
agreement with the suggested correlation. In Figure~\ref{fig:reflect} we
plot $f$ vs. $\Gamma$ for our reflection model fits to GX~339$-$4.
Contrary to the claims of \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{ueda:94a} and \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{zdziarski:98b},
however, there is no strong evidence for a correlation. Fitting the
reflection fraction with a function linear in $\Gamma$, as opposed to
fitting with the mean value of $f$, improves the $\chi^2$ of the fits by
$0.2$, which is not significant. Fitting with the mean gives
$\chi^2_{\rm red} = 0.2$.
We do note two possible trends from the reflection model fits. First, as
has been noted for other hard state galactic black hole candidates
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{tanaka:95a} and references therein), there may be a correlation
between flux and photon index with lower flux implying a harder source.
(The significance of the correlation is driven by Observation 5, the
faintest and hardest of the observations. However, a similar correlation
is also present in color-intensity diagrams.) Such a correlation is
consistent with the expectations of ADAF models where the radius increases
with decreasing flux (Figure~\ref{fig:tiz}). Again, the `sphere+disk'
corona models do not predict a clear trend without knowing the flux
dependences of other parameters such as $T_{\rm d}$.
Second, the ionization parameter, $\xi$, is positively correlated with
flux. Such a correlation was noted by \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ (##2)}\@internalcite{zycki:98a} for Ginga
observations of Nova Muscae. It is not unreasonable to expect the disk to
become increasingly ionized with increasing flux. We again caution that it
is dangerous to make one-to-one correlations between a model fit parameter
and a true physical parameter. Furthermore, the significance of the
correlation is again almost entirely determined by Observation 5, the
faintest observation, which has $\xi \approx 0$. However, if we take the
flux dependence of $\xi$ as being real and interpret it physically, it
provides some constraints on the flux dependence of the coronal radius.
The ionization parameter is $\propto F_{\rm tot} / (\rho R^2)$, where
$\rho$ is the density of the disk. For a gas pressure-dominated
Shakura-Sunyaev $\alpha$-disk, $\rho \propto R^{-1.65}$
(\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{shakura:73a}). In order for $\xi$ to be roughly linear in flux (the
actual dependence is not strongly constrained by the data), we require
$F_{\rm tot} \proptwid R^{1.35}$. (For the `sphere+disk' models this would
further require $T_{\rm d} \proptwid R^{-1/3}$, depending upon the flux
dependences of $\ell_{\rm d}$, $\ell_{\rm c}$, $g$, etc.) Taken physically
and in the context of a gas pressure dominated Shakura-Sunyaev
$\alpha$-model, the flux dependence of $\xi$ implies that the coronal
radius increases with increasing flux.
\section{Summary}\label{sec:summ}
We have presented a series of observations of the black hole candidate
GX~339$-$4 in low luminosity, spectrally hard states. These observations
consisted of three separate archival ASCA and eight separate RXTE data
sets. All of these observations exhibited (3--9\,keV) flux $\aproxlt
10^{-9}~{\rm ergs~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}}$, and the observed fluxes spanned roughly
a factor of 5 in range for both the ASCA and RXTE data sets. Subject to
uncertainties in the cross calibration between ASCA and RXTE, the faintest
ASCA observation was approximately a factor of two fainter than the
faintest RXTE observation.
All of these observations showed evidence for an $\approx 6.4$\,keV Fe line
with equivalent widths in the range of $\approx 20$--$140$\,eV. The ASCA
observations further showed evidence for a soft excess that was
well-modeled by a power law plus a multicolor blackbody spectrum with peak
temperatures in the range $\approx 150-200$\,eV. Both of these factors
considered together argue against `sphere+disk' or ADAF type-geometry
coronae with extremely large coronal radii of ${\cal O}(10^4~R_{\rm G})$
(e.g., \def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{esin:97c}).
The RXTE data sets were well-fit by `sphere+disk' Comptonization models
with coronal temperatures in the range $20$--$50$\,keV and optical depths
in the range of $\tau \approx 3$. These fits were similar to our previous
fits to RXTE data of Cyg~X-1. Advection Dominated Accretion Flow models,
which posit a similar geometry, also provided reasonable descriptions of
the unfolded RXTE data. The `sphere+disk' and ADAF models were not able,
however, to also model the observed radio fluxes. Thus, a static corona
seems to be ruled out by the observations. The ADAF models can imply that
the coronal radius increases with decreasing flux. The `sphere+disk'
corona models do not make a specific prediction for the dependence of the
coronal radius on the flux; however, they can be consistent with a positive
correlation between coronal radius and flux. As described in paper~II, a
positive correlation between flux and coronal radius is consistent with the
observed flux dependence of the time lags between hard and soft X-ray
variability.
We also considered `reflection models' of the RXTE data. These models
showed evidence of a hardening of the RXTE spectra with decreasing X-ray
flux. They further showed evidence of a positive correlation between the
best-fit ionization parameter, $\xi$, and the observed flux. Especially
the latter of these correlations, however, was dominated by the model fits
of the faintest observation. The reflection models did not exhibit any
evidence of a correlation between the photon index of the incident power
law flux and the solid angle subtended by the reflector.
Three of the RXTE observations were strictly simultaneous with 843\,MHz and
8.3--9.1\,GHz radio observations. The most likely source of the radio flux
is synchrotron emission from an extended outflow with a size of ${\cal
O}(10^7~GM/c^2)$. The correlation between radio and X-ray emission on
timescales of 7 days or less (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{hanni:98a}) implies a strong coupling
of the inner disk accretion flow with this spatially extended outflow as is
expected by recent theoretical arguments (\def\astroncite##1##2{##1\ ##2}\@internalcite{blandford:98a}). Further
simultaneous radio/X-ray observations, preferably with the addition of
IR/optical monitoring to constrain the location of the synchrotron break
and with the addition of soft X-ray monitoring to constrain the accretion
disk parameters, are required to test such models in detail.
\acknowledgements We would like to thank Dr. Christopher Reynolds for
keeping a stiff upper lip while explaining ASCA data analysis to us. We
would also like to thank K.~Mukai of the ASCA GOF for useful advice.
W.A.~Heindl and D.~Gruber kindly provided assistance with the HEXTE data
extraction, and S.~Corbel provided assistance with the radio data. We are
grateful to B.~Stern for writing the original version of kotelp, and, more
importantly, for finally telling us what the name means (`cauldron'). We
would also like to acknowledge useful conversations with M.~Begelman, J.
Chiang, B.A.~Harmon, K.~Pottschmidt, R.~Staubert, C.~Thompson, and
A.~Zdziarski. This work has been financed by NASA Grants {NAG5-4731} and
{NAG5-3225} (MAN, JBD). MN was supported in part by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. Phy94-07194. JW was supported by a travel grant
from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, RPF was supported by an EC
Marie Curie Fellowship (ERBFMBICT 972436), and TDM thanks Trinity College
and PPARC for financial support. This research has made use of data
obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research
Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.
|
\section{Introduction}
In the decade that has passed since the pioneering analytical study of
G\'alfi and R\'acz~\cite{galfi}, there has emerged a substantial body
of research devoted to experimental~\cite{expt,leger},
computational~\cite{jiang,cornell,cornell97,araujo,havlin,kozatait,tait2}
and analytical~\cite{schenkel,vanbaalen,koza1,koza2,peletier96,peletier99} studies of
reaction-diffusion systems with two initially separated, diffusing
species A and B reacting to produce an inert product C according to
the chemical formula
\begin{equation}
m^\prime\mbox{A} + n^\prime\mbox{B}
\rightarrow \mbox{C (inert)} ,
\end{equation}
where $m^\prime$ and $n^\prime$, the stoichiometric coefficients, are
positive integers. Theoretical studies have focused almost exclusively
on the \lq\lq one-dimensional'' case of an infinite, flat reaction
front between two regions of homogeneous composition of either A or B
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:cartoon}). This idealized situation is believed to
capture much of the essential physics of reaction fronts commonly
observed in various chemical~\cite{grindrod,alberty} and
biological~\cite{murray77,murray93} systems.
The standard continuum model for such a one-dimensional reaction front
involves a pair of nonlinear partial differential
equations~\cite{galfi,cornell,schenkel,vanbaalen,koza1}
\begin{subeqnarray}
\frac{\partial \rho_A}{\partial T} & = & D_A \frac{\partial^2 \rho_A}{\partial
X^2} - m^\prime R(\rho_A,\rho_B) \slabel{eq:coup1} \\
\frac{\partial \rho_B}{\partial T} & = & D_B \frac{\partial^2 \rho_B}{\partial
X^2} - n^\prime R(\rho_A,\rho_B) \slabel{eq:coup2} ,
\label{eq:coup}
\end{subeqnarray}
subject to the boundary conditions
\begin{equation}
\rho_A(-\infty,T) = 0, \ \ \rho_A(\infty,T) = \rho_A^o, \ \
\rho_B(-\infty,T) = \rho_B^o, \ \ \rho_B(\infty,T) = 0
\label{eq:rhoBC}
\end{equation}
and the initial conditions
\begin{equation}
\rho_A(X,0) = \rho_A^o H(X) , \ \
\rho_B(X,0) = \rho_B^o H(-X) \label{eq:rhoIC}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_A(X,T)$ and $\rho_B(X,T)$ are the concentrations, $D_A$
and $D_B$ the diffusion coefficients of A and B, respectively,
$\rho_A^o > 0$ and $\rho_B^o > 0$ are constants, $H(X)$ is the
Heaviside unit step function and $R(\rho_A,\rho_B)$ is the reaction
rate density for production of species C.
(Note that upper-case letters denote quantities with dimensions,
e.g. $X$ and $T$ for space and time, respectively. Lower-case letters
for the corresponding dimensionless quantities are introduced in
section~\ref{sec:dim}.)
The reactants are completely separated at first according to
(\ref{eq:rhoIC}), but for $T > 0$ they diffuse together and react,
which decreases the concentrations wherever $\rho_A(X,T)\rho_B(X,T) >
0$. Diffusion acts to replenish any depleted regions. As a result the
system develops a localized, moving region, the \lq\lq reaction
front,'' where the reaction rate $R(\rho_A,\rho_B)$ is greatest and
which is fed by diffusion from the distant particle reservoirs
described by the boundary conditions. The dynamics of this reaction
front are described by the long-time asymptotics of the nonlinear
initial-boundary-value problem (\ref{eq:coup})--(\ref{eq:rhoIC}).
The nonlinear reaction term $R(\rho_A,\rho_B)$ is usually assumed to
have the form of a power law
\begin{equation}
R(\rho_A,\rho_B) = k \rho_A^m \rho_B^n ,
\label{eq:Rpower}
\end{equation}
where $k$ is a rate constant, and $m$ and $n$ are respectively the
\lq\lq kinetic orders'' of A and B in the reaction~\cite{alberty}. For
a one-step reaction with sufficient mixing (see below) $m=m^\prime$
and $n=n^\prime$, but for more complex, multi-step reactions $m$ and
$n$ are determined by the stoichiometric coefficients of the (often
unknown) rate-limiting step. Although $m$ and $n$ are usually taken to
be positive integers, non-integer values of $m$ and $n$ can arise in
certain situations~\cite{alberty}. We will see that a well-defined
reaction front exists for any real numbers $m, n \geq 1$, but not for
$m<1$ or $n<1$.
Technically, by assuming in (\ref{eq:coup}) that the reaction rate $R$
depends only on the average local concentrations (and not on any
fluctuations or many-body effects) we have made the \lq\lq mean-field
approximation''~\cite{cardy}. In low-dimensional systems, such as ion
channels ($d=1$) or catalytic surfaces ($d=2$), the mean-field
approximation can break down because the reacting particles cannot mix
efficiently enough, but as the dimension of the system is increased
above a certain \lq\lq upper critical dimension'' $d_c$, such
statistical anomalies disappear. For two diffusing reactants with a
simple one-step reaction it is known~\cite{cornell,havlin,cardy} that
$d_c = 2/(m+n-1)$. Since $d_c
\leq 2$ for $m,n \geq 1$ the mean-field approximation should be
perfectly valid in the usual case $d=3$, which is consistent with
experimental findings~\cite{expt}.
In contrast to the case of two diffusing reactants described above,
relatively little is
known~\cite{jiang,havlin,koza2,peletier96,peletier99} about the case
of one diffusing reactant ($D_A > 0$) and one static reactant ($D_B =
0$). This situation, depicted schematically in
Fig.~\ref{fig:cartoon}, describes the corrosion of a porous solid B
saturated with a fluid solvent and exposed to an initially separated
colloidal reactant A, as shown in recent electrochemical experiments
(described below) ~\cite{leger}. Jiang and Ebner~\cite{jiang} first
pointed out (for $m=n=1$) that setting $D_B=0$ in (\ref{eq:coup}) is a
non-trivial, i.e. singular, limit leading to different long-time
behavior than in the case of $D_B > 0$ (no matter how small), which
they explained with simple scaling arguments supported by Monte Carlo
computer simulations. For an analytical description of such
one-dimensional diffusion with one static reactant, we adopt the
power-law form of the reaction term and study the coupled equations
\begin{subeqnarray}
\frac{\partial \rho_A}{\partial T} & = & D_A \frac{\partial^2
\rho_A}{\partial X^2} - m^\prime k \rho_{A}^m\rho_{B}^n \slabel{eq:rhoA} \\
\frac{\partial \rho_{B}}{\partial T} & = & - n^\prime k
\rho_{A}^m\rho_{B}^n .
\slabel{eq:rhoB}
\label{eq:rho}
\end{subeqnarray}
In the simplest case $m=n=1$, the initial-boundary-value problem
(\ref{eq:rhoBC})--(\ref{eq:rho}) has been solved numerically by Havlin
et al.~\cite{havlin} and analyzed in the limit of ``long times'' $T
\rightarrow \infty$ by Koza~\cite{koza2}, using various asymptotic
approximations introduced by G\'alfi and R\'acz~\cite{galfi}. Rigorous
analysis has been reported in the analogous limit of ``fast
reactions'' $k\rightarrow\infty$ by Hilhorst et al.~\cite{peletier96},
but these authors only address the behavior at the diffusive length
scale $X \propto \sqrt{T}$ (see section~\ref{sec:diff} below) and do
not consider the structure of the reaction front studied by
Koza~\cite{koza2}, which is of primary interest here. Hilhorst et
al. have also recently considered the effect of a more general
reaction term at the diffusive scale~\cite{peletier99}, but the
present work appears to be the first to analyze the nontrivial effect
of changing reaction orders at the reactive length scale (see below)
in the general case ($m,n\geq 1$) with one static reactant.
The relevance of (\ref{eq:rho}) for a given porous-solid corrosion
system rests on several key assumptions that are less obviously
satisfied {\it a priori} than in the case of two diffusing reactants.
First, the solid matrix containing the static reactant B must be
sufficiently porous that the moving reactant A can diffuse freely to
the exposed surfaces with an effective diffusion constant (averaged
over many pores) comparable to that in the bulk solvent. The
concentration of A must also be dilute enough that $D_A$ is constant.
Another reason that the concentrations of A and B must be dilute is
that the inert product C must be created in small enough quantities
that its presence does not affect the reaction dynamics (e.g. by
inhibiting diffusion or initiating convection). Finally, one might
worry about the breakdown of the mean-field approximation since the
(possibly fractal) pore structure may influence statistical
averaging. For example, it is known that fluctuations alter the
reaction-front dynamics when the diffusion is confined to a
percolating cluster in two dimensions~\cite{havlin}. In spite of these
concerns, however, the one-dimensional mean-field model (\ref{eq:rho})
can in fact describe certain corrosion systems.
An important motivation for the present analytical study is afforded
by the recent experiments of L\'eger {\it et al.}~\cite{leger}, which
are the first to examine in detail the case of one static and one
diffusing reactant. These experiments involve the corrosion of
ramified copper electrodeposits exposed to a cupric chloride
electrolyte to produce cuprous chloride crystallites via the reaction
\begin{equation}
\mbox{CuCl$_2$ (aq) \ + \ Cu (solid) \ $\rightarrow$ \
2 CuCl (solid)} \label{eq:reaction}
\end{equation}
immediately following electrodeposition. It is found that the
long-time behavior of (\ref{eq:rho}) with $m=1$ matches the
experimentally observed front speed and concentration profile of
diffusing reactant (CuCl$_2$) rather well, in spite of the complex
fractal geometry of the electrodeposits and the presence of the inert
product (CuCl)~\cite{leger}. Since the reaction rate and the
concentration of the static species (Cu) are not directly measured,
however, the interpretation of these kinds of corrosion experiments
can be aided by the analysis presented here of the mean-field model
with $m, n \geq 1$.
There is an extensive mathematical
literature~\cite{grindrod,murray77,murray93,gmira,barenblatt96} on the
subject of single reaction-diffusion equations of the general form
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial T} = D \frac{\partial^2 \rho}{\partial
X^2} - f(\rho) \label{eq:single}
\end{equation}
which arise in many applications (e.g. chemical reactions, combustion
and population dynamics).
A common theme in these studies is the appearance of two distinct
(time-dependent) length scales in the intermediate asymptotic regime
($t \rightarrow \infty$) which correspond to either ``weakly nonlinear
behavior'', where it has been established in many cases that the
reaction term is negligible and the dynamics are purely diffusive, or
``strongly nonlinear behavior'', where the reaction and diffusion
terms balance (in the nomenclature of Gmira and
Veron~\cite{gmira}). This separation of scales also arises in coupled
systems of reaction-diffusion equations like (\ref{eq:coup}), but
owing to their greater complexity, much less rigorous analysis has
been reported.
In the case of two diffusing reactants, G\'alfi and
R\'acz~\cite{galfi} pointed out that if the diffusion constants are
the same, $D_A = D_B$, then the difference in concentrations $\rho_A -
\rho_B$ obeys a pure diffusion equation which can be easily
integrated, thereby reducing the coupled system (\ref{eq:coup}) to a
single equation with the form of (\ref{eq:single}). Another
simplification occurs if also $\rho_A^o = \rho_B^o$ in which case the
reaction front is perfectly symmetric and does not move. In this
simplified case with $m=n=1$, Schenkel et al.~\cite{schenkel} were
able to prove that the asymptotic solution of G\'alfi and
R\'acz~\cite{galfi}, which combines different approximations at the
diffusive and reactive scales, is approached uniformly as $T
\rightarrow \infty$ starting from the initial conditions of
(\ref{eq:rhoIC}), and they also reported rigorous bounds on the
transient decay to the asymptotic solution. Recently, van Baalen et
al.~\cite{vanbaalen} have extended this analysis to the case of
symmetric, high-order reactions $m=n>3$, where the reaction-front
scaling is altered.
The analyses of Refs.~\cite{schenkel}--\cite{vanbaalen} represent an
important contribution because, at least in the case $D_A=D_B$,
$\rho_A^o=\rho_B^o$ and $m=n$, they provide a rigorous mathematical
justification for various {\it ad hoc} assumptions introduced by
G\'alfi and R\'acz~\cite{galfi,koza1} to describe the local structure
of the reaction front which have otherwise been validated only by
numerical simulations. Unfortunately, however, since the analysis in
Refs.~\cite{schenkel,vanbaalen} relies on a comparison principle for
single parabolic equations~\cite{aronson,gmira} of the form
(\ref{eq:single}), it does not (as the authors indicate) appear to be
applicable when $D_A \neq D_B$ (which also leads to a moving reaction
front). Van Baalen et al.~\cite{vanbaalen} also remark that their
analysis is not easily extended to certain intermediate reaction
orders ($1 < m=n \leq 3$). These difficulties are reflected in Koza's
recent studies of the general cases $D_A > D_B > 0$ ~\cite{koza1} and
$D_B = 0$ ~\cite{koza2}, in which several {\it ad hoc} (but
reasonable) approximations are made and transients are ignored.
In the present article, the long-time asymptotics of the
initial-boundary-value problem (\ref{eq:rhoBC})--(\ref{eq:rho}) are
studied. This special case of (\ref{eq:coup}) is more tractable
analytically than the general case because (\ref{eq:rhoB}) can be
integrated exactly in time, thereby reducing the coupled system to a
single integro-partial differential equation. This useful
simplification is presented in section~\ref{sec:prelim} where the
problem is recast in a dimensionless form. It is also noted that
similarity solutions are expected to exist because there is no natural
length or time scale in the
problem~\cite{barenblatt96,barenblatt87,dresner}. Although it may be
possible to prove that the system actually approaches such a
self-similar solution starting from the prescribed initial conditions,
we instead pursue the more modest goal of proving that if an
asymptotic similarity solution exists, it must have a certain unique
form, {\it i.e.} we explore the consequences of the
``quasi-stationary approximation''~\cite{cornell,koza1,koza2}. In
section~\ref{sec:similarity}, the similarity solution is
systematically derived, and it is shown that a \lq\lq diffusion
layer'' (where the reaction term is dominated by the diffusion term)
with different scaling properties than the \lq\lq reaction front''
(where the reaction and diffusion terms balance) must exist to satisfy
the boundary conditions. In section~\ref{sec:transients}, the
transient decay of the reaction rate in the diffusion layer is
analyzed, thereby proving {\it a posteriori} that the reaction term
can indeed be neglected in the dominant balance. In
section~\ref{sec:uniform}, a uniformly-valid, asymptotic approximation
is constructed by matching the self-similar forms in the two different
regions. Finally, in section~\ref{sec:disc} some general physical
conclusions are drawn from the analysis,
and in the Epilogue certain similarities are discussed between this
work and the literature on combustion waves.
(Note that section \ref{sec:transients} is more technical and may be
skipped in a first reading.)
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:prelim}
\subsection{Dimensionless Formulation}
\label{sec:dim}
With the definitions,
\begin{subeqnarray}
t \equiv m^\prime k (\rho_A^o)^{m-1}(\rho_B^o)^n T, \ & \ & \ x \equiv
X \sqrt{m^\prime k (\rho_A^o)^{m-1}(\rho_B^o)^n/D_A} \slabel{eq:units}
\\ a(x,t) \equiv \rho_A(X,T)/\rho_A^o, \ & \ & \ b(x,t) \equiv
\rho_B(X,T)/\rho_B^o ,
\end{subeqnarray}
the initial-boundary-value problem (\ref{eq:rhoBC})--(\ref{eq:rho})
may be expressed in a dimensionless form
\begin{subeqnarray}
\frac{\partial a}{\partial t} & = & \frac{\partial^2 a}{\partial x^2} -
a^mb^n \slabel{eq:a} \\
\frac{\partial b}{\partial t} & = & - q a^mb^n . \slabel{eq:b} \\
a(\infty,t) = 1, \ b(\infty,t) = 0, & \ & a(-\infty,t) = 0,
\ b(-\infty,t) = 1 , \slabel{eq:bc} \\
a(x,0) = H(x), & \ & b(x,0) = H(-x) \slabel{eq:ic}
\label{eq:eqs}
\end{subeqnarray}
which involves only one dimensionless parameter:
\begin{equation}
q \equiv \frac{n^\prime\rho_A^o}{m^\prime\rho_B^o} .
\end{equation}
Note that the dimensionless problem (\ref{eq:eqs}) depends only upon
the initial concentrations $\rho_A^o$ and $rho_B^o$ and the
stochiometric coefficients $m^\prime$ and $n^\prime$ through the
parameter $q$; the reaction rate $k$ are the diffusion constant $D_A$
simply set the natural scales for length and time. From
(\ref{eq:units}), we see that the limit of ``fast reactions'' $k
\rightarrow \infty$ (with $X$ and $T$ fixed) corrseponds to the limit
of long (dimensionless) times $t\rightarrow\infty$ at the diffusive
scale $x \propto \sqrt{t}$. (See Ref.~\cite{peletier96} for another
discussion of this correspondence of limits.)
\subsection{The Governing Integro-Partial Differential Equation}
The statement of the problem (\ref{eq:eqs}) will be used in deriving
the asymptotic similarity solution below, but for the transient
analysis described in section ~\ref{sec:transients} it will be
convenient to first integrate (\ref{eq:b}) exactly in time. Note that
(\ref{eq:b}) and (\ref{eq:ic}) imply that $b(x,t) = 0$ for $x>0$ at
all times $t \geq 0$, which reflects the fact that species B cannot
diffuse out of its initial region. For $x < 0$, we integrate
(\ref{eq:b}) using the initial condition (\ref{eq:ic}) to express
$b(x,t)$ as
\begin{equation}
b(x,t) = \left\{ \begin{array} {ll}
e^{-q \phi_m(x,t)} & \ \mbox{if} \ n=1 \\
\left[ 1 + q(n-1)\phi_m(x,t) \right]^{-1/(n-1)} & \ \mbox{if} \
n \neq 1
\end{array}
\right. , \ \ \ x < 0 \label{eq:bint}
\end{equation}
which involves the time-integral of $a(x,t)^m$:
\begin{equation}
\phi_m(x,t) \equiv \int_0^t a(x,\tau)^m d\tau . \label{eq:phidef}
\end{equation}
(Note that a partial differential equation satisfied by $\phi_1(x,t)$
is given in Ref.~\cite{peletier96}.)
Substituting for $b(x,t)$ in (\ref{eq:a}), we obtain a single,
nonlinear integro-partial differential equation for $a(x,t)$, either
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial a(x,t)}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial^2
a(x,t)}{\partial x^2} - H(x) a(x,t)^m e^{-q\int_0^t a(x,\tau)^m
d\tau} \label{eq:ide1}
\end{equation}
if $n=1$ or
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial a(x,t)}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial^2
a(x,t)}{\partial x^2} - \frac{H(x) a(x,t)^m}{\left[ 1 + q(n-1)\int_0^t
a(x,\tau)^m d\tau \right]^{n/(n-1)}} \label{eq:ide2}
\end{equation}
if $n \neq 1$.
Although these equations involve only one unknown function $a(x,t)$,
they are somewhat unwieldy, so we will first seek long-time ($t
\rightarrow \infty$) asymptotic solutions to the coupled system
(\ref{eq:eqs}) in section~\ref{sec:similarity}. The time-dependent
properties of (\ref{eq:ide1}) and (\ref{eq:ide2}) will be studied in
section~\ref{sec:transients}. Before proceeding, however, we digress
to show that physically meaningful solutions exist only if $n \geq
1$. Later in the analysis we will see that $m \geq 1$ is required as
well.
\subsection{A Reaction Front Does Not Exist if $n < 1$}
\label{sec:exist_n}
Consider any point $x_o < 0$. Since species A diffuses to $x_o$ from a
reservoir of constant concentration ($a(\infty,t) = 1$) while species
B is removed by reactions without ever being replenished ($\partial
b(x_o,t)/\partial t < 0$ for all $t > 0$), it is clear that after long
times $a(x_o,t)$ must eventually differ from zero. Therefore, there
exists some $a_\ast(x_o) > 0$ and $t_o > 0$ such that $a(x_o,t) >
a_\ast(x_o)$ for all $t > t_o$. This implies $\phi_m(x_o,t) >
a_\ast(x_o)^m \cdot(t-t_o)$ from (\ref{eq:phidef}) and thus $b(x_o,t)
\rightarrow 0$ from (\ref{eq:bint}) since $q>0$, but a singularity
arises if $n < 1$: The concentration of static reactant $b(x_0,t)$
vanishes at some finite time $t_1$ given by $q(1-n)\phi_m(x_o,t_1)=1$
(which exists because $\phi(x_o,t)$ is continuous, $\phi_m(x_o,0)=0$
and $\phi_m(x_o,\infty)=\infty$). For $t > t_1$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:bint})
predicts imaginary, negative, or diverging solutions for $n < 1$, none
of which are physically meaningful. Therefore, when $n<1$, the
solutions to the model equations break down physically in a finite
time, and in that sense there does not exist a stable, moving reaction
front. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Hilhorst et
al.~\cite{peletier96,peletier99} have shown that well-defined
solutions with free boundaries (at the diffusive scale $x \propto
\sqrt{t}$) can exist when $0 < n < 1$ .
\section{Derivation of the Asymptotic Similarity Solution}
\label{sec:similarity}
\subsection{Scaling of the Reaction Front}
\label{sec:Ac}
The initial-boundary-value problem (\ref{eq:eqs}) possesses no natural
length or time scale, {\it i.e.} it is invariant under power-law
\lq\lq stretching transformations''~\cite{dresner}, and consequently
in the limit $t \rightarrow \infty$ the system is expected to approach
an asymptotic similarity solution in which distance and time are
coupled by power-law scalings~\cite{barenblatt96,barenblatt87}. Since
reactant A diffuses while reactant B does not, the (presumably unique)
point of maximal reaction rate $r(a,b) = a^mb^n$ moves in the $-x$
direction toward the reservoir of reactant B. Therefore, an asymptotic
similarity solution, if one exists, must involve a moving frame of
reference centered on some point $x_f(t)$ identifying the position of
the reaction front at or near the point of maximal reaction rate (with
$dx_f/dt < 0$). Let $x_f(t) = -2 \nu t^\sigma$, where $\nu(q) > 0$ is
a constant (akin to the \lq\lq speed'' of the front) to be determined
self-consistently during the analysis, and consider an arbitrary
coordinate stretching transformation in the moving reference frame,
\begin{equation}
\eta \equiv \frac{x + 2\nu t^\sigma}{t^\alpha} .
\end{equation}
where $w(t) = t^\alpha$ is the width of the reaction front indicated
in Fig.~\ref{fig:cartoon}. (The factor of two is included only for
algebraic convenience.)
In the neighborhood of $x_f(t)$, we
also allow the magnitude of $a(x,t)$ to vary with a power-law scaling,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{{\cal A}}(\eta,t) \equiv t^{\gamma} a(x,t) . \label{eq:Acdef}
\end{equation}
If $\gamma \neq 0$, then another similarity solution far away from the
reaction front (in the \lq\lq diffusion layer'' shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:cartoon} and defined below) will be needed to satisfy
the boundary condition $a(\infty,t)=1$. This possibility that {\it two
regions with different asymptotically self-similar dynamics for
$a(x,t)$} could arise is suggested by the fact that there are two
driving terms, representing diffusion and reaction, on the right-hand
side of (\ref{eq:a}) with different behaviors under stretching
transformations. On the other hand, there is only the reaction term on
the right-hand side of (\ref{eq:b}), so {\it $b(x,t)$ can exhibit
only one type of asymptotic scale invariance}. This is the main
mathematical consequence of the physical fact that reactant B does not
diffuse. Since $b(-\infty,1)=1$, we consider the transformation
\begin{equation}
\tilde{{\cal B}}(\eta,t) \equiv b(x,t) .
\end{equation}
Note that the reaction term $r(a,b) = a^mb^n$ has the scaling, $r
= t^{-\beta}\tilde{{\cal A}}^m\tilde{{\cal B}}^n$, where $\beta = m\gamma$ in
the notation of G\'alfi and R\'acz~\cite{galfi}.
These transformations leave the governing equations in the form:
\begin{subeqnarray}
t^{(m-1)\gamma} \frac{\partial \tilde{{\cal A}}}{\partial t}
- t^{(m-1)\gamma-1} \left(\gamma\tilde{{\cal A}} + \alpha\eta\frac{\partial
\tilde{{\cal A}}}{\partial \eta}\right) & & \nonumber \\
+ t^{(m-1)\gamma-1-\alpha+\sigma} 2\sigma\nu
\frac{\partial \tilde{{\cal A}}}{\partial \eta}
& = & t^{(m-1)\gamma-2\alpha}
\frac{\partial^2 \tilde{{\cal A}}}{\partial \eta^2} - \tilde{{\cal A}}^m \tilde{{\cal B}}^n ,
\slabel{eq:Aclong} \\
t^{m\gamma} \frac{\partial \tilde{{\cal B}}}{\partial t}
- t^{m\gamma-1} \alpha \eta \frac{\partial \tilde{{\cal B}}}{\partial \eta}
+ t^{m\gamma-1-\alpha+\sigma} 2\sigma\nu \frac{\partial \tilde{{\cal B}}}{\partial
\eta} & = & - q \tilde{{\cal A}}^m \tilde{{\cal B}}^n . \slabel{eq:Bclong}
\label{eq:AcBclong}
\end{subeqnarray}
We now look for asymptotically invariant solutions
\begin{subeqnarray}
& & \tilde{{\cal A}}(\eta,t) \rightarrow {\cal A}(\eta), \ \ \ \frac{\partial
\tilde{{\cal A}}}{\partial \eta}(\eta,t)
\rightarrow {\cal A}^\prime(\eta), \ \ \ \frac{\partial^2
\tilde{{\cal A}}}{\partial \eta^2}(\eta,t) \rightarrow
{\cal A}^{\prime\prime}(\eta) \slabel{Ac_converge} \\
& & \tilde{{\cal B}}(\eta,t) \rightarrow {\cal B}(\eta), \ \ \ \frac{\partial
\tilde{{\cal B}}}{\partial \eta}(\eta,t)
\rightarrow {\cal B}^\prime(\eta)
\label{eq:AcBc_converge}
\end{subeqnarray}
as $t \rightarrow \infty$ with $|\eta| < \infty$ fixed. For
consistency with our definition of the reaction front, we require that
there is in each equation a dominant balance between the reaction term
${\cal A}^m {\cal B}^n$ and at least one other non-vanishing term. In order for
time invariance to be attained, we assume that time-dependent terms in
the transformed coordinates are negligible compared to the reaction
term, {\it i.e.}
\begin{equation}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}t^{(m-1)\gamma} \frac{\partial \tilde{{\cal A}}}{\partial
t}
= \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}t^{m\gamma} \frac{\partial \tilde{{\cal B}}}{\partial t}
= 0 , \label{eq:rfstat}
\end{equation}
which is a precise statement of the assumption of \lq\lq
quasi-stationarity''~\cite{koza2}.
A dominant balance with the reaction term in (\ref{eq:Aclong})
implies that at least one of the following three cases must be true:
\begin{description}
\item[Case A1:] $\ \ (m-1)\gamma-2\alpha = 0, \ \
(m-1)\gamma-1-\alpha+\sigma\leq 0, \ \ (m-1)\gamma-1\leq 0,$
\item[Case A2:] $\ \ (m-1)\gamma-2\alpha \leq 0, \ \
(m-1)\gamma-1-\alpha+\sigma= 0, \ \ (m-1)\gamma-1\leq 0,$
\item[Case A3:] $\ \ (m-1)\gamma-2\alpha\leq 0, \ \
(m-1)\gamma-1-\alpha+\sigma\leq 0, \ \ (m-1)\gamma-1= 0.$
\end{description}
Likewise a dominant balance in (\ref{eq:Bclong}) requires that one
of the following two cases must hold:
\begin{description}
\item[Case B1:] $\ \ m\gamma-1 = 0, \ \ m\gamma-1-\alpha+\sigma\leq 0,$
\item[Case B2:] $\ \ m\gamma-1 \leq 0, \ \ m\gamma-1-\alpha+\sigma = 0.$
\end{description}
There are only two combinations of these cases that are logically
consistent:
\begin{description}
\item[Traveling Wave Case:] (A2,\ B2) $\ \ \alpha \geq 0,\ \
\gamma = 0, \ \ \sigma = 1 + \alpha$, and
\item[Diffusing Front Case:] (A1,\ B2) $\ \ \alpha = (m-1)\gamma/2, \
\ \sigma = 1 - (m+1)\gamma/2, \ \ 0 < \gamma \leq 1/m$.
\end{description}
In the first case, we have $\sigma \geq 1 $, which implies that the
reaction front advances at least linearly, {\it e.g.} as a traveling
wave $x_f \sim t$, but in the second case, the front advances
sublinearly, {\it e.g.} as a diffusing front $x_f \sim t^{1/2}$. In
both cases, note that the reaction order $n$ of the static species B
plays no role in the scaling behavior. The same conclusion is also
true of the reaction order $m$ of the diffusing species A in the
Traveling Wave Case, but $m$ does affect the scaling exponents in the
Diffusing Front Case.
Consider the possibility $\gamma=0$, which is only
consistent with the Traveling Wave Case. In this case, a single
asymptotic scale invariance is attained everywhere, and the equations
for ${\cal A}(\eta)$ and ${\cal B}(\eta)$ are
\begin{subeqnarray}
2\sigma\nu {\cal A}^\prime & = & \delta_{\alpha,0} {\cal A}^{\prime\prime} -
{\cal A}^m{\cal B}^n \\
2\sigma\nu {\cal B}^\prime & = & -q {\cal A}^m{\cal B}^n
\end{subeqnarray}
where $\delta_{x,y}$ is the Kronecker delta. By combining these
equations and integrating once using the boundary conditions behind
the front, {\it i.e.} ${\cal A}(\infty) = 1$, ${\cal A}^\prime(\infty)=0$ and
${\cal B}(\infty)=0$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
2\sigma\nu({\cal B} + q) = q (2\sigma\nu {\cal A} - \delta_{\alpha,0}
{\cal A}^{\prime}) .
\end{equation}
Applying the boundary conditions ahead of the front,
${\cal A}(-\infty)={\cal A}^{\prime}(-\infty)=0$ and ${\cal B}(-\infty)=1$, to this
equation then implies $\sigma\nu(1+q) = 0$, which is a contradiction
since $\sigma > 0$ and $\nu > 0$ are needed for the reaction front to
move at all (and $q > 0$).
In this way, we are forced to consider at least {\it two regions with
different scale invariance} if there is to be any hope of an
asymptotic similarity solution. Since the second type of scale
invariance is associated with the dominance of the diffusion term
versus the reaction term in (\ref{eq:a}), it must occur only on
the back ($+x$) side of the reaction front due to the reservoir of
reactant A at infinity, $a(\infty,t) = 1$ (see
Fig.~\ref{fig:cartoon}). To describe the scale invariance of the
diffusion layer, we postulate another power law $W(t) = t^\delta$ for
the asymptotic width of the diffusion layer.
\subsection{Scaling of the Diffusion Layer}
Since $\delta \neq \alpha$, there are two possibilities, each
involving a singular perturbation $w/W = t^{\alpha-\delta}$:
\begin{description}
\item[Infinitely Thin Reaction Front Case:] \ $\delta > \alpha$, \ $w =
o(W)$,
\item[Infinitely Thin Diffusion Layer Case:] \ $\delta < \alpha$, \ $W =
o(w)$.
\end{description}
Since chemical reactions are typically much faster than diffusion, the
former case seems more reasonable on physical grounds, but we do not
rule out the latter case {\it a priori}. In the Infinitely Thin
Reaction Front Case, the reaction front is defined by $x-x_f =
O(w)$ and the diffusion layer by $W =
O(x-x_f)$, $x>x_f$, whereas in the Infinitely Thin Diffusion
Layer Case, the reaction front is defined by $w =
O(x-x_f)$, $x<x_f$ and the diffusion layer by $x-x_f =
O(W)$. In both cases, we view the reaction front as
representing the \lq\lq inner problem'' (with similarity variable
$|\eta|<\infty$) and the diffusion layer as representing the \lq\lq
outer problem'' (with similarity variable $\zeta > 0$ defined
below). The two regions are connected by asymptotic matching of the
limits $\eta\rightarrow \infty$ and $\zeta \rightarrow 0^+$ (described
in the next section) ~\cite{hinch,bender}.
In order to treat the outer problem, we transform the original
equations using a new reduced coordinate with power-law scalings,
\begin{equation}
\zeta \equiv \frac{x + 2\nu t^\sigma}{2 t^\delta} , \ \ \ \
\tilde{A}(\zeta,t) \equiv a(x,t), \ \ \ \
\tilde{B}(\zeta,t) \equiv b(x,t) .
\label{eq:zeta}
\end{equation}
(Another factor of two is included in $\eta= 2t^{\delta-\alpha}\zeta$
for algebraic convenience. Note the use of $A$ and $B$ for the
diffusion layer versus ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$ for the reaction front.) Under
this transformation, the equations take the form,
\begin{subeqnarray}
t^{2\delta}\frac{\partial \tilde{A}}{\partial t} - t^{2\delta-1} \delta\zeta
\frac{\partial \tilde{A}}{\partial \zeta} +
t^{\delta+\sigma-1} \sigma\nu \frac{\partial \tilde{A}}{\partial \zeta} & = &
\frac{1}{4}\frac{\partial^2 \tilde{A}}{\partial \zeta^2}
- t^{2\delta} \tilde{A}^m \tilde{B}^n ,
\slabel{eq:Along} \\
t^{2\delta}\frac{\partial \tilde{B}}{\partial t}
- t^{2\delta-1} \delta\zeta \frac{\partial \tilde{B}}{\partial \zeta} +
t^{\delta+\sigma-1} \sigma\nu \frac{\partial \tilde{B}}{\partial \zeta} & = &
- t^{2\delta} q \tilde{A}^m \tilde{B}^n .
\slabel{eq:Blong}
\label{eq:ABlong}
\end{subeqnarray}
Seeking an asymptotic similarity solution, we assume that invariance
is achieved in the transformed equations
\begin{subeqnarray}
& & \tilde{A}(\zeta,t) \rightarrow A(\zeta), \ \ \ \frac{\partial
\tilde{A}}{\partial \zeta}(\zeta,t)
\rightarrow A^\prime(\zeta), \ \ \ \frac{\partial^2
\tilde{A}}{\partial \zeta^2}(\zeta,t) \rightarrow
A^{\prime\prime}(\zeta) \slabel{eq:A_converge} \\
& & \tilde{B}(\zeta,t) \rightarrow B(\zeta), \ \ \ \frac{\partial
\tilde{B}}{\partial \zeta}(\zeta,t)
\rightarrow B^\prime(\zeta) \slabel{eq:B_converge}
\label{eq:AB_converge}
\end{subeqnarray}
assuming time-variations in (\ref{eq:A_converge}) are small relative
to the diffusion term
\begin{equation}
\lim_{t \rightarrow\infty} t^{2\delta}\frac{\partial
\tilde{A}}{\partial t}(\zeta,t) = 0,\ \
\mbox{for}\ \zeta>0. \label{eq:dlstat}
\end{equation}
In order to obtain a different scaling from the reaction front, the
reaction term must also not enter into the dominant balance
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Rzero}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} t^{2\delta} \tilde{A}(\zeta,t)^m
\tilde{B}(\zeta,t)^n = 0
\ \ \mbox{for $\zeta > 0$,}
\end{equation}
a condition that we will check {\it a posteriori} for consistency in
section~\ref{sec:transients}. Note that this limit vanishes trivially
for $\zeta > \nu$ since we have already noted that $b(x,t)=0$ for all
$x>0$. From (\ref{eq:Blong}), this condition would imply $\partial
\tilde{B}/\partial
\zeta = 0$, which together with the boundary condition $\tilde{B}(\infty) = 0$
would imply $\tilde{B}(\zeta) = 0$. With the reaction term gone, one
of the terms on the left-hand side of (\ref{eq:Along}) must balance
the $\partial^2 \tilde{A}/\partial \zeta^2$ term on the right side; if
not, we would have $\partial^2 \tilde{A}/\partial \zeta^2=0$, which
cannot satisfy all of the boundary conditions. There are only two
possible dominant balances:
\begin{description}
\item[Case D1:] $\delta+\sigma-1 =0 \ \ \mbox{and} \ \
2\delta-1 \leq 0$,
\item[Case D2:] $\delta+\sigma-1 \leq 0 \ \ \mbox{and} \ \
2\delta-1 = 0$.
\end{description}
The former case implies $\sigma > 1/2$ and hence contains the
Traveling Wave Case (and not the Diffusing Front Case). With the
scaling relations of case D1, Eq.~(\ref{eq:Along}) has the asymptotic
form
\begin{equation}
\sigma\nu A^\prime = \frac{1}{4} A^{\prime\prime}.
\end{equation}
The solutions to this equation exhibit exponential growth as $\zeta
\rightarrow \infty$, which is incompatible
with the boundary condition $A(\infty) = 1$. Therefore, we conclude
that Case D1, and hence also the Traveling Wave Case, is not
consistent with the boundary conditions. At this point, we are left
with Case D2 together with the Diffusing Front Case (A1,B2), which
imply $W \sim \sqrt{t}$, thus justifying the term \lq\lq diffusion
layer" for the region $\zeta > 0$.
\subsection{Asymptotic Matching of the Reaction Front and Diffusion
Layer}
One more condition is needed to uniquely determine the scaling
exponents, and it comes from asymptotic matching: The \lq\lq outer
limit'' $\eta \rightarrow \infty$ of the inner approximation must
match with the \lq\lq inner limit'' $\zeta \rightarrow 0^+$ of the
outer approximation (because both are asymptotic representations of
the same function). Unlike the more familiar case of boundary layers
of ordinary differential equations~\cite{hinch,bender}, however, our
system of partial differential equations will require extra care
for matching because the limit $t \rightarrow \infty$ (with either
$\zeta$ or $\eta$ fixed) must be taken before the inner and
outer limits.
Since $B(\zeta) = 0$ for all $\zeta > 0$, the only matching condition
for $b(x,t)$ is trivial, ${\cal B}(\infty) = 0$, but the matching
conditions for $a(x,t)$ are more subtle. Since $\gamma > 0$, the
concentration of species $A$ approaches $0$ in the reaction front:
$a(x,t) = O(t^{-\gamma})$ as $t
\rightarrow \infty$ with $|\eta|<\infty$ fixed. Therefore, a boundary
condition on the outer problem is $A(\zeta) = 0$, but unfortunately
this does not provide a boundary condition on the inner problem.
Instead, we must consider matching at the next (linear) order of
Taylor expansion in the intermediate region:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial a}{\partial x} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\partial \tilde{A}}{\partial \zeta} \frac{\partial
\zeta}{\partial x} \sim
\frac{A^\prime(\zeta)}{2t^\delta} & \ \ \mbox{as} \ t \rightarrow
\infty \ \mbox{with} \ 0 < \zeta < \infty \ \mbox{fixed} \\
\frac{1}{t^\gamma} \frac{\partial \tilde{{\cal A}}}{\partial \eta}
\frac{\partial \eta}{\partial x} \sim
\frac{{\cal A}^\prime(\eta)}{t^{\alpha+\gamma}} & \ \ \mbox{as} \ t \rightarrow
\infty \ \mbox{with} \ |\eta| < \infty \ \mbox{fixed}
\end{array} \right. .
\end{equation}
Now requiring that the two intermediate limits match yields the final
scaling relation:
\begin{equation}
\alpha + \gamma = \delta \label{eq:agd}
\end{equation}
as well as the missing boundary condition on the inner problem:
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}^{\prime}(\infty) = A^\prime(0)/2 .
\label{eq:fluxmatch}
\end{equation}
(Note that $A(\zeta)$ is already fully determined by matching at
zeroth order.) This scaling relation (\ref{eq:agd}) can be understood
physically as expressing conservation of mass between the diffusion
layer and reaction front \cite{jiang}. Similarly, the matching
condition (\ref{eq:fluxmatch}) simply means that the diffusive flux
entering the reaction front equals the flux leaving the diffusion
layer.
By examining all possible similarity solutions with power-law
couplings of distance and time, we finally arrive at a {\it unique}
set of scaling exponents from cases A1, B2 and D2 and
(\ref{eq:agd}):
\begin{equation}
\alpha = \frac{m-1}{2(m+1)},\ \ \beta = \frac{m}{m+1}, \ \
\gamma = \frac{1}{m+1}, \ \ \sigma = \delta = \frac{1}{2} .
\label{eq:exponents}
\end{equation}
Therefore, after long times the reaction front itself \lq\lq diffuses"
according to $x_f(t) = -2\nu\sqrt{t}$, where $\nu(q)^2$ is now
interpreted as an effective diffusion constant for the front.
Although for $m = 1$ the reaction zone settles down to a constant
width ($\alpha = 0$), for $m>1$ the front width grows in time ($\alpha
> 0$). In all cases the reaction front is \lq\lq infinitely thin"
compared to the diffusion layer ($\alpha < \delta$). Note that as $m$
increases, $\gamma$ tends to zero, meaning that the concentration in
the reaction front does not decrease as quickly for higher-order
reactions as it does for first-order reactions. The exponents
$\alpha=0$ and $\gamma = 1/2$ for the case $m=1$ were first obtained
by Jiang and Ebner~\cite{jiang} based on physical arguments supported
by Monte Carlo simulations and later discussed in an analytical
context by Koza~\cite{koza2}, but to our knowledge prior to this work
neither have the general expressions for $m \neq 1$ been given nor
have the scaling exponents been proven to be unique. With the scaling
exponents and matching boundary conditions now determined, we proceed
to solve the inner and outer boundary-value problems in the following
sections.
\subsection{Concentration Profiles in the Diffusion Layer}
\label{sec:diff}
In the diffusion layer from (\ref{eq:ABlong})--(\ref{eq:Rzero}) we
have
\begin{equation}
-2(\zeta - \nu)A^{\prime} = A^{\prime\prime}, \ \ \
A(0)=0, \ A(\infty)=1 . \label{eq:Aeq}
\end{equation}
The exact solution to this boundary value problem can be expressed in
terms of error functions~\cite{abra}
\begin{equation}
A(\zeta) = \frac{\mbox{erf}(\zeta-\nu) + \mbox{erf}(\nu)}{1 + \mbox{erf}(\nu)}
\label{eq:diffA}
\end{equation}
and is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:A}. Note that the dimensionless flux
entering the reaction front
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}_1(\nu) \equiv \frac{A^\prime(0)}{2} =
\frac{e^{-\nu^2}}{\sqrt{\pi}(1 + \mbox{erf}(\nu))} \label{eq:A1}
\end{equation}
is needed for asymptotic matching in (\ref{eq:fluxmatch}).
The effect of varying $q = n^\prime \rho_A^o/(m^\prime\rho_B^o)$ is
easily understood in terms of the mathematical model. As $q$ is
decreased, the reaction front slows down since reactions in the front
region remove species A much faster than diffusion can replenish
it. In the limit $q\rightarrow 0$, {\it i.e.} $\rho_A^o\rightarrow 0$,
the front comes to a complete stop, $\nu(0) = 0$. For very small, but
finite $q > 0$, the concentration of diffusing reactant approximately
obeys
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial a}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial^2 a}{\partial x^2}, \ \
\ a(x,0) = H(x), \ \ \ a(0,t) = 0, \ \ a(\infty,t) = 1 , \ \ x \geq 0
\end{equation}
(at least for $t \ll \nu^{-2}$ since the reaction front is stationary
only for short times). This classical diffusion problem has the exact
similarity solution
\begin{equation}
a(x,t) = \mbox{erf}\left(\frac{x}{2\sqrt{t}}\right) , \label{eq:Anuzero}
\end{equation}
which is precisely the $\nu=0$ curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:A}. From
(\ref{eq:diffA}) note that even when the front has moved
significantly ($t \gg \nu^{-2}$) the concentration still has the same
shape, $A(\zeta) \approx \mbox{erf}(\zeta)$, in the (very slowly) moving
reference frame, as long as $\nu(q) \ll 1$.
On the other hand, as $q$ is increased, the reaction term becomes
progressively less important compared to the diffusion term in
(\ref{eq:a}). In the limit $q \rightarrow \infty$, {\it i.e.}
$\rho_B^o \rightarrow 0$, we recover another classical diffusion
problem (after sufficiently long times $t \gg \nu^{-2}$)
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial a}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial^2 a}{\partial x^2}, \ \
\ a(x,0) = H(x),\ \ \ a(-\infty,t) = 0, \ \ a(\infty,t) = 1 ,
\end{equation}
which has the exact similarity solution
\begin{equation}
a(x,t) = \frac{1}{2} \left[ 1 +
\mbox{erf}\left(\frac{x}{2\sqrt{t}}\right)\right]
\label{eq:Anuinfty}
\end{equation}
Note that in the limit $q \rightarrow \infty$ the reaction front
instantly speeds off to $-\infty$ having consumed only a negligible
amount of reactant A, resulting in a pure diffusion problem for
$a(x,t)$. Indeed, we will see below that $\nu(\infty) = \infty$. It
remains, of course, to relate $\nu$ and $q$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:A}(b), we see how the true asymptotic similarity
solution $A(\zeta)$ interpolates between the limiting forms
(\ref{eq:Anuzero}) and (\ref{eq:Anuinfty}) as $\nu$ goes from $0$ to
$\infty$, respectively. It turns out that for $\nu \geq 2$ the
asymptotic behavior of the original reaction-diffusion system is
almost indistinguishable from (\ref{eq:Anuinfty}) for $t \gg 1/4$.
\subsection{Diffusion Constant of the Reaction Front}
In the reaction front, we have a third-order system of nonlinear
ordinary differential equations
\begin{subeqnarray}
0 & = & {\cal A}^{\prime\prime} - {\cal A}^m {\cal B}^n \slabel{eq:Ac} \\
\nu {\cal B}^\prime & = & - q {\cal A}^m {\cal B}^n , \slabel{eq:Bc}
\label{eq:AcBc}
\end{subeqnarray}
with four boundary conditions
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}(-\infty) = 0,\ \, {\cal B}(-\infty) = 1, \ \ {\cal B}(\infty) = 0, \ \
\mbox{and} \ \
{\cal A}^\prime(\infty) = {\cal A}_1 ,
\end{equation}
where ${\cal A}_1(\nu)$ is known via (\ref{eq:A1}). Although this
boundary-value problem appears to be overdetermined, the fourth
boundary condition is actually necessary to determine the unknown
diffusion constant of the reaction front $\nu(q)$.
By comparing (\ref{eq:AcBclong}) and (\ref{eq:AcBc}), some physical
insight into the dynamics of the reaction front is gained. The
concentration of diffusing reactant A is determined by a local balance
of reactions and \lq\lq steady state" diffusion and the concentration
of static reactant B by a local balance of reactions and fictitious
advection due to the translating reference frame. The latter balance
reflects the special character of $D_B = 0$: Since reactant B cannot
diffuse to the front, instead the front must diffuse to it. This is no
longer true if $D_B>0$ (no matter how small), which explains why
different scaling exponents arise in that case~\cite{galfi,jiang}.
These physical properties are manifested in the mathematical model by
the fact that since it multiplies the highest derivative in the
equations $D_B > 0$ is a singular perturbation.
One integration of (\ref{eq:AcBc}) is easy to perform and fortunately
suffices to derive an exact expression for $\nu(q)$. Substituting
(\ref{eq:Bc}) into (\ref{eq:Ac}), integrating and applying the
boundary conditions at $\eta = \infty$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\nu {\cal B} = q ({\cal A}_1 - {\cal A}^\prime) .
\end{equation}
Likewise enforcing the boundary conditions at $\eta = -\infty$, we
find $\nu = q {\cal A}_1$. Substituting ${\cal A}_1$ from (\ref{eq:A1}), we have
\begin{equation}
\nu(q) = F^{-1}(q) ,
\label{eq:qnu}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
F(x) \equiv \sqrt{\pi} x e^{x^2}\left[ 1 + \mbox{erf}(x)\right] ,
\end{equation}
which was first derived by Koza~\cite{koza2}. The function
$\nu(q)$ is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:nuq}.
The transcendental function $F(x)$ cannot be inverted analytically,
but limiting formulae can be derived. The Maclaurin series of $F(x)$
is
\begin{equation}
F(x) = \sqrt{\pi} x + 2 x^2 + \sqrt{\pi} x^3 + \frac{4}{3}x^4 +
\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}x^5 + \frac{8}{15}x^6 + \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{6}x^7 + \ldots ,
\end{equation}
which can be inverted term by term to generate the Maclaurin series of
$\nu(q)$, valid for small $q$,
\begin{equation}
\nu(q) = \frac{1}{\pi^{1/2}} q - \frac{2}{\pi^{3/2}}q^2 + \frac{8 -
\pi}{\pi^{5/2}}q^3 - \ldots .
\end{equation}
For large $q$, approximations such as,
\begin{equation}
\nu(q) \sim \sqrt{\log\left(\frac{q}{\sqrt{\pi}}\right) - \log 2
- \frac{1}{2}\log\log\left(\frac{q}{\sqrt{\pi}}\right) } ,
\end{equation}
can be generated by iteration.
\subsection{Existence and Uniqueness of the Reaction-Front Scaling
Functions}
\label{sec:exist}
With the results of the previous section, the inner boundary-value
problem is reduced to a nonlinear, second-order equation for ${\cal A}(\eta)$:
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}^{\prime\prime} = {\cal A}^m(1 - {\cal A}^\prime/{\cal A}_1)^n,
\ \ \ {\cal A}(-\infty)=0, \ \ {\cal A}^\prime(\infty)={\cal A}_1 .
\label{eq:AcODE}
\end{equation}
Once this system is solved, ${\cal B}(\eta)$ is recovered from ${\cal B}(\eta) = 1 -
{\cal A}^\prime(\eta)/{\cal A}_1$. Note that (\ref{eq:AcODE}) is
invariant under translation $\eta \mapsto
\eta - \eta_o$, where the arbitrary constant $\eta_o$ sets the precise
location of the reaction front. Since $\eta_o$ depends on the exact
initial conditions, however, it cannot be determined by considering
only the long-time asymptotic limit as we have done here.
Since the second-order equation (\ref{eq:AcODE}) is autonomous ({\it
i.e.} $\eta$ does not appear), it is useful to consider the
\lq\lq Lie diagram''~\cite{dresner} or \lq\lq phase
plane''~\cite{bender,davis} of trajectories in the $({\cal A},{\cal B})$ plane
parameterized by $\eta$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Lie}. By studying
properties of the phase plane, it is straightforward to prove the
existence and uniqueness of solutions if and only if $m,n
\geq 1$ and ${\cal A}_1 > 0$. With the change of variables
\begin{equation}
s \equiv {\cal A}_1^{(m-1)/(m+1)} \eta,
\ \ \ u(s) \equiv {\cal B}(\eta), \ \ \ v(s) \equiv {\cal A}_1^{-2/(m+1)}
{\cal A}(\eta), \label{eq:uvdef}
\end{equation}
we begin by transforming (\ref{eq:AcODE}) into a system of first-order
equations
\begin{subeqnarray}
u^\prime & = & - v^m u^n \slabel{eq:uODE} \\
v^\prime & = & 1 - u \slabel{eq:vODE}
\label{eq:uv}
\end{subeqnarray}
with boundary conditions $v(-\infty)=0$ and $u(\infty) = 0$, or
equivalently $u(-\infty)=1$ and $v^\prime(\infty)=1$.
There is a unique fixed point at $(u,v) = (1,0)$ corresponding to the
region ahead of the reaction front which contains only the static
reactant B. This is the starting point ($s=-\infty$) of any
trajectories that satisfy the boundary condition $v(-\infty)=0$, so
our task is to identify and follow any unstable manifolds leaving
$(1,0)$ to see if they satisfy the other boundary condition
$u(\infty)=0$. If $m=1$, then the equations can be linearized about
the fixed point,
and $(1,0)$ is a hyperbolic saddle point with an unstable manifold in
the $(1,-1)$ direction and a stable manifold in the $(1,1)$ direction,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Lie}(a).
If $m\neq 1$, then the stable and unstable manifolds are degenerate at
linear order and form a cusp oriented in the $(0,1)$ direction, as
shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:Lie}(b) and (c). The nonlinear stability of the
fixed point can be determined by noting that $v^{\prime\prime} \sim
v^m$ as $u \rightarrow 1$. This equation has solutions satisfying
the boundary condition $v(-\infty) = 0$ if and only if $m \geq 1$.
A stable reaction front does not exist if $m<1$ because the
concentration of diffusing reactant A would become negative ahead of the
front. Therefore, since $m \geq 1$ implies $\alpha = (m-1)/2(m+1)
\geq 0$, the front width $w(t) \sim t^\alpha$ either stays the
same (for $m=1$) or increases (for $m > 1$) but cannot decrease in
time. For $m \geq 1$, we integrate $v^{\prime\prime} \sim v^m$ once
and substitute into (\ref{eq:vODE}) to obtain the separatrices in the
upper half-plane ($v>0$):
\begin{equation}
u \sim 1 \pm \sqrt{\frac{2}{m+1}} v^{(m+1)/2}, \ \mbox{as} \ (u,v)
\rightarrow (1,0^+) , \label{eq:separ}
\end{equation}
where the upper sign corresponds to the stable manifold ($\eta
\rightarrow \infty$) and the lower sign to the unstable manifold
($\eta \rightarrow -\infty$).
Let us briefly consider trajectories in the lower half-plane ($v <0$)
in the neighborhood of the fixed point ($u \approx 1$). Of course,
such trajectories are not physically allowed, but it is satisfying to
prove that the model equations exclude such possibilities. If $m$ is
either irrational or a rational number of the irreducible form
$k_1/k_2$ where $k_2$ is even, then such trajectories do not exist
because in that case $v^m$ (and hence $u^\prime$) would not be a real
number. If $m = k_1/k_2$ where $k_1$ is even and $k_2$ is odd, then
the direction field $(u^\prime,v^\prime)$ is an even function of $v$,
which in light of (\ref{eq:separ}) implies that there are no other
separatrices in the lower half-plane and that trajectories merely
circle the fixed point, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Lie}(b). Finally, if
$m=k_1/k_2$ where both $k_1$ and $k_2$ are odd, then $u^\prime$ is an
odd function of $v$ (while $v^\prime$ is even), and $(1,0)$ is a
saddle point. In this case, Eq.~(\ref{eq:separ}) also describes
separatrices in the lower half-plane with the lower sign corresponding
to the stable manifold and the upper to the unstable manifold, as
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Lie}(c). As it leaves the fixed point, this
branch of the unstable manifold enters the region $(u>1,v<0)$,
throughout which $u^\prime>0$ and $v^\prime<0$, and thus it heads off
to $u=v=-\infty$ and cannot satisfy the other boundary condition, as
shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:Lie}(a) and (c). Therefore, any solutions must
lie entirely in the first quadrant of the phase plane ($u>0, v>0$).
In this way we are left with only one possible solution, which leaves
the fixed point along the unstable manifold of (\ref{eq:separ})
and enters the region defined by $0<u<1$ and $v>0$, throughout which
$u^\prime<0$ and $v^\prime>0$. Since the $v$-axis ($u=0$) is itself a
trajectory, which cannot be crossed, this candidate solution must
reach an asymptote $u(\infty)=u_o$, for some constant $0\leq u_o <
1$. However, it is clear from (\ref{eq:uODE}) that $u_o=0$ is the only
possible asymptote, which implies that the trajectory (if it exists)
must satisfy the other boundary condition $u(\infty)=0$. To check the
existence of this solution in the limit $s \rightarrow\infty$, note
that $v^\prime \sim 1$ which implies $u^\prime \sim -(s - s_o)^m u^n$
for some constant $s_o$ with $m>1$. Solutions to this equation
satisfying $u(\infty)=0$ exist if and only if $n \geq 1$. A stable
reaction front does not exist if $n < 1$ because the concentration of
static reactant B would be negative behind of the front.
\subsection{Concentration Profiles in the Reaction Front}
Although solutions to (\ref{eq:AcODE}) exist for $m,n \geq 1$, they
are not easily expressed in terms of elementary functions. The exact
trajectories in the phase plane, however, can be obtained. The ratio
of (\ref{eq:vODE}) and (\ref{eq:uODE}) yields a separable, first-order
equation for $v(u)$
\begin{equation}
\frac{dv}{du} = \frac{u-1}{v^m u^n} \label{eq:vu}
\end{equation}
which can be integrated to obtain the one-parameter family of
trajectories (for $u>0$) plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:Lie}
\begin{equation}
(m+1)^{-1} v^{m+1} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
c_1 + u - \log u & \ \mbox{if} \ n=1 \\
c_2 +\log u + u^{-1} & \ \mbox{if} \ n=2 \\
c_n - (n-2) u^{2-n} + (n-1)^{-1} u^{1-n} & \
\mbox{if} \ n>1, n\neq 2
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
indexed by the real number $c_n$.
Applying the boundary conditions $v(u=1)=0$ (which determines $c_n$) and
$v(0)=\infty$ (which selects the positive branch when $v(u)$ is
multivalued), we arrive at the exact phase-plane trajectories (in the
region $0<u<1$, $v>0$) of the solution to the inner problem:
\begin{equation}
v = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\left[ (m+1) \left(u - 1 - \log u\right) \right]^{1/(m+1)}
& \ \mbox{if} \ n=1 \\
\left[ (m+1) \left(u^{-1} - 1 + \log u\right)\right]^{1/(m+1)}
& \ \mbox{if} \ n=2 \\
\left[\frac{(m+1)\left( 1 - (n-1)u^{2-n} +
(n-2)u^{1-n}\right)}{(n-1)(n-2)}\right]^{1/(m+1)} & \ \mbox{if} \ n>1,
n\neq 2
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:Lie}
\end{equation}
which is an algebraic equation $v = g_{m,n}(u)$ relating ${\cal A}(\eta)$
and ${\cal B}(\eta)$ via (\ref{eq:uvdef}). This equation is transcendental,
but in some cases it is easily solved for $u = g_{m,n}^{-1}(v)$, {\it
e.g.} for $n=3$ we have
\begin{equation}
u = g_{m,3}^{-1}(v) = \frac{\sqrt{2(m+1)^{-1}v^{m+1}} - 1}
{2(m+1)^{-1}v^{m+1} - 1} .
\end{equation}
Note that $g_{m,n}^{-1}(0) = 1$ and $g_{m,n}^{-1}(\infty) = 0$.
By substituting (\ref{eq:Lie}) into (\ref{eq:vODE}) we arrive
at a first-order equation for $v(\eta)$
\begin{equation}
v^\prime = 1 - g_{m,n}^{-1}(v) \label{eq:vg}
\end{equation}
without any boundary conditions (because the conditions $v(-\infty)=0$
and $v^\prime(\infty)=1$ are automatically satisfied). Since
(\ref{eq:vg}) is separable, the solution to the inner problem can
be expressed in the form:
\begin{subeqnarray}
{\cal A}(\eta) & = & {\cal A}_1^{2/(m+1)} h_{m,n}^{-1}\left(
{\cal A}_1^{(m-1)/(m+1)}(\eta-\eta_o)\right)
\slabel{eq:Ac_soln} \\
{\cal B}(\eta) & = & g_{m,n}^{-1}\left[h_{m,n}^{-1}\left(
{\cal A}_1^{(m-1)/(m+1)}(\eta-\eta_o)\right)
\right]
\slabel{eq:Bc_soln}
\label{eq:AcBc_soln}
\end{subeqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
h_{m,n}(v) \equiv \int_{v_o}^v \frac{ds}{1-g_{m,n}^{-1}(s)} ,
\label{eq:hmn}
\end{equation}
The precise location of the reaction front is set by choosing $v(s_o)
= v_o > 0$ for some constant $s_o = {\cal A}_1^{(m-1)/(m+1)}\eta_o$. With
these results, the inner problem is reduced to the solution of two
algebraic equations for $g_{m,n}^{-1}(v)$ and $h_{m,n}^{-1}(\eta)$ and
one quadrature (\ref{eq:hmn}). In practice, however, it is
simpler to integrate (\ref{eq:AcODE}) directly.
Numerical solutions of the rescaled inner problem
\begin{equation}
v^{\prime\prime} = v^m(1-v^\prime)^n, \ \ \ v(-\infty)=0, \ \ \
v^{\prime}(\infty) = 1
\label{eq:veq}
\end{equation}
are obtained by a shooting method, with the results shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:Ac}(a) for $m=n=1$ and $m=n=2$. The position of the
front is chosen such that $v(5)=5$. The static reactant concentration
$u(s)$ and the reaction rate density $v^m u^n$ are shown in
Figs.~\ref{fig:Ac}(b) and (c), respectively. Note that the
concentration fields decay to their asymptotic values as $|\eta|
\rightarrow \infty$ more slowly as $m$ and $n$ are increased above unity, a
phenomenon that we explore analytically in next section.
\subsection{Localization of the Reaction Front}
The width of the reaction front varies in time according to $w(t) \sim
t^\alpha$ where $\alpha = (m-1)/2(m+1)$. On the scale of the diffusion
layer width $W(t) \sim t^{1/2}$, the reaction front is
\lq\lq localized" after long times because $\alpha < 1/2$. Note that
the overall localization of the front $w(t)/W(t)$ is controlled by $m$
(the reaction order of the diffusing species A), but we now show that
both $m$ and $n$ (the reaction order of the static species B) affect
localization on the scale of $w(t)$. Specifically, we derive the
spatial decay of the scaled reaction rate ${\cal R}(\eta) = {\cal A}(\eta)^m
{\cal B}(\eta)^n$ in terms of the inner similarity variable $\eta
\rightarrow \pm \infty$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Ac}(c)). The actual
reaction rate decays uniformly to zero in time, $r \sim
t^{-\beta}{\cal R}(\eta)$ with $\beta = m/(m+1)$, but here we are only
concerned with the shape of ${\cal R}(\eta)$.
Ahead of the reaction front in the limit $\eta \rightarrow -\infty$,
we have ${\cal A}^{\prime\prime} \sim {\cal A}^m$ from (\ref{eq:AcODE}), which
can be integrated to obtain the decay of concentration fields:
\begin{subeqnarray}
{\cal A}(\eta) & \sim & \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\cal A}_2 e^{-|\eta|} & \ \mbox{if} \ m=1 \\
{\cal A}_2 |\eta|^{-2/(m-1)} & \ \mbox{if} \ m>1
\end{array} \right. \slabel{eq:Ac_ahead} \\
1- {\cal B}(\eta) & \sim & \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\cal A}_3 e^{-|\eta|} & \ \mbox{if} \ m=1 \\
{\cal A}_3 |\eta|^{-(m+1)/(m-1)} & \ \mbox{if} \ m>1
\end{array} \right. \slabel{eq:Bc_ahead} \\
{\cal R}(\eta) & \sim & \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\cal A}_2^m e^{-m|\eta|} & \ \mbox{if} \ m=1 \\
{\cal A}_2^m |\eta|^{-2m/(m-1)} & \ \mbox{if} \ m>1
\end{array} \right.
\end{subeqnarray}
where ${\cal A}_2$ and ${\cal A}_3$ are constants. Note that the localization of
${\cal A}(\eta)$ and ${\cal R}(\eta)$ ahead of the front is entirely controlled
by the reaction order $m$ of the depleted reactant (which is the
diffusing species $A$). There is a transition from an exponential
decay for $m=1$ to a slower power-law decay for $m>1$.
Next we consider localization of ${\cal R}(\eta)$ behind the reaction front
in the limit $\eta \rightarrow \infty$. From asymptotic matching with
the diffusion layer we have already derived ${\cal A}(\eta) \sim {\cal A}_1
\eta$. The asymptotic decay of ${\cal B}(\eta)$ and ${\cal R}(\eta)$ is
obtained by integrating ${\cal A}_1 {\cal B}^\prime \sim - ({\cal A}_1 \eta)^m
{\cal B}^n$:
\begin{subeqnarray}
\slabel{eq:Bctail}
{\cal B}(\eta) & \sim & \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\cal B}_1 \exp\left[-{\cal A}_1^{m-1}\eta^{m+1}/(m+1)\right] & \ \mbox{if} \ n=1 \\
{\cal B}_1 \eta^{-(m+1)/(n-1)} & \ \mbox{if} \ n>1
\end{array} \right. \\
\slabel{eq:Rctail}
{\cal R}(\eta) & \sim & \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\cal A}_1^m {\cal B}_1^n \eta^m \exp\left[-{\cal A}_1^{m-1}\eta^{m+1}/(m+1)\right]
& \ \mbox{if} \ n=1 \\
{\cal A}_1^m {\cal B}_1^n \eta^{-(m+n)/(n-1)} & \ \mbox{if} \ n>1
\end{array} \right.
\end{subeqnarray}
where ${\cal B}_1$ is a constant. Once again, a higher reaction order $n$
for the depleted species (which is the static species B) broadens the
front: There is another transition from exponential decay for $n=1$ to
a power-law decay for $n>1$. Note, however, that increasing the
reaction order $m$ of the diffusing species A contracts the back side
of the front.
The fact that ${\cal R}(\eta)$ has a fairly broad, power-law decay for $n >
1$ toward the diffusion layer should cause concern since we have
previously assumed in (\ref{eq:Rzero}) that the reaction term is
negligible in the diffusion layer. Fortunately, however, for all
$m,n\geq 1$ the decay of ${\cal B}(\eta)$ is just fast enough to satisfy
(\ref{eq:Rzero}) in the intermediate region where $B(0<\zeta\ll 1)
\approx {\cal B}(\eta \gg 1)$. From (\ref{eq:Bctail}) along with
$\tilde{A}(\zeta,t) \sim A(\zeta)$, $\tilde{{\cal B}}(\eta,t) \sim
{\cal B}(\eta)$, $\eta = 2\zeta t^{1/(m+1)}$ and $\delta = 1/2$, we have
\begin{equation}
t^{2\delta} \tilde{A}(\zeta,t)^m \tilde{B}(\zeta,t)^n =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
O\left( t \exp\left[-{\cal A}_1^{m-1}(2\zeta)^{m+1}t/(m+1)\right] \right)
& \ \mbox{if} \ n = 1 \\
O\left( \zeta^{-n(m+1)/(n-1)} t^{-n/(n-1)} \right)
& \ \mbox{if} \ n > 1
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
as $t \rightarrow \infty$ with $0<\zeta\ll 1$ fixed, which verifies
(\ref{eq:Rzero}) in the intermediate region for any $m, n \geq
1$. However, we now prove that (\ref{eq:Rzero}) actually holds
throughout the diffusion layer for all $\zeta > 0$.
\section{Transient Decay in the Diffusion Layer}
\label{sec:transients}
\subsection{Assumption of Quasi-Stationarity}
The analysis of long-time asymptotics in the previous section rests on
two basic assumptions: $(i)$ \lq\lq scale separation", given by
\begin{subeqnarray}
0 < \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \tilde{{\cal A}}(\eta,t)^m
\tilde{B}(\zeta,t)^n & < & \infty \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ |\eta| < \infty \\
\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} t \cdot \tilde{A}(\zeta,t)^m
\tilde{B}(\zeta,t)^n & = & 0 \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ \zeta > 0 ,
\slabel{eq:SS}
\label{eq:SSboth}
\end{subeqnarray}
and $(ii)$ \lq\lq quasi-stationarity'', given by (\ref{eq:AcBc_converge})
and (\ref{eq:AB_converge}) along with
\begin{subeqnarray}
\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} t^{(m-1)/(m+1)}\frac{\partial
\tilde{{\cal A}}}{\partial t}(\eta,t) & = & 0 \ \ \ \mbox{for} \
|\eta|<\infty \slabel{eq:QSAc} \\
\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} t^{m/(m+1)}\frac{\partial
\tilde{{\cal B}}}{\partial t}(\eta,t) & = & 0 \ \ \ \mbox{for} \
|\eta|<\infty \slabel{eq:QSBc} \\
\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} t \cdot \frac{\partial
\tilde{A}}{\partial t}(\zeta,t) & = & 0 \ \ \ \mbox{for} \
\zeta > 0 \slabel{eq:QSA} .
\label{eq:QS}
\end{subeqnarray}
Assumption $(i)$ states that two spatial regions with disparate length
scales, the reaction front and the diffusion layer, arise where the
reaction term on the right-hand side of the governing partial
integro-differential equation (\ref{eq:ide1}) or (\ref{eq:ide2}) is,
respectively, either comparable to or dominated by the diffusion
term. Assumption $(ii)$ states that, when viewed on scales appropriate
for each region, the solution to the initial-boundary-value problem
(\ref{eq:eqs}) approaches an asymptotically self-similar form, which
is suggested by the fact that there is no natural length scale in the
problem.
These ubiquitous assumptions~\cite{galfi,koza1,koza2} have been
rigorously justified~\cite{schenkel,vanbaalen} in the special case of
a perfectly symmetric ($D_A=D_B$, $\rho_A^o=\rho_B^o$), and thus
stationary ($\nu=0$), reaction front involving two diffusing reactants
with certain kinetic orders ($m=n=1$ and $m=n>3$). To our knowledge,
a similar mathematical validation of these assumptions has not been
given for the general situation of a moving reaction front with
arbitrary kinetic orders for either one or two diffusing reactants.
For one static reactant, however, convergence at the diffusive scale
has been rigorously established by Hilhorst et al.~\cite{peletier96},
even with a very general reaction term~\cite{peletier99}.
In this section, we prove the more modest result that
quasi-stationarity implies scale separation, {\it i.e.} (\ref{eq:QS})
implies (\ref{eq:SSboth}). (It suffices to show (\ref{eq:SS}) since
(\ref{eq:SSboth}) follows from the definition of $\eta$ in
section~\ref{sec:Ac}.)
Although this analysis justifies {\it a posteriori} the assumption
of scale separation in our fairly general situation ($D_B=0$, $\nu >
0$, $m,n \geq 1$), it more importantly reveals the transient decay
to the asymptotic similarity solution in the diffusion
layer. Specifically, we derive exact formulae for the asymptotic
decay of the reaction-rate density and static-reactant concentration
in the diffusion layer.
We begin by precisely stating our assumptions related to
(\ref{eq:QS}). From (\ref{eq:QSAc}) and its consequence
(\ref{eq:Ac_ahead}), we conclude that the diffusing reactant
concentration vanishes on the scale $W(t) = \sqrt{t}$ ahead of the
front (where there is no diffusion layer) since $\tilde{A}(\zeta,t)
\sim {\cal A}(2\zeta t^{1/(m+1)}) \rightarrow 0$ as $t \rightarrow \infty$
with $\zeta < 0$ fixed. This result can be combined with
(\ref{eq:A_converge}) to obtain a statement of quasi-stationarity on
the scale $W(t)$:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{A}(\zeta,t) \rightarrow A(\zeta)H(\zeta) \ \ \mbox{and} \ \
\frac{\partial \tilde{A}}{\partial \zeta}(\zeta,t) \rightarrow
A^\prime(\zeta)H(\zeta)
\label{eq:AH}
\end{equation}
as $t \rightarrow \infty$ with $\zeta \neq 0$ fixed. We have already
derived the exact form of the similarity function $A(\zeta)$ in
(\ref{eq:diffA}) as a consequence of neglecting reactions
(\ref{eq:SS}). To avoid a circular argument, however, we must now
establish (\ref{eq:SS}) without using (\ref{eq:diffA}), thus giving
{\it a posteriori} justification for the latter equation. Throughout
section~\ref{sec:transients} our only assumptions about $A(\zeta)$ are
$A(0)=0$ and $A^\prime(0)>0$. These properties follow from matching
with the reaction front, where $a \rightarrow 0$ ({\it i.e.} $\gamma >
0$) follows from quasi-stationarity, as shown in section~\ref{sec:Ac}.
\subsection{Direction of the Diffusing-Reactant Flux}
Let us prove that $A(\zeta)$ is strictly increasing in the diffusion
layer, $A^\prime(\zeta) > 0$ for all $\zeta \geq 0$, as a consequence
of (\ref{eq:SSboth}). Combining (\ref{eq:QSA}) with (\ref{eq:Along}),
we have
\begin{equation}
-2(\zeta-\nu)\frac{\partial \tilde{A}}{\partial \zeta} \sim
\frac{\partial^2 \tilde{A}}{\partial \zeta^2} - t \tilde{A}^m
\tilde{B}^n \ \ \ \mbox{as} \ t\rightarrow \infty \ \mbox{with} \
\zeta > 0 \ \mbox{fixed}
\end{equation}
which is easily integrated once using an integrating factor,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \tilde{A}}{\partial \zeta}(\zeta,t)
\sim e^{-(\zeta-\nu)^2} \left[ e^{\nu^2} \frac{\partial
\tilde{A}}{\partial \zeta}(0,t) + t \int_0^\zeta \tilde{A}(\xi,t)^m
\tilde{B}(\xi,t)^n e^{(\xi-\nu)^2}d\xi
\right] .
\label{eq:dAt}
\end{equation}
Since the second term on the right-hand side
is non-negative for all $t>0$, we can pass to the limit $t\rightarrow
\infty$ for any fixed $\zeta> 0$ to obtain the desired bound
\begin{equation}
A^\prime(\zeta) \geq A^\prime(0)e^{\nu^2-(\zeta-\nu)^2} > 0 ,
\label{eq:dAbound}
\end{equation}
which expresses the physical fact that everywhere in the diffusion
layer a nonzero flux of the diffusing species is directed toward the
reaction front (at sufficiently large times).
\subsection{Decay of the Static-Reactant Concentration}
We now prove that $b(x,t)$ vanishes asymptotically in the diffusion
layer as a consequence of quasi-stationarity, which implies
\begin{equation}
\tilde{B}(\zeta,t) \rightarrow B(\zeta) = H(-\zeta)\ \ \ \mbox{as} \ t
\rightarrow \infty
\ \mbox{with} \ \zeta \neq 0 \ \mbox{fixed} . \label{eq:Bzeta}
\end{equation}
For $\zeta < 0$, this follows from (\ref{eq:Bc_ahead}) since there is
no diffusion layer ahead of the front, and therefore
$\tilde{B}(\zeta,t) \sim {\cal B}(2\zeta t^{1/(m+1)}) \rightarrow 1 =
B(\zeta)$ as $t \rightarrow \infty$ with $\zeta < 0$ fixed. Likewise,
in section \ref{sec:dim}, we have already established (\ref{eq:Bzeta})
for $\zeta > \nu$ since $\tilde{B}(\zeta,t)$ vanishes there
identically for all times. Therefore, it only remains to prove that
$B(\zeta) = 0$ for $0 < \zeta < \nu$.
In light of the expression for $b(x,t)$ in (\ref{eq:bint}), the
definition of $\phi_m(x,t)$ in (\ref{eq:phidef}) and the restriction
$n \geq 1$, it suffices to show that $\Phi_m(\zeta,t) \equiv
\phi_m(x,t) \rightarrow \infty$ as $t \rightarrow \infty$ for $0 <
\zeta < \nu$ fixed. Using $\zeta = \nu + x/2\sqrt{t}$ (since
$\delta=\sigma=\frac{1}{2}$), we transform $\phi_m(x,t)$ into the
diffusion-layer coordinates $(x,t) \mapsto (\zeta,t)$
\begin{equation}
\Phi_m(\zeta,t) = \int_0^t a\left(2\sqrt{t}(\zeta-\nu),\tau\right)^m
d\tau ,
\end{equation}
and express this in terms of the diffusion-layer scaling function
$a(x,\tau) = \tilde{A}(\nu + x/2\sqrt{\tau},\tau)$
\begin{equation}
\Phi_m(\zeta,t) = \int_0^t \tilde{A}\left(\sqrt{\frac{t}{\tau}}
(\zeta-\nu)+\nu, \tau\right)^m d\tau .
\end{equation}
It is convenient to work with the partial time-derivative of
$\Phi_m(\zeta,t)$ given by the Leibniz rule:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \Phi_m}{\partial t} = \tilde{A}(\zeta,t)^m +
\int_0^t \frac{\partial \tilde{A}^m}{\partial \zeta}
\left(\sqrt{\frac{t}{\tau}}(\zeta-\nu)+\nu, \tau\right)
\frac{1}{2t}\sqrt{\frac{t}{\tau}}(\zeta-\nu)d\tau .
\end{equation}
Focusing on the region $0 < \zeta < \nu$, we make the transformation $\xi
= \sqrt{t/\tau}(\zeta - \nu) + \nu$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \Phi_m}{\partial t} = \tilde{A}(\zeta,t)^m
- \int_{-\infty}^\zeta
\frac{\partial \tilde{A}^m}{\partial\zeta}
\left(\xi,\left(\frac{\zeta-\nu}{\xi-\nu}\right)^2t\right)
\left(\frac{\zeta-\nu}{\xi-\nu}\right)^2 d\xi ,
\label{eq:phitrans}
\end{equation}
and pass the limit $t\rightarrow \infty$ inside the integral to obtain
\begin{equation}
\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\partial \Phi_m}{\partial t} =
A(\zeta)^m - \int_0^\zeta \frac{dA^m}{d\zeta}(\xi)
\left(\frac{\zeta-\nu}{\xi-\nu}\right)^2 d\xi ,
\label{eq:dphi0}
\end{equation}
where the lower limit of integration follows from (\ref{eq:AH}) since
$A(\zeta) = A^\prime(\zeta) = 0$ for $\zeta < 0$. This step is
justified by the Dominated Convergence Theorem~\cite{evans} because,
by virtue of (\ref{eq:AH}), there exist constants $M, t_o > 0$ such
that the integrand in (\ref{eq:phitrans}) is bounded for all $t > t_o$
by $M/(\xi - \nu)^2$, which is integrable on $(-\infty,\zeta)$, if
$\zeta < \nu$.
Since $A(0) = 0$ is required by matching between the two regions of
quasi-stationarity, Eq.~(\ref{eq:dphi0}) can be written in the form
$\partial \Phi_m/\partial t \sim f_m(\zeta)$, where
\begin{equation}
f_m(\zeta) \equiv \int_0^\zeta
\frac{dA^m}{d\zeta}(\xi) \left[ 1 -
\left(\frac{\zeta-\nu}{\xi-\nu}\right)^2\right] d\xi .
\label{eq:fm}
\end{equation}
Note that $f_m(\zeta)>0$ for $0 < \zeta < \nu$ since
$A^\prime(\zeta)>0$ in this region, as shown in
(\ref{eq:dAbound}). Therefore, with an integration of (\ref{eq:fm}),
we arrive at the desired result
\begin{equation}
\Phi_m(\zeta) \sim f_m(\zeta)t
\ \ \mbox{as} \ \ t \rightarrow \infty \ \ \mbox{with}
\ \ 0 < \zeta < \nu \ \ \mbox{fixed,}
\label{eq:Phit}
\end{equation}
thus completing the proof that $B(\zeta) = 0$ for $\zeta> 0$.
By substituting (\ref{eq:Phit}) into (\ref{eq:bint}), we obtain the
transient decay of $\tilde{B}(\zeta,t)$ in part of the diffusion
layer where the reaction front has already passed ($0 < \zeta \leq
\nu$):
\begin{equation}
\tilde{B}(\zeta,t) \sim \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
e^{-qf_m(\zeta)t} & \ \mbox{if} \ n=1 \\
\left[ q(n-1)f_m(\zeta) t \right]^{-1/(n-1)} & \
\mbox{if} \ n >1
\end{array} \right. \label{eq:Blimit}
\end{equation}
Note that $\tilde{B}(\zeta,t)$ vanishes with exponential decay if
$n=1$ and with a power-law decay if $n > 1$. Therefore, by measuring
the asymptotic decay (either exponential or power-law) of the
static-reactant concentration in the diffusion layer, the reaction
order $n$ could in principle be inferred from experimental data
(although such measurements are difficult in practice~\cite{leger}).
\subsection{Decay of the Reaction-Rate Density}
From (\ref{eq:Blimit}) we easily obtain the asymptotic decay on the
reaction rate density in the diffusion layer as $t \rightarrow \infty$
with $\zeta>0$ fixed:
\begin{equation}
t \tilde{A}(\zeta,t)^m \tilde{B}(\zeta,t)^n \sim \left\{
\begin{array}{ll} A(\zeta)^m t e^{-qf_m(\zeta)t} & \ \mbox{if} \ n=1 \\
A(\zeta)^m \left[ q(n-1)f_m(\zeta)\right]^{-\frac{n}{n-1}}
t^{-\frac{1}{n-1}} & \
\mbox{if} \ n >1
\end{array} \right. ,
\label{eq:Rtransient}
\end{equation}
which establishes (\ref{eq:SS}). The reaction term in the diffusion
layer has previously been neglected based only on physical
intuition~\cite{koza2}, but here we have given a mathematical
justification.
\subsection{The Decay Time When $n=1$}
Since the reaction term vanishes sufficiently fast in the diffusion
layer to justify {\it a posteriori} the analysis in
section~\ref{sec:similarity}, the exact expression for $A(\zeta)$ from
(\ref{eq:diffA}) may be substituted into (\ref{eq:fm}) to
evaluate the function $f_m(\zeta)$. If $n>1$, then $f_m(\zeta)$
affects the transient decay in (\ref{eq:Blimit}) and
(\ref{eq:Rtransient}) only as a multiplicative prefactor in a
power law, which would be difficult to measure in a real experiment.
If $n=1$, however, then $f_m(\zeta)$ sets the characteristic time
$\tau_m(\zeta)^{-1} \equiv q f_m(\zeta)$ of an exponential decay, which
is easier to measure experimentally. Therefore, we
now derive an exact expression for the decay time $\tau_1(\zeta)$
($0<\zeta\leq \nu$) in the case $m=1$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_1(\zeta)^{-1} & = & q f_1(\zeta) \nonumber \\
& = & \int_0^\zeta 2\nu e^{\nu^2-(\nu-\xi)^2} \left[ 1 -
\left(\frac{\zeta-\nu}{\xi-\nu}\right)^2\right] d\xi \nonumber \\
& = & 2(\nu-\zeta)\left[ (\nu-\zeta) - \nu
e^{\nu^2-(\nu-\zeta)^2}\right] \nonumber \\
& & + \sqrt{\pi} \nu e^{\nu^2}
\left[ 1 + 2(\nu-\zeta)^2 \right]\cdot \left[ \mbox{erf}(\nu) -
\mbox{erf}(\nu-\zeta) \right] . \label{eq:tau}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\tau_1(0) = \infty$ in the vicinity of the reaction front
($\zeta = 0$) because (\ref{eq:Rtransient}) and (\ref{eq:Blimit}) no
longer hold. Within the diffusion layer, the decay time is a
decreasing function of distance $\zeta$ away from the reaction front,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tau}.
These results may be used to infer reaction orders and perhaps even
kinetic constants in diffusion-limited corrosion experiments from
transient decay measurements of the reaction-rate density in the
diffusion layer~\cite{leger}.
\section{Uniformly Valid Asymptotic Approximations}
\label{sec:uniform}
In the previous two sections we have argued for the existence of a
unique asymptotic similarity solution (up to an unknown constant
$\eta_o$) contingent upon certain \lq\lq quasi-stationarity"
conditions, which are likely to be satisfied for the specified initial
conditions (see below). This solution, valid after long times,
consists of two different asymptotic approximations for $a(x,t)$, the
concentration of the diffusing reactant A, which reflect the different
couplings of length and time in the reaction front and the diffusion
layer. A single asymptotic approximation for $a(x,t)$ that is
uniformly valid across all space is obtained by adding the two
contributions from the reaction front (the inner region) and the
diffusion layer (the outer region) and subtracting the overlap (from
the intermediate region)~\cite{hinch,bender}:
\begin{equation}
a(x,t) \sim \left[{\cal A}(\eta-\eta_o)- {\cal A}_1 \cdot (\eta-\eta_o)
H(\eta-\eta_o)\right]t^{-1/(m+1)} + A(\zeta) H(\zeta), \ \mbox{as} \ t
\rightarrow\infty \ \mbox{for\ all\ } x . \label{eq:a_unif}
\end{equation}
where the reaction-front and diffusion-layer similarity variables are
\begin{subeqnarray}
\eta(x,t) & = & \frac{x + 2\nu t^{1/2}}{t^{(m-1)/2(m+1)}} \\
\mbox{and} \ \ \zeta(x,t) & = & \frac{x + 2\nu t^{1/2}}{2t^{1/2}} ,
\end{subeqnarray}
$\nu(q)^2$ is the diffusion constant of the reaction
front (see (\ref{eq:qnu}) and Fig.~\ref{fig:nuq}), ${\cal A}_1 =
\nu(q)/q$ is a constant proportional to the diffusive flux entering
the front, ${\cal A}(\eta)$ is the reaction-front similarity function (see
(\ref{eq:Ac_soln}) and Fig.~\ref{fig:Ac}), $A(\zeta)$ is the
diffusion-layer similarity function (see (\ref{eq:diffA}) and
Fig.~\ref{fig:A}) and $\eta_o$ is an undetermined constant depending
upon the initial conditions as well as the precise definition of the
reaction-front location. The uniform approximation has been determined
analytically up to the solution of two algebraic equations
(\ref{eq:AcBc_soln}) and one quadrature (\ref{eq:hmn}).
A subtle point in the construction of this uniformly valid
approximation is that shifting the position of the front by $\eta
\mapsto \eta - \eta_o$ does not affect matching with the diffusion
layer because in that case $\zeta \mapsto (\eta-\eta_o)t^{-1/(m+1)}/2
\sim \eta t^{-1/(m+1)}/2 = \zeta$. In other words, because the
reaction front is \lq\lq infinitely thin" compared to the diffusion
layer, translating its similarity variable by a constant $\eta_o$, or
any other function of time that is $o(t^{1/2})$, does not require that
the diffusion-layer similarity variable $\zeta$ be shifted as well.
The situation for $b(x,t)$, the concentration of the static reactant
B, is much simpler. By comparing the asymptotic bound on $b(x,t)$ in
the diffusion layer given by (\ref{eq:Blimit}) with the tail of
the reaction-front approximation given by (\ref{eq:Bctail}) with
$\eta = 2\zeta t^{1/(m+1)}$, we see that that the asymptotic behavior
of $b(x,t)$ is identical in the two regions. Therefore,
\begin{equation}
b(x,t) \sim {\cal B}(\eta-\eta_o), \ \mbox{as}
\ t \rightarrow\infty \ \mbox{for\ all\ } x \label{eq:b_unif}
\end{equation}
is a uniformly valid approximation, where ${\cal B}(\eta)$ is the
reaction-front similarity function given by (\ref{eq:Bc_soln}).
At this point the initial conditions have not yet entered the
analysis except in (\ref{eq:bint}), which only influences the
prefactors of the transient-decay formulae in
section~\ref{sec:transients}. Therefore, the asymptotic similarity
solution is universal up to a constant shift of the reaction front by
$\eta_o$ for some broad set of initial conditions which presumably
contains (\ref{eq:ic}). In general, this \lq\lq universality class''
of initial conditions leading to the same asymptotic similarity
solution (up to different values of $\eta_o$) is expected to be
attained whenever the initial reaction-rate distribution $r(x,0) =
a(x,0)^m b(x,0)^n$ is sufficiently well localized and the reactants
are sufficiently well separated. This class surely contains all
initial conditions for which $r(x,0)$ has compact support, {\it e.g.}
$r(x,0) = 0$ for $x\neq 0$ in (\ref{eq:ic}), or exponential decay,
{\it e.g.} $r(x,0) < Me^{-|x|/x_o}$ for some $M,x_o>0$, but perhaps
not slower power-law decay.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:disc}
In this article we have studied the long-time asymptotics of solutions
to the initial-boundary-value problem of
(\ref{eq:rhoBC})--(\ref{eq:rho}), which is a generic mean-field model
for the corrosion of a porous solid by a diffusing chemical. We have
derived a uniformly valid asymptotic approximation
(\ref{eq:a_unif})--(\ref{eq:b_unif}) consisting of matched similarity
solutions in two distinct regions, the reaction front and diffusion
layer, each possessing different power-law scaling behavior. The
existence and uniqueness of the similarity functions and the scaling
exponents have been established if and only if $m,n \geq 1$, and
through an analysis of transients in the diffusion layer the
asymptotic scale separation has been shown to follow from the
assumption of quasi-stationarity. Since quasi-stationarity has been
observed in recent experiments on the corrosion of ramified
electrodeposits~\cite{leger}, the present analysis therefore suffices
to establish the theoretical predictions of the mean-field equations
for at least one particular corrosion system. Although the case
considered here ($m,n\geq 1$, $q \neq 1$) is more complicated, it
would be useful to perform a rigorous transient analysis along the
lines of Schenkel {\it et al.}~\cite{schenkel} (who considered only
the case $D_A=D_B\neq 0$, $q=1$ and $m=n=1$). Nevertheless, we have at
least provided a firm mathematical justification for the scale
separation between the diffusion layer and reaction front.
In this work we have paid special attention to the effect of
higher-order reactions ($m,n > 1$). First of all, the scaling
exponents vary with the reaction order $m$ of the diffusing reactant
in precisely the same way as they do on the sum $m+n$ in the case of
two diffusing reactants~\cite{cornell}, as shown in Table
~\ref{table:exponents}. Moreover, the spatial localization of the
reaction rate $r(a,b)$ on each side of the front depends primarily on
the reaction order of the depleted reactant: As the appropriate
reaction order is increased from unity, the spatial dependence of the
reaction rate away from the front changes from an exponential decay to
a progressively broader power-law decay. Similarly, the temporal decay
of the depleted (static) reactant concentration in the diffusion layer
depends sensitively on its reaction order, undergoing a
transition from exponential to power-law decay (in time) as $n$ is
increased from unity. These properties may have general relevance for
more complicated multi-component reaction-diffusion systems.
Other qualitiative features of our analysis that might have more
general applicability are the dominant balances in the reaction front,
where the concentration of a diffusing reactant is determined by a
balance between reactions and \lq\lq steady state" diffusion, {\it
i.e.} a mobile species diffuses slowly to the front where it
immediately reacts. On the other hand, the concentration of a static
reactant is determined by a balance between reactions and fictitous
advection due to the moving reference frame, {\it i.e.} since the
static species cannot diffuse to the front, the front must diffuse to
it. These guiding principles might help simplify more complicated
reaction-diffusion equations for which asymptotically self-similar
solutions do not exist.
\section*{Epilogue}
After the writing of this article, a referee pointed out some
interesting similarities between our analysis of chemical reaction
fronts and various existing studies in combustion
theory~\cite{ZFK,zeldovich}. Indeed, the equations for combustion
waves introduced by Zeldovich and Frank-Kamenetzki~\cite{ZFK}, which
have since been generalized by many authors (e.g. Matkowsky and
Sivashinsky~\cite{MS}), bear some resemblance to (\ref{eq:coup}) since
they describe the diffusion of a fuel substance coupled to the
diffusion of heat. In combustion theory, however, the usual reaction
term is quite different from (\ref{eq:Rpower}) because it involves
exponential Arrhenius temperature dependence, and the initial and
boundary conditions also differ from those considered here. As a
result, combustion waves tend to exhibit qualitatively different
behavior from reaction-diffusion fronts. (For example, simple flame
fronts have constant width and constant velocity.) Nevertheless,
combustion waves exhibit multiple scales analogous to the
reaction-front and diffusion layers described here, which have also
been analyzed using matched asymptotic expansions~\cite{schult}
(although not in the dynamical setting of this work). The idea of
matching derivatives between the inner and outer regions actually
appears to have its origin in the pioneering paper of Zeldovich and
Frank-Kamenetzki~\cite{ZFK}, in which the velocity of a simple flame
front is determined by analyzing a single-component equation like
(\ref{eq:single}). In hindsight, it is somewhat surprising that the
recent parallel literatures on two-species reaction-diffusion fronts
and combustion waves have developed quite independently of each other,
without any cross-references (at least, none to our knowledge). It is
hoped, therefore, that this paper will initiate the ``diffusion'' of
ideas between these two mature but related disciplines.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank C. L\'eger and R. R. Rosales for useful discussions.
This work was supported by an NSF infrastructure grant (MZB) and
grants from the Harvard MRSEC DMR-980-9363 and the Army Research
Office DAAG-55-97-1-0114 (HAS).
|
\section{Introduction}
The nonrelativistic quark model (NQM) explains qualitatively many of the
strong, electromagnetic and weak interaction properties of the nucleon and
other octet and decuplet baryons in terms of three valence quarks whose
dynamics is motivated by quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the gauge field theory
of the strong interaction. Due to the spontaneous chiral symmetry breakdown
($\chi $SB) of QCD, the effective degrees of freedom at the scale
$\Lambda _{QCD}$ are expected to be quarks and Goldstone bosons.
Here we point out that a naive use of a constituent quark mass for all
observables, and in axialvector quark-Goldstone boson couplings in particular,
leads to disagreement with the proton spin
fractions, because the non-spinflip contributions dominate over spinflip
at low momentum.
Understanding the internal proton structure is one of the goals of particle
physics and, over the past dozen years or more, has led to extensive studies
of the spin and flavor contents of the nucleon in terms of measured deep
inelastic structure functions (DIS)~\cite{SMC,E143}. Since spin fractions
ultimately must derive from
and be consistent with polarized DIS proton structure functions that are
integrated over Bjorken $x$, we have used such a general DIS
formalism~\cite{HJW} to analyze recent chiral models that have succeded in
reproducing the spin fractions of the proton.
\par
The effects of chiral dynamics on
the spin fractions are discussed in Sects. II and III in the framework of
chiral field theory applied to deep inelastic scattering.
\section{Quark Spin Fractions from Chiral Dynamics}
Chiral field theory involves the effective strong interactions commonly used
in chiral perturbation theory ($\chi$PT~\cite{CPT}) and applies at scales from
$\Lambda _{QCD}$ up to the chiral
symmetry restoration scale $\sim\Lambda _{\chi }=4\pi f_{\pi }\sim 1.17$ GeV,
where $f_{\pi }=0.093$ GeV is the pion decay constant.
\par
If the chiral symmetry breakdown is based on $SU(3)_L \times SU(3)_R$,
then the effective interaction between quarks and the octet of
Goldstone boson (GB) fields $\Phi_i$ involves the axial vector coupling
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{int}=-{g_A\over 2f_\pi }\sum_{i=1}^{8}\bar q \partial_\mu
\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5 \lambda _i \Phi_i q
\label{lint}
\end{eqnarray}
that is well known from soft-pion physics. In Eq.~\ref{lint},
$g_A$ is the dimensionless axial vector-quark coupling constant
that is taken to be 1 here. As a consequence, the polarization of quarks flips
in chiral fluctuations, $q_{\uparrow,\downarrow,}\rightarrow
q_{\downarrow,\uparrow}+GB$, into pseudoscalar mesons of the SU(3)
flavor octet of Goldstone bosons, but for massive quarks the
non-spinflip transitions from $\gamma_{\pm}\gamma_5 k^{\pm}$ that
depend on the quark masses are not
negligible. Let us also emphasize that, despite the nonperturbative
nature of the chiral symmetry breakdown, the interaction between quarks and
Goldstone bosons is small enough for a perturbative expansion to apply.
\par
Chiral field theory dissolves a dynamical or constituent quark into a
current quark and a cloud of virtual Goldstone bosons. In this
context, it was first
shown in~\cite{EHQ} that chiral dynamics leads to a reduction of the
proton spin fractions carried by the valence quarks and also to a
reduction of
the axial vector coupling constant $g_A^{(3)}$, based on one overall
chiral strength parameter, $a$, that contains the scale (cf. Table 1). It is
well known that relativistic effects reduce the axial charge further, and this
causes problems for the spin fractions~\cite{WB}. In addition, the violation
of the Gottfried sum rule~\cite{Go}, which signals an isospin asymmetric
quark sea in the proton, i.e. $\bar u<\bar d$, became plausible. SU(3)
symmetric chiral spin fraction models explain spin and sea quark observables
of the proton, except for the ratio of axial charges $\Delta_3/\Delta_8=$5/3
and the weak axial vector coupling constant of the nucleon,
$g_A^{(3)}={\cal F}+{\cal D}$. In~\cite{SMW,WSK} the effects of SU(3)
breaking (adding $(1+\lambda _8\epsilon )$ in ${\cal L}_{int}$) were more
systematically
built into these chiral models and shown to lead to a remarkable further
improvement of the spin and quark sea fractions in comparison with the data.
\par
It was first shown in ref.~\cite{WSK}, and subsequently
confirmed~\cite{XS,OS} that the $\eta '$ meson, proposed in~\cite{CLi}
mainly to decrease the antiquark fraction $\bar u/\bar d$ from the
SU(3) symmetric value $3/4$ to $\sim 0.5$, gives an almost negligible
contribution to the spin fractions of the
nucleon, not only because of its large mass but also due to the small
singlet chiral coupling constant. It is therefore often ignored, and this is
consistent with the understanding that, due to the axial anomaly,
the $\eta '$ meson is not a genuine Goldstone boson. Pions and kaons
are well established
Goldstone bosons. For a discussion of the controversial role of the $\eta$
meson as the hypercharge or octet Goldstone boson, see~\cite{KW}.
\par
Chiral fluctuations occur with probability densities
$f(u_{\uparrow} \rightarrow \pi^+ + d_{\downarrow})$,...
which, from Eq.~\ref{lint}, may be written as coefficients in the following
chiral reactions:
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
u_{\uparrow} &\rightarrow& f_{u\rightarrow \pi ^{+}d}(x_{\pi },
\vec{k}_{\perp}) (\pi^+ + d_{\downarrow})
+f_{u\rightarrow \eta u} {1\over 6}(\eta +u_{\downarrow})
+f_{u\rightarrow \pi ^0 u} {1\over 2}(\pi^0 + u_{\downarrow})
\\\nonumber
&&+f_{u\rightarrow K^{+}s} (K^+ + s_{\downarrow}),\\\nonumber
d_{\uparrow} &\rightarrow& f_{d\rightarrow \pi ^{-} u} (\pi^- + u_{\downarrow})
+f_{d\rightarrow \eta d} {1\over 6}(\eta +d_{\downarrow})
+f_{d\rightarrow \pi ^0 d} {1\over 2}(\pi^0 + d_{\downarrow})\\\nonumber
&&+f_{d\rightarrow K^0 s} (K^0 + s_{\downarrow}),\\
s_{\uparrow} &\rightarrow &f_{s\rightarrow \eta s} {2\over 3}(\eta
+s_{\downarrow})+f_{s\rightarrow K^- u} (K^- + u_{\downarrow})
+f_{s\rightarrow \bar K^0 d} (\bar K^0 + d_{\downarrow}),
\label{fluc}
\end{eqnarray}
and corresponding ones for the other initial quark helicity. The
factors $1/2,1/6,1,...$ in Eq.~\ref{fluc} for $u\rightarrow \pi ^0 u,
u\rightarrow \eta u, u\rightarrow \pi ^{+}d,...$, respectively,
originate from the flavor dependence in Eq.~\ref{lint} and are denoted as
$p_m$ for the Goldstone boson $m$ for brevity. After integrating
over transverse momentum in the infinite momentum frame, the coefficients
in Eq.~\ref{fluc} become the polarized ($-$ sign) and unpolarized ($+$ sign)
chiral splitting functions,
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{\pm}_{GB/q}(x)=\int d^2 k_{\perp}f^{\pm}_{q\rightarrow q'GB}
(x,\vec{k}_{\perp}).
\label{splf}
\end{eqnarray}
The unpolarized splitting function $P^+$ determines the (spinflip plus
non-spinflip) probability for finding a Goldstone boson of mass
$m_{GB}$ carrying the
longitudinal momentum fraction $x_{GB}$ of the parent quark's momentum and a
recoil quark $q'$ with momentum fraction $1-x_{GB}$ for each fluctuation in
Eq.~\ref{fluc}.
\par
In (non-renormalizable) chiral field theory with cutoff $\Lambda _{\chi} $ of
ref.~\cite{EHQ}, the unpolarized chiral splitting function takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{+}_{q\rightarrow q'+GB}(x_{GB})={g^{2}_{A}\over f^{2}_{\pi }}
{x_{GB}\over 32\pi ^2}(m_q+m_{q'})^2\int^{t_{min}}_{-\Lambda _{\chi }^2}dt
{(m_q-m_{q'})^2-t\over (t-m^{2}_{GB})^2}\ ,
\label{EHQ}
\end{eqnarray}
where $t=k^2=-[(k_{\perp})^2+x_{GB}[(m'_{q})^{2}-(1-x_{GB})(m_{q})^2]]/
(1-x_{GB})$ is the square of the Goldstone boson four-momentum. The polarized
splitting function is obtained using that it contains the difference of
non-flip and helicity-flip probabilities. Since quarks are on their mass shell
in the light front dynamics used here, the axialvector quark-Goldstone boson
interaction is equivalent to the simpler $\gamma _5$ coupling. Except for an
overall factor, the relevant unpolarized chiral transition probability is
proportional to
\begin{eqnarray}
-{1\over 2}tr[(\gamma \cdot p+m_q)\gamma _5(\gamma \cdot p+m_q)\gamma _5]
=2(pp'-m_q m'_q)=(m_q-m'_q)^2-k^2,\
\label{unpol}
\end{eqnarray}
where $2pp'=m'^{2}_{q}+m^{2}_{q}-k^2.$ Eq.~\ref{unpol} is the numerator in
Eq.~\ref{EHQ} which can also be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
{1\over 1-x_{GB}}[(k_{\perp})^2+[m'_{q}-(1-x_{GB})m_q]^2],
\label{nu}
\end{eqnarray}
and has the following physical interpretation. Recall that the axialvector
quark-Goldstone boson coupling ${\gamma_{\mu }\gamma_5 k^{\mu}}$ in
Eq.~\ref{lint} involves the spin raising and lowering operators
$\sigma_1\pm i\sigma_2$ in a scalar product with the transverse
momentum $\vec{k}_{\perp}$ of the recoil quark, which suggests that the
$k^{2}_{\perp}$ term in $P^+$ of Eq.~\ref{nu} represents the
helicity-flip probability of the chiral fluctuation, while the
longitudinal and time components, ${\gamma_{\pm}\gamma_5 k^{\pm}}$, induce the
non-spinflip probability, which depends on the quark masses. This can be seen
from the helicity non-flip probability
\begin{eqnarray}
|\bar u'_{\uparrow}\gamma _5 u_{\uparrow}|^2=|\bar u'_{\downarrow}\gamma _5
u_{\downarrow}|^2\sim (m'_q-x' m_q)^2,\ x'=1-x_{GB},
\label{nofli}
\end{eqnarray}
using light cone spinors and suppressing the spinor normalizations. Thus
Eq.~\ref{nofli} identifies the mass term in Eq.~\ref{nu} as the helicity
non-flip chiral transition. Similarly, the helicity-flip probability is
obtained from
\begin{eqnarray}
|\bar u'{\downarrow}\gamma _5 u_{\uparrow}|^2\sim (p'_{\perp})^2+x'^2
(p_{\perp})^2-x'p'_{\perp}\cdot p_{\perp}
\label{fli}
\end{eqnarray}
which, in frames where $\vec{p}_{\perp}=0,$ reduces to
$(\vec{k}_{\perp})^2,$
i.e. the net helicity flip probability generated by the chiral splitting
process. In the nonrelativistic limit, where $|\vec{p}'_{\perp}|\ll
m'_{q},$ $|\vec{p}_{\perp}|\ll m_q,$ clearly non-spinflip dominates over
spinflip, while spinflip dominates at high momentum (it is not clear how
ref.~\cite{EHQ} reached the opposite conclusion which, obviously, flies in
the face of an extensive low-energy nuclear physics lore).
\par
The polarized splitting function $P^-$ therefore has the same quark
mass dependence as $P^+$, but involves the helicity flip probability with the
opposite sign, i.e. has
\begin{eqnarray}
{1\over 1-x_{GB}}[-(\vec{k}_{\perp})^2+\left(m'_{q}-(1-x_{GB})m_q\right)^2]
\label{polnu}
\end{eqnarray}
in its numerator, which agrees with ref.\cite{SW}.
Only for massless quarks there are no non-spinflip chiral transitions, so that
$P^-=-P^+$ holds which is characteristic of pure spinflip chiral
transitions.
\par
The splitting of quarks into a Goldstone boson and a recoil quark corresponds
to a factorization of DIS structure functions that leads to a
convolution of quark distributions with splitting functions.
Thus, chiral fluctuations in lowest order of perturbation
theory contribute convolution integrals
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\sum_{q,m} p_m P^{+}_{u_{\uparrow}\rightarrow q_{\downarrow} m}\otimes
u^{0}_{\uparrow}+\sum_{q,m} p_m P^{+}_{d_{\uparrow}
\rightarrow q_{\downarrow} m} \otimes d^0_{\uparrow},\\
\sum_{q,m} p_m P^{+}_{u_{\downarrow}\rightarrow +q_{\uparrow} m}
\otimes u^0_{\downarrow}\
+\sum_{q,m} p_m P^{+}_{d_{\downarrow}\rightarrow
q_{\uparrow} m} \otimes d^0_{\downarrow}
\label{rqp}
\end{eqnarray}
to the quark distributions $q_{\downarrow,\uparrow}$, respectively. Chiral
fluctuations also cause a reduction of the valence quark probabilities
\begin{eqnarray}
(1-P_q)q^{0}_{\uparrow,\downarrow},
\label{valq}
\end{eqnarray}
where $P_q$ are the total fluctuation probabilities.
\section{Spin Distribution Results}
In chiral dynamics, antiquarks originate only from the Goldstone bosons via
their standard quark-antiquark composition.
Therefore, {\em antiquarks are unpolarized}. Small antiquark
polarizations are consistent with the most recent SMC data~\cite{SMC},
so that we expect only
small corrections if we use $\bar u_\uparrow = \bar u_\downarrow$ in the spin
fractions $\Delta u = u_\uparrow -u_\downarrow +\bar u_\uparrow
-\bar u_\downarrow$, etc., i.e. $\Delta s=\Delta s_{sea}$,
$\Delta \bar u=\Delta \bar d=\Delta \bar s =0$.
\par
Let us now return to the polarized quark distributions and their lowest
moments, the spin fractions.
\par
Upon generalizing the chiral spin fraction formalism of~\cite{WSK,XS,CLi} to
the polarized quark distributions, the probabilities displayed in
Eq.~\ref{fluc},\ref{rqp},\ref{valq} yield
\begin{eqnarray}
q_{\uparrow}(x)=(1-P_{q})q^{0}_{\uparrow}(x)+\sum_{m,q'} p_m
P^{+}_{q'\rightarrow q m}\otimes q'^{0}_{\downarrow}+...
\label{oldq}
\end{eqnarray}
which obviously are based on pure spinflip chiral transitions.
The corresponding result holds for the other quark helicity.
The ellipses in Eq.~\ref{oldq} denote double convolution terms with
$q^{0}_{\uparrow}$ from a
Goldstone boson $m$ that cancel in $q_{\uparrow}-q_{\downarrow}$. The opposite
quark helicity on the rhs of Eq.~\ref{oldq} implies the {\em negative} sign of
all chiral contributions to the spin distributions
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta q(x) = (1-P_{q})\Delta q^0(x) -\sum_{m,q'} p_m P^{+}_{q'\rightarrow q m}
\otimes \Delta q'^0.
\label{delp}
\end{eqnarray}
This result is common to all recent successful chiral models of spin
fractions. Let us emphasize that the general reduction of the valence
quark spin fractions $\Delta q^{0}$ by chiral fluctuations in lowest
order in Eq.~\ref{delp} is the
crucial property responsible for the remarkable success of chiral field theory
for the proton spin fractions. Eq.~\ref{delp} can be compared to the
corresponding one from DIS involving the polarized splitting functions
\begin{equation}
P^{-}_{q\rightarrow q' GB}(y)=\int d^2 k_{\perp} f^{-}_{q\rightarrow q'
GB}(y, \vec{k}_{\perp}),
\label{polspl}
\end{equation}
which has the same form as Eq.~\ref{delp},
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta q(x) = (1-P_q)\Delta q^0(x)+\sum_{m,q'}p_m P^{-}_{q'\rightarrow q m}
\otimes \Delta q'^0
\label{delq}
\end{eqnarray}
except for the replacement of $-P^+$ by the corresponding polarized splitting
function $P^-$. A comparison with Eqs.~\ref{nu},\ref{polnu} shows that this
approximation, $P^-\approx -P^+$, corresponds to neglecting the
non-spinflip probability, which is valid only if the quark mass term in the
numerator (i.e. Eq.~\ref{polnu} of the splitting functions is negligible
compared to the tranverse momentum scale. This is not the case for constituent
quarks~\cite{HJW,SW}.
Thus, when these $\Delta q(x)$ of Eq.~\ref{delq} are integrated over Bjorken
$x$, the lowest moments reproduce precisely the structure of the results for
the spin fractions~\cite{WB,WSK} (cf. Table 1).
\begin{table}[tbh]
\caption{\label{tab:1} Quark Spin Observables of the Proton (from
ref.~\protect\cite{WSK}), $a=$chiral strength, $\zeta =$relative
singlet to octet coupling and $\epsilon =SU_3$ breaking parameter in
$\lambda _8$ direction.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& Data & NQM & $a=$0.12 & $a=$0.12\\
& E143\cite{E143} & & no $\eta '$ & with $\eta '$ \\
& at 3 GeV$^2$ & & & $\zeta=$-0.3 \\
& SMC\cite{SMC} & & $\epsilon =$ 0.2 & $\epsilon =$ 0.2 \\
& at 5 GeV$^2$ & & & \\
\hline
$\Delta u$ & 0.84$\pm$ 0.05 & 4/3 & 0.83 & 0.81 \\
& 0.82$\pm$0.02 & & & \\
$\Delta d$ & -0.43$\pm$0.05 & -1/3& -0.39& -0.39 \\
& -0.43$\pm$0.02 & & & \\
$\Delta s$ & -0.08$\pm$0.05 & 0 & -0.07 & -0.07\\
& -0.10$\pm$0.02 & & & \\
$\Delta \Sigma $ & 0.30$\pm$0.06 & 1 & 0.36 & 0.35 \\
& 0.29$\pm$0.06 & & & \\
$\Delta_3/\Delta_8$ & 2.09$\pm$0.13 & 5/3 & 2.12 & 2.13 \\
$g^{(3)}_A$ & 1.2573$\pm$0.0028\cite{PDG}& 5/3 & 1.22 & 1.21 \\
${\cal F}/{\cal D}$ & 0.575$\pm$0.016 & 2/3 & 0.58 & 0.58 \\
$I_G$ & 0.235$\pm$0.026 & 1/3 & 0.27 & 0.25 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
\par
The detailed comparison in Sect. IV shows unambiguously that the success of
several recent chiral models~\cite{EHQ,WB,SMW,WSK,XS,OS,CLi} for the spin
fractions $\Delta q$ can be attributed to pure spinflip quark-Goldstone
boson couplings that do not account for quark mass terms from the non-spinflip
chiral transitions in the lowest moments of the splitting functions in
standard chiral field theory.
Whenever {\em constituent quark masses} are used in
Eqs.~\ref{nu},\ref{polnu}, then the positive contributions in $P^-$
corresponding to the non-spinflip probability represented by the quark mass
term substantially reduce the chiral
subtractions so that {\em no agreement with the proton spin data can
be achieved}~\cite{HJW,SW}. These results were obtained with quite
different initial valence quark distributions and both show that the
proton spin observable $\Delta \Sigma $ stays above the value 1/2. This
disagreement can be interpreted so that the constituent quark model in the
framework of standard chiral field theory, which is often called chiral quark
model~\cite{GM}, is ruled out by the proton spin data.
\par
The success of the chiral spin fraction models suggests that axialvector
quark-Goldstone boson couplings are consistent with current quarks, but not
constituent quarks. This usage conforms with the chiral field theory practiced
in chiral perturbation theory~\cite{CPT}.
It is interesting to note that proton spin data are
successfully described by models based on an instanton fluid in the vacuum,
where the instanton-quark interaction is also pure spinflip~\cite{DK}.
The proton spin data does not challenge the vast nuclear theory based on pion
exchange directly -- as the pion exchange potential has been successfully
tested through its pion exchange current predictions -- but it suggests
understanding better its derivation from QCD concepts such as current quark
masses and quark condensates, and not merely from constituent quark models.
|
\section{Introduction}
Clusters of galaxies are excellent cosmological probes. Their size suggests
that their constituents provide a fair sample of the universe.
Their structure and hydrodynamic state provide information on their formation
and evolution, and thus upon models of structure formation.
Measurements of the abundance of clusters of a given mass allows constraint of
the amplitude of mass fluctuations in the universe; measurements of abundance
evolution can be used to constrain the mass density $\Omega_{\rm m}$.
Many of these approaches depend upon some knowledge of the mass, or mass
distribution, of the cluster. Most techniques for measuring cluster
masses are based upon some equilibrium
assumption which relates the cluster mass to
an observable such as the temperature of the intracluster plasma
or the velocity dispersion of cluster galaxies.
Recently, however, it has become feasible to measure the surface density
distribution of a cluster through observations of weak gravitational lensing
of the background galaxy field by the cluster.
An attractive quality of this technique is that no assumptions about the
dynamical or thermodynamical state of the cluster components need be made.
In other words, weak lensing analyses probe the mass distribution directly.
However, analyses of the mass distribution of a cluster drawn from
weak lensing observations are not without problems (for a recent review,
see Mellier~\cite{Mellier}).
Many of these relate to details of the procedure adopted to go from the
observed ellipticity distribution to the mass, or from instrumental effects.
We will not discuss these in this {\em Letter}.
We are interested here in the degree to which weak lensing mass estimates
of clusters are affected by lensing from material outside but nearby the
cluster. This is a source of systematic error which is not well understood
(though it has been alluded to in earlier work,
e.g.~Miralda-Escude~\cite{ME}; Wambsganss, Cen \& Ostriker~\cite{WamCenOst}).
Since clusters form in overdense regions, the volume surrounding a cluster
is likely to contain infalling overdense matter (Gunn \& Gott~\cite{GunGot}).
This infalling matter could add to an observed lensing signal and result in
an overestimate of the cluster mass.
It is possible that this bias could be quite severe. In modern hierarchical
models of structure formation, such as the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) model,
numerical simulations imply that clusters form primarily at the intersections
of filaments in a web of cosmic structure, accreting additional diffuse
mass and smaller collapsed objects that drain along these filaments.
It is thus reasonable to expect a beaded filamentary structure surrounding
most clusters of galaxies.
Tentative observational evidence of filamentary structure near clusters
has been reported recently
(Kull \& Boehringer~\cite{KulBoe}, Kaiser et al.~\cite{MS0302}).
A filament lying near the line-of-sight will also lens the background
galaxies, and therefore contribute spuriously to the lensing signal.
If the observed lensing signal were attributed solely to the cluster,
the inferred cluster mass could be much larger than its actual mass.
In this {\em Letter}, we use mock clusters from numerical simulations
to explore the significance of the systematic mass overestimation
induced by the additional lensing signal of both diffuse and
filamentary material near the cluster. We find that this effect can
be quite significant and must be considered when evaluating the results
of lensing mass reconstruction techniques. In the next section, we
describe the numerical data and our procedure for evaluating the
errors introduced into cluster mass estimates by nearby material.
Section 3 describes the results of our analyses. We discuss these
results and outline plans for future study at the end.
\section{Method}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
& & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Number} \\
& & 0 & 2 & 4 \\
$R_{\rm sphere}$ & $(h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})$ & 12.9 & 15.1 & 14.9 \\
$r_{200}$ & $(h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})$ & 3.14 & 2.76 & 2.60 \\
$M_{200}$ & $(h^{-1} 10^{15} M_{\sun})$ & 2.16 & 1.47 & 1.23 \\
$M_{>70}$ & $(h^{-1} 10^{15} M_{\sun})$ & 2.41 & 3.11 & 2.35 \\
$M_{>10}$ & $(h^{-1} 10^{15} M_{\sun})$ & 3.24 & 4.24 & 3.37 \\
$M_{\rm tot}$ & $(h^{-1} 10^{15} M_{\sun})$ & 3.89 & 5.09 & 4.15 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\tfa
Parameters for the 3 simulated clusters discussed in this
{\em Letter}. $R_{\rm sphere}$ is the size of the sphere, centered on
the cluster, which we consider in this work, $r_{200}$ is the 3D radius
defined in Eq.~\protect\ref{eq:r200def} and $M_{200}$ the mass enclosed.
$M_{>70}$ and $M_{>10}$ are masses cutting out particles above thresholds
of 70 and 10 times local density respectively (see text).
$M_{\rm tot}$ is the total mass in the sphere.}
\label{tab:numbers}
\end{table}
Weak lensing mass reconstruction techniques produce a map of shear or
convergence. These are integrals of the mass along the line-of-sight
times a projection kernel.
This kernel is quite wide in the redshift direction, scaling as
$D_LD_{LS}/D_S$ where $D_L$ is the distance from the observer to the lens,
$D_S$ from the observer to the source and $D_{LS}$ from the lens to the
source\footnote{For a distribution of source distances, one takes an
appropriate integral of this expression.} (Mellier~\cite{Mellier}).
Under the assumption that the cluster is the most massive object along the
line-of-sight and is well localized in space (the thin-lens approximation),
the convergence map is proportional to the projected surface density map
of the lensing cluster itself.
Any additional mass located near the cluster and along the line-of-sight
will also contribute to the lensing signal. Since the kernel is such
a slowly varying function of distance, material even large distances from
the cluster will contribute within the thin lens approximation.
For a source at $z=1$ and a cluster at $z\sim0.5$ the kernel changes by
only 1\% within $\pm40\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc of the cluster in a universe with
$\Omega_{\rm m}=0.3=1-\Omega_\Lambda$, with similar results in other
cosmologies.
As a result, weak lensing observations will probe the projected density of
a cluster {\em plus\/} all of the material in its vicinity.
Note that this ``nearby'' material is essentially ``at'' the redshift of
the cluster for the purposes of lensing, and so cannot be distinguished
by using extra information such as source redshifts.
To study the effect of the surrounding mass upon the projected mass
inferred from lensing observations of the simulated clusters, we have examined
the mass distribution around several clusters of galaxies extracted from a
large cosmological simulation.
The simulated clusters
were taken from the X-Ray Cluster Data Archive of the
Laboratory for Computational Astrophysics of the National Center for
Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), and the Missouri Astrophysics Research
Group of the University of Missouri.
To produce these clusters, a particle-mesh N-body simulation incorporating
adaptive mesh refinement was performed
in a volume $256\,h^{-1}$Mpc on a side.
Regions where clusters formed were identified; for each cluster, the
simulation was then re-run (including a baryonic fluid) with finer
resolution grids centered upon the cluster of interest.
In the adaptive mesh refinement technique, the
mesh resolution dynamically improves as needed in high-density regions.
The ``final'' mesh scale at the highest resolution was $15.6\,h^{-1}$ kpc,
allowing good
resolution of the filamentary structure around the cluster. Inside
the cluster, the characteristic separation between the smallest--mass
particles, given by $d\,=\,\left(4\pi\ r_{200}^3/3N\right)^{1/3}$ with $N$
the number of particles inside the region, was approximately 86 kpc
for all three clusters examined here.
The code is described in detail in Norman \& Bryan (\cite{TheCode}).
The clusters used here were extracted at $z=0$ from simulations of a
$\Lambda$CDM model, with parameters
$\Omega_{\rm m}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\rm B}=0.026$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$,
$h=0.7$, and $\sigma_8=0.928$.
In this {\em Letter\/} we observe these clusters as if they were at $z=0.5$.
In future work we plan to investigate the dependence of these results on
cosmology and on cluster redshift.
Since the number density of rich clusters is approximately
$\phi_{*}\sim 10^{-5}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, the typical separation between them
is $\phi_{*}^{-1/3}\sim 40\,h^{-1}$Mpc.
This is a characteristic scale for filaments: volumes containing a cluster
and with one-dimensional extent $\sim 40\,h^{-1}$Mpc should also contain much
of the nearby filamentary structure.
Three such volumes, containing a rich cluster (Clusters 0, 2 and 4) as
well as satellites and
filaments, were extracted from the archive. We selected clusters that did
not appear to be mergers or have a large secondary mass concentration nearby.
Such systems might be excluded observationally from studying, for instance,
the galaxy line-of-sight velocity distribution.
For each volume, the ``center'' of our cluster was determined using a
maximum-density algorithm.
As the extracted volumes were not spherical, it was possible that some
lines of sight could contain more mass than others simply by geometry.
To avoid such biases we restrict our analysis to particles that lay within the
largest sphere, centered on the cluster, which was contained entirely within
the extracted volume.
The radii of these spheres, $R_{\rm sphere}$, are listed in
Table~\ref{tab:numbers}, along with other properties of the clusters.
Note that these radii are large compared to the projected values of $r_{200}$
obtained for each cluster; thus no significant radial surface density gradient
is introduced by a decreasing chord length through the sphere with radius.
It is also important to note that since our volumes are by necessity
limited, our results should be interpreted as a {\em lower limit\/} to the
size of the effect; the magnitude of the lensing kernel is still significant
at the edge of our spherical volume.
Each of the clusters we examined was surrounded by a large amount of mass.
Most of this material appeared by eye to be collapsed into ``beads'' along a
filamentary structure, although a small number of clumps could be found
outside the filaments.
We show a projection of a fraction of the points from the simulation
of cluster 4 in Fig.~\ref{fig:cl004}.
The filamentary structure and satellites are easily evident. Note that
this filamentary structure extends
well beyond our radius $R_{\rm sphere}$.
No single projection can show the full 3D nature of the structure,
in which the filamentarity is even more apparent.
Since much of this mass is at low density it is unlikely it would be a site
for galaxy formation or otherwise emit light. Thus this structure would not
be easy to constrain by observations of redshifts near the cluster.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\epsfxsize=3.3in \epsfbox{f1.eps}}
\caption{\tfa
Cluster 4, with a fraction of the particles projected onto
the $x-z$ plane. Note the filamentary structure, with clumps beading
up in the filaments. The dashed circle marks the sphere of radius
$R_{\rm sphere}$ to within which we have restricted our analysis
(see text).}
\label{fig:cl004}
\end{figure}
We observed each of the three selected clusters from $10,000$ randomly
chosen viewing angles.
For each cluster and viewing angle, the projected surface density map was
constructed and used to estimate $r_{200}$, the radius within which the mean
interior density contrast is 200.
In three dimensions, this radius is defined in terms of the enclosed mass by
\begin{equation}
M\left(<r_{200}\right)=200\times \left({4\pi\over3}\right)
\Omega_{\rm m}\, \rho_{\rm crit}\, r_{200}^3.
\label{eq:r200def}
\end{equation}
The projected estimate of $r_{200}$ was extracted from the surface
density map by considering the radius of the circle, centered on the
cluster, which contained the amount of mass given by
Eq.~(\ref{eq:r200def}) above, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{2\pi}{\rm d}\theta \int_0^{r_{200}} R\, {\rm d}R
\,\ \Sigma\left(R,\theta\right)
= M\left(<r_{200}\right)
\end{equation}
with $\Sigma\left(R,\theta\right)$ the surface density on the map in terms of a
two-dimensional radius $R$. This radius was compared to the cluster's
true $r_{200}$, extracted from the three--dimensional mass distribution.
The ratio of the projected mass to true mass is given simply by the cube
of the ratio of the estimated value of $r_{200}$ to the true value.
For each cluster, a value of this ratio was obtained for each viewing angle.
\section{Results}
Our main result is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass}, where we show the
distribution of projected vs.~``true'' cluster mass in each of the three
simulated clusters.
We have checked that the features in the histogram do not come from shot noise
due to discrete particles in the simulation. However, the ``spikiness''
{\em is\/} due to a discrete number of objects in the neighborhood of the
cluster. A small lump of matter near the cluster will project entirely within
$r_{200}$ for a fraction of the lines of sight.
For any such line of sight, the effect on the projected value of $r_{200}$
is identical.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\epsfysize=9cm \epsfbox{f2.eps}}
\caption{\tfa
The ratio of projected to actual mass within $r_{200}$ for our
3 simulated clusters. In all cases nearby mass (primarily in filaments)
has biased the projected mass distribution to higher values. The typical
bias is a few tens of percent (b-c), with less of an effect on massive
clusters (a). The vertical dashed line marks the mean of the distribution.}
\label{fig:mass}
\end{figure}
We expect the ratio $M_{200}/M_{\rm true}$ to be greater than unity since
only additional mass can be included in the projection. The size of the
smallest offset from unity for clusters 0 and 4 is approximately twice what
would be expected for material uniformly distributed at the mean density.
This suggests that matter near the cluster is itself clustered and at higher
than mean density.
The width of the histogram in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass}, as a fraction of the true
mass, depends on the true mass of the cluster.
Though we have only a few clusters in this study, it appears that the mass in
nearby material is not proportional to the cluster mass, thus the relative
effect of this material is smaller the larger the cluster.
The total mass in the sphere, $M_{\rm tot}$, is also listed in
Table~\ref{tab:numbers} for reference.
The signal shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass} comes from (primarily filamentary)
material outside the cluster and is {\em not\/} the well known projection
effect arising from cluster asphericity.
To verify this, we repeated the procedure described above for a subset of
particles aimed at selecting the cluster alone. This was done by first
selecting out particles with a local density contrast of greater than 70
(chosen because density profiles near $r^{-2}$ reach a local density contrast
near 70 at a mean interior density contrast of 200); a small sphere
containing the cluster but little nearby material was then cut out
of this subset. The histogram produced by viewing the clearly prolate
cluster at a large number of randomly chosen viewing angles produced
a much narrower distribution, with a maximum offset of less than $10\%$
in the mass ratio and a mean offset of approximately half that value.
While it is beyond the scope of this {\em Letter\/} to perform a detailed
modelling of any observational weak lensing strategy, we show in
Fig.~\ref{fig:zeta} two sample profiles obtained from aperture densitometry
on our noiseless projected mass maps.
Specifically, for Cluster 4, we show the profile along the lines of sight
giving the largest and smallest $r_{200}$, for comparison.
The $\zeta$ statistic is the mean value of the convergence, $\kappa$, within
a disk of radius $r_1$ minus the mean value within an annulus
$r_1\le r\le r_2$ (Fahlman et al.~\cite{Fahlman}, Kaiser~\cite{K95}).
Here we calculate $\zeta$ directly from the projected mass, though
observationally it would be computed from the tangential shear.
We have taken $r_2=800''$.
Such a large radius is not (currently) achievable observationally, but it
minimizes the impact of objects nearby the cluster and provides a lower
limit on the size of the projection effect.
We have explicitly checked that reducing the radius to half this value does
not change our result.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\epsfxsize=3.3in \epsfbox{f3.eps}}
\caption{\tfa
The profile $\zeta(r_1,r_2)$ (see text) for cluster 4 along two
lines of sight with extremal values of $r_{200}$.
We have used $r_2=800''$ in making this figure. Such a large radius is
not currently achievable observationally, but it minimizes the impact of
objects nearby the cluster and provides a lower limit on the effect.
Reducing this radius by a factor of two does not change the result.
Note that both profiles appear smooth and well behaved, even though they
differ in mass by a factor of 1.7.}
\label{fig:zeta}
\end{figure}
In calculating the convergence $\kappa$, the cluster was again assumed
to be at a redshift of $0.5$, with the lensed sources at a redshift of
$1.0$. In any real observation, of course, the lensed sources will
span a range of redshifts. For material very close to the cluster, such
as here, this will not affect our conclusions, and the error introduced by
incorrectly modelling the redshift distribution of the background sources
is not the subject of this work.
In addition to being easy to estimate, the $\zeta$ statistic is robust and
minimizes contamination by foreground mass (Mellier~\cite{Mellier}) because
it is insensitive to the sheet mass degeneracy. This does not, however,
remove the sensitivity to {\em clustered\/} material, as can be seen in
Fig.~\ref{fig:zeta}.
The mass which would be inferred from Fig.~\ref{fig:zeta} along two lines
of sight differ by a factor of $1.7$.
While the distribution of the projection effect varies from cluster
to cluster, it seems clear that positive biases in projected mass of
$20\%$ are typical, with biases above $30\%$ not uncommon. Furthermore,
we emphasize again that these estimates are in fact {\em lower limits\/};
some lines of sight through the untruncated volume produced overestimates
as large as $80\%$ or more. While appropriate modeling of a mean density
profile outside $r_{200}$ (drawn perhaps from simulations such as these)
can be used to produce an unbiased estimator, the width of these histograms
implies a large amount of scatter around such an estimator of the true
(unprojected) mass. It is clear that this effect can be quite significant and
must be taken into account when attempting to understand the results of mass
reconstruction analyses.
\section{Conclusions}
Clusters of galaxies are part of the large-scale structure of the universe
and observations of them should be considered within this context.
The filamentary structure near a cluster can
contain a reasonable fraction of the mass
of a cluster in tenuous material. Should a filament lie close to the
line-of-sight to a cluster it will contribute to the weak lensing signal and
positively bias the projected mass.
We have shown that such a bias could easily be 30\% (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mass}).
Weak lensing remains one of the best methods for determining the mass of
clusters of galaxies. However methods which obtain the mass from estimates
of the projected surface density must consider the effect outlined in this
{\em Letter}. This is clearly of particular significance for attempts to
determine the mass function of clusters directly through surveys of weak
lensing-determined masses.
We have not attempted to address the detailed question of how much this
filamentary signal would affect a {\em particular\/} reconstruction
algorithm; the answer is no doubt algorithm dependent.
We hope to return to this issue in future work, as well
as to consider the effect of cosmological model and evolution with cluster
redshift.
The authors would like to thank Greg Bryan and Greg Daues for assistance
in understanding the archive data, and Gordon Squires and Albert Stebbins
for useful conversations on lensing.
This research was supported by the NSF.
|
\section{Introduction}
The charge coupled device (CCD) is a standard X-ray detector due to its
high X-ray detection efficiency, moderate X-ray resolving power, and
high spatial resolving power. The Solid-state Imaging Spectrometer,
SIS, onboard ASCA is the first CCD camera used as a photon counting
detector and equipped on board the satellite (\cite{Tanaka}). Following
SIS, many satellites such as HETE (\cite{Ricker}), Chandra
(\cite{ACIS}), XMM (\cite{XMM}), and Astro-E (\cite{Hayashida}) carry a
X-ray CCD camera on their focal planes.
\section{MAXI}
The International Space Station (ISS) will be placed in a nearly
circular, high inclination (51.6$^\circ$), low Earth orbit having a 96
minute orbital period with respect to a point in the sky. ISS will
rotate synchronously with its orbit so that one side will always point
toward the center of the Earth and the opposite side will permanently
view the sky. A payload is attached to the main structure of the JEM
which rotates and has unpredictable disturbances. Therefore, pointed
observations are very difficult on the JEM. On the other hand,
synchronous rotation with orbital revolution provides access to the
entire sky in one orbit without a moving mechanism. Considering these
characteristics, we conclude that a monitoring mission or survey of a
large field of the sky is suitable, and can produce significant
scientific results.
The schematic view of MAXI is shown in figure~\ref{maxi}. MAXI can scan
almost the entire sky with a precision of 1$^\circ$. MAXI carries two
kinds of X-ray detectors: a one-dimensional position-sensitive
proportional counter (GSC) and an X-ray CCD camera (SSC). Combining
these two cameras, MAXI can monitor X-ray sources with an energy band
of $0.5-30$ keV. The total weight of MAXI is about 500 kg. Simulations
of the data expected from MAXI have been performed in
(\cite{Rubin}). A detailed description of MAXI can be found in
(\cite{Matsuoka}, \cite{Matsuoka2}).
\section{SSC}
The SSC is an X-ray CCD camera system. The SSC consists of two X-ray
CCD cameras, each comprising 16 CCD chips. The block diagram of the
SSC camera is shown in figure~\ref{block-diagram}. The SSC consists of
three parts: two CCD cameras, analogue electronics (SSCE), and a
digital processing unit (DP). Detailed specifications of the SSC are
shown in table~\ref{table:spec}.
The CCD is fabricated by Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. (HPK). The CCD chip
is three-side buttable with full-frame transfer and has 1024 $\times$
1024 pixels of 24$\mu$m$\times$24$\mu$m size with two phase gate
structures. The CCD chip is covered by $\sim$2000\AA\ Al to block
optical light. The CCD is operated at $-60^\circ$C, which is
achieved by using a passive cooling system and a Peltier cooling system
(TEC). TEC is supported with glasses to hold out the launch shock.
The SSCE is developed by Meisei Electronics. There are several CCD
signal processing techniques (\cite{CCD} and references therein). To
measure the voltage of each charge packet, we need a reference voltage
between the floating level and the signal level. The correlated double
sampling technique is widely used for this purpose. In practice, it
is advantageous to integrate or take the sum of the signals rather
than merely spot sample floating and signal levels. Thus, a delay-line
circuit is used in SIS/ASCA and an integrated circuit is introduced
for SXC/HETE, ACIS/Chandra and XIS/Astro-E. We plan to develop all
these circuits for the SSC and will select the one that possesses
the lowest readout noise.
Since the data rate of CCD is fairly high, an onboard data reduction
system is important. We developed an efficient reduction system based
on our experiences with SIS/ASCA and XIS/Astro-E. There are three
parts in DP: the control unit, the event handling unit (EHU), and the
telemetry unit. Two CPU boards (RAD 6000) on the VME bus will be used
for EHU and another CPU board will be used for the control unit, the
telemetry unit, and GSC data processing.
There are two interfaces between MAXI and JEM Exposed Facility (EF):
medium-speed interface (10Base-T ethernet) and low-speed interface
(MIL1553B). All CCD data will be downlinked through the ethernet
whereas part of health and status (HS) data will be transferred
through MIL1553B.
Based on the SIS/ASCA, we have learnt much about radiation damage on
the CCD (\cite{ayamashi}). One serious problem is the increase
in dark current and its non-uniformity. To minimize the effects of
radiation damage on the CCD, we allocate a dark level buffer for every
pixel. The dark level for each pixel is updated for every frame based
on the pulse height of pixel of interest. For the recovery of the
radiation damage, we use an annealing process. However, we think that
the radiation damage would be small because the lifetime of MAXI is
two years (might be extended) and the orbit is lower than other
missions ($\simeq$ 400km).
Since the SSC is a one-dimensional X-ray camera, we use the spatial
resolving power of the CCD only for the horizontal axis. Thus, we
operate CCD in the parallel summing mode (same as the fast mode for
SIS/ASCA). The vertical axis of the CCD corresponds to the time. The
binning number can be changed as $2^{\rm n}$ (n=2$\sim$8). 16 CCD
chips in one camera are read cyclically using a multiplexer.
\section{SSC Engineering Model}
The engineering model (EM) of the CCD chip has been completed and
tested at the Osaka University X-ray CCD laboratory. EM of CCD is
shown in figure~\ref{ccd-chip} where CCD is fixed on the Al plate. Two
cables connected to the CCD are used for the Peltier cooler.
There are three types of CCD produced for EM: a standard chip
(standard), a deep depletion type I (deep-I), and a deep depletion
type II (deep-II). There is a difference both in the depletion layer
and in the dark current among these three types of CCDs. The details
of these three chips can be referred to in Miyaguchi et al. (1999,
\cite{Miyaguchi}).
EM of the SSCE has been fabricated by MEISEI on the VME board. The
function test of the EM SSCE is underway.
\section{X-ray Responsivity}
\subsection{Experimental Setup and Analysis}
We evaluated the X-ray responsivity of deep-I EM CCD. We cooled the
CCD chip down to $-100^\circ$ with a He cryogenic system in the
vacuum chamber. We used the C4880 CCD camera system, which is
the X-ray CCD data acquisition system manufactured by HPK. Exposure
time was set at 5 seconds.
CCD frame files were transfered to a workstation through the ethernet
with FITS format after they were acquired by C4880. HK information was
collected with a workstation and stored in a hard disk.
Dark current image was constructed with several CCD frame files using
the same algorithm as that of XIS/Astro-E (\cite{Hayashida}). Before
the X-ray event extraction, the dark current image was subtracted from
each frame.
\subsection{Results}
Figure~\ref{fe-spec} shows the energy spectrum of X-rays from
$^{55}$Fe for single-pixel events. The split threshold is $\simeq$ 70
eV. Mn K$\alpha$ and K$\beta$ lines are clearly separated. The energy
resolution of Mn K$\alpha$ has a full-width at half maximum of
$\simeq$ 182 eV. Readout noise is $\simeq$ 11 e$^-$rms.
Since the energy resolution of HPK CCD is $\sim$40\% less than that
obtained by CCDs fabricated by the MIT Lincoln Laboratory
(e.g. \cite{Hayashida}). HPK plans to improve the CCD to achieve
performance comparable to those of other X-ray CCD devices.
\section{Conclusion}
MAXI is an X-ray all-sky monitor on the International Space Station
and is due for flight in 2003. It is designed to scan almost the entire
sky with a precision of 1$^\circ$ and with an X-ray energy range of
0.5$-$30~keV in the course of one station orbit.
We have developed the engineering model of the analogue electronics
and the CCD chips for the X-ray CCD camera, SSC. We evaluated the X-ray
responsivity of the EM CCD chip. The energy resolution of Mn K$\alpha$
X-rays has a full-width at a half maximum of 182 eV. Based on the EM
results, we will improve the performance of CCD and its electronics.
|
\section{Introduction}
While supersymmetry (SUSY) is generally agreed to be integral to any
theory incorporating both gravity and gauge forces,
techniques for investigating nonperturbative effects such as
chiral symmetry breaking are still in their early stages.
A small number of authors
have employed Dyson Schwinger Equations (DSEs) to analyse various SUSY theories
\cite{Pski,clark,ster,sham} and small inroads into numerical solutions
\cite{me} of the SUSY DSE (SDSE) in Supersymmetric Quantum Electrodynamics
(SQED) in 2+1 dimensions (SQED$_3$) have been made.
Analyses of SUSY theories generally use the rainbow approximation to
truncate the DSEs at a manageable level. One exception is Clark and Love who
use the superfield formalism and
derive a differential $U(1)$ gauge Ward Identity for the superfields.
They find that the effective mass contains a prefactor
which vanishes in Feynman gauge and conclude that there can be no
spontaneous mass generation in SQED, even beyond the rainbow approximation.
However the superfield
approach suffers the disadvantage that each DSE contains an infinite
number of terms. This is dealt with by truncating
diagrams containing seagull and higher order $n$-point vertices.
The work of Clark and Love has been criticized by
Kaiser and Selipsky on two grounds \cite{kaiser}. Firstly they argue that
the truncation of seagull diagrams is too severe as it ignores contributions
even at the one-loop level. Secondly they point out that infinities
arising from infrared divergences which plague the superfield formalism
can counter the vanishing prefactor and allow spontaneous mass generation.
These criticisms highlight some of the dangers of attempting to extract
phenomenological consequences of supersymmetric DSEs by working
solely with the superfield formalism. In fact, analyses in the literature
\cite{sham,me} have generally found the component formalism to be the
most efficient way to proceed.
Koopmans and Steringa \cite{ster}, using the
component formalism, also sought to be consistent with the
differential $U(1)$ gauge WI in their analysis of SQED3 with two-component
fermions. To this end they
multiplied the bare vertices by $A(q^2)$ where the electron propagator is given
by $S^{-1}(q)=i(\gamma \cdot q A(q^2) + B(q^2))$. This approach is questionable
as it implicitly approximates the functions $A(p^2)$ and $B(p^2)$ as being
flat. While this approximation is reasonable
over most of the momentum range, it
is not valid in the low momentum limit where the dynamics are
largely determined.
Attempts to go beyond the rainbow approximation in non-SUSY theories
began with the Ball and Chiu \cite{ball} vertex ans\"atze
for QED and QCD. These are the minimal vertices which ``solve'' the Ward
Takahashi Identities (WTIs) while avoiding kinematic
singularities. Ball and Chiu also gave the general form of the possible
``transverse'' pieces which may be added. Since then several authors have
sought to construct ans\"atze which improve on the minimal Ball-Chiu
vertex \cite{CP91,paulus}.
That analogous progress has not been made in SQED using the component formalism
is not suprising. Not only must the gauge particle vertices be dressed
but the gaugino vertices also. Indeed substituting the minimal Ball and Chiu
vertex for photon interactions in SQED$_3$ while leaving the other vertices
bare exacerbates the SDSE's gauge violating properties \cite{me}. The problem
of going beyond the rainbow approximation in SUSY theories is the problem of
finding the gaugino vertices corresponding to the improved photon vertex.
Gaugino vertices are not constrained by the WTI since the gaugino
is invariant to gauge transformations. However they are related to the gauge
particle vertices by SUSY Ward Identities (SWIs). It is the purpose of this
paper to derive and solve the SWIs for SQED and obtain the most general
form of the three-point vertex functions consistent with both SUSY and $U(1)$
gauge Ward identities.
Sec.\ref{twopoint} gives the SWIs between the various two-point functions
of SQED and their solution which is unique once the electron
propagator is known. Sec.\ref{auxiliary} shows how to
treat proper functions of auxiliary fields.
Sec.\ref{SWI} gives the SWIs
constraining the three-point proper functions and finds that
the rainbow approximation violates SUSY. The most general form
of the vertices consistent with
these identities is presented in Sec.\ref{threepoint} and proven
to be so in Appendix \ref{proof}.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{$U(1)$ and Supersymmetric Ward Identities}
\label{twopoint}
The conventions used in this paper are that $g^{\mu \nu} =$
diag$(1,-1,-1,-1)$, $\{\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\}=2g^{\mu \nu}$,
and $\gamma_5 = i\gamma^0 \gamma^1 \gamma^2 \gamma^3$.
The Lagrangian of SQED,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{lagrang}
L &=& |f|^2 + |g|^2+ |\partial_\mu a|^2 + |\partial_\mu b|^2
- \bar{\psi} \not \! \partial \psi \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&&-m(a^*f + af^* + b^*g + bg^* + i\bar{\psi} \psi)\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&&- ieA^\mu(a^\ast \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\mu a
+ b^\ast \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\mu b
+ \bar{\psi} \gamma_\mu \psi) \nonumber \\ \\
&&- e[\bar{\lambda}(a^\ast + i\gamma_5 b^\ast)\psi
- \bar{\psi}(a + i\gamma_5 b) \lambda] \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&&+ ieD(a^\ast b - a b^\ast)
+e^2 A_\mu A^\mu (|a|^2 + |b|^2) \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu}F_{\mu \nu} -
\frac{1}{2}\bar{\lambda} \not \! \partial \lambda + \frac{1}{2} D^2, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
is, by construction, invariant with respect to both $U(1)$
gauge transformations and SUSY transformations where the SUSY transformations
are given by \cite{wz}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{super}
&\delta_S a = -i\bar{\zeta} \psi,& \nonumber \\
&\delta_S b = \bar{\zeta} \gamma_5 \psi,& \nonumber \\
&\delta_S \psi = [f + i\gamma_5 g + i\gamma \cdot \partial(a + i\gamma_5 b)
-e \gamma \cdot A (a-i\gamma_5 b)]\zeta,& \\
&\delta_S f = \bar{\zeta} [\gamma \cdot \partial \psi
+ e[-a\lambda -i b \gamma_5 \lambda + i\gamma \cdot A \psi ]],& \nonumber \\
&\delta_S g = i\bar{\zeta} [\gamma_5 \gamma \cdot \partial \psi
+ e[-\gamma_5 \lambda -i b \lambda -i \gamma \cdot A \gamma_5 \psi]],& \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
for the chiral multiplet and
\begin{eqnarray}
&\delta_S A_\mu = \bar{\zeta} \gamma_\mu \lambda,& \nonumber \\
&\delta_S \lambda = \sigma^{\nu \mu} \partial_\mu A_\nu \zeta
+i\gamma_5 D \zeta,& \nonumber \\
&\delta_S D = i\bar{\zeta} \gamma_5 \gamma \cdot \partial \lambda,& \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
for the vector multiplet. It is important to note that the transformations in
Eqn.(\ref{super}) are not true SUSY transformations but SUSY transformations
plus a gauge transformation. This is a manifestation of the Wess-Zumino (WZ)
gauge which is used to make the Lagrangian polynomial \cite{wz}. A true SUSY
transformation spoils the WZ gauge and must be followed by a gauge
transformation which restores it for the Lagrangian to be invariant.
It is from this invariance that the SWIs arise.
The SWIs completely specify the selectron propagators in terms of the electron
propagator \cite{iz}. The
SWIs relating the scalar propagators to the electron propagator \cite{iz} are
\begin{equation} \label{SUSY_WI}
\langle \psi \bar{\psi} \rangle =
i\langle a^* f\rangle - i\gamma \cdot p \langle a^* a\rangle =
i\langle b^* g\rangle - i\gamma \cdot p \langle b^* b\rangle,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\gamma \cdot p \langle \psi \bar{\psi} \rangle =
-i\langle f^* f\rangle + i\gamma \cdot p \langle f^* a\rangle =
-i\langle g^* g\rangle + i\gamma \cdot p \langle g^* b\rangle.
\end{equation}
Substituting in the fermion propagator
\begin{equation} \label{fermiprop}
S(p) \equiv \langle \psi \bar{\psi} \rangle =
\frac{-i}{\gamma \cdot p A(p^2) + B(p^2)},
\end{equation}
gives the scalar propagators
\begin{equation}
\label{boseprop}
D(p^2) \equiv \langle a^* a\rangle = \langle b^* b\rangle =
\frac{A(p^2)}{p^2 A^2 (p^2) - B^2 (p^2)},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{atofprop}
\langle a^* f\rangle = \langle b^* g\rangle =
\frac{B(p^2)}{p^2 A^2 (p^2) - B^2 (p^2)}
= \frac{B(p^2)}{A(p^2)} D(p^2),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{auxprop}
\langle f^* f\rangle = \langle g^* g\rangle =
\frac{p^2 A(p^2)}{p^2 A^2 (p^2) - B^2 (p^2)}.
\end{equation}
SWIs hold between proper vertices too of course. Taking $\Gamma$ to be the
effective action we define $\Gamma_{X..Z} \equiv \frac{\delta^n \Gamma}
{\delta X ... \delta Z}$. The two-point proper vertices are constrained by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} \psi} & \equiv & \langle \psi \bar{\psi} \rangle^{-1} \nonumber \\
&=& -i\Gamma_{f^* a}(p) + i\gamma \cdot p \Gamma_{f^* f}(p) =
-i\Gamma_{g^* b}(p) + i\gamma \cdot p \Gamma_{g^* g}(p),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\gamma \cdot p \Gamma_{\bar{\psi} \psi}(p) =
i\Gamma_{a^* a}(p) - i\gamma \cdot p \Gamma_{a^* f}(p) =
i\Gamma_{b^* b}(p) - i\gamma \cdot p \Gamma_{b^* g}(p),
\end{equation}
to be
\begin{eqnarray} \label{twoeleven}
\Gamma_{a^* a}(p) = \Gamma_{b^* b}(p) = p^2 A(p^2), \\
\Gamma_{a^* f}(p) = \Gamma_{f^* a}(p) = \Gamma_{b^* g}(p) =
\Gamma_{g^* b}(p) = - B(p^2), \label{twotwelve} \\
\Gamma_{f^* f}(p) = \Gamma_{g^* g}(p) = A(p^2). \label{twothirteen}
\end{eqnarray}
It is interesting that $\Gamma_{a^* a}(p) = \Gamma_{b^* b}(p) \neq
D(p^2)^{-1}$. This can be attributed to the presence of the auxiliary
fields $f$ and $g$. The treatment of proper functions involving selectrons
is discussed in the next section.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Handling the Proper Functions of Auxiliary Fields}
\label{auxiliary}
One of the difficulties of the component notation in SQED is that of
dealing with the auxiliary fields $f,g$ and $D$. The first two are particularly
difficult as they contribute off-diagonal quadratic terms which
give the scalar propagators an unfamiliar form. To make the free field
theory manifestly Gaussian we define,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{$[a]$} &\equiv& \left( \begin{array}{c} a \\ f \end{array} \right), \\
\mbox{$[b]$} &\equiv& \left( \begin{array}{c} b \\ g \end{array} \right), \\
\mbox{$[a]^\dagger$} &\equiv& \left( \begin{array}{cc} a^* & f^* \end{array} \right), \\
\mbox{$[b]^\dagger$} &\equiv& \left( \begin{array}{cc} b^* & g^* \end{array} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
The Lagrangian becomes
\begin{eqnarray} \label{newlagrang}
L &=& [a]^\dagger \left[ \begin{array}{cc} -\partial^2 & -m \\ -m & 1 \end{array} \right] [a]
+ [b]^\dagger \left[ \begin{array}{cc} -\partial^2 & -m \\ -m & 1 \end{array} \right] [b]
- \bar{\psi} (\not \! \partial + im)\psi \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&&- ieA^\mu(\, [a]^\dagger \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\mu & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right] [a]
+ [b]^\dagger \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\mu & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right] [b]
+ \bar{\psi} \gamma_\mu \psi)
\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&&- e[\bar{\lambda}([a]^\dagger + i\gamma_5 [b]^\dagger)
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 0 \end{array} \right] \psi
- \bar{\psi} [ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \end{array} ]
([a] + i\gamma_5 [b]) \lambda] \nonumber \\ \\
&&+ ieD([a]^\dagger \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right] [b]
- [b]^\dagger \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right] [a])
\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&& +e^2 A_\mu A^\mu
([a]^\dagger \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right] [a]
+ [b]^\dagger \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right] [b])
\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu}F_{\mu \nu} -
\frac{1}{2}\bar{\lambda} \not \! \partial \lambda + \frac{1}{2} D^2, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and the problem of ``interpreting'' auxiliary fields is therefore side-stepped.
We shall denote the propagators or proper vertices involving $[a]$ or $[b]$ by
enclosing them in square brackets to distinguish them from the propagators
or vertices of the single component fields $a,b,f$ and $g$. Thus the $[a]$ and
$[b]$ propagators are
\begin{equation}
[D(p^2)] \equiv
\left[ \begin{array}{cc} \langle a^* a\rangle & \langle a^* f\rangle \\
\langle f^* a\rangle & \langle f^* f\rangle \end{array} \right]
= \left[ \begin{array}{cc} \langle b^* b\rangle & \langle b^* g\rangle \\
\langle g^* b\rangle & \langle g^* g\rangle \end{array} \right];
\end{equation}
their photon interaction is
\begin{equation}
[\Gamma_{(a,b)^* A_\mu (a,b)}](p,q) \equiv
\left[ \begin{array}{cc} \Gamma_{(a,b)^* A_\mu (a,b)}(p,q)
& \Gamma_{(a,b)^* A_\mu (f,g)}(p,q) \\
\Gamma_{(f,g)^* A_\mu (a,b)}(p,q)
& \Gamma_{(f,g)^* A_\mu (f,g)}(p,q) \end{array} \right];
\end{equation}
the photino interactions are
\begin{equation}
[\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} (a,b)^* \psi}](p,q) \equiv
[ \begin{array}{cc} \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} (a,b)^* \psi}(p,q) &
\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} (f,g)^* \psi}(p,q) \end{array} ],
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
[\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} (a,b) \lambda}](p,q) \equiv
\left[ \begin{array}{c} \Gamma_{\bar{\psi} (a,b) \lambda}(p,q) \\
\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} (f,g) \lambda}(p,q) \end{array} \right];
\end{equation}
and their $D$ interactions are
\begin{equation}
[\Gamma_{(a,b)^* D (b,a)}](p,q) \equiv
\left[ \begin{array}{cc} \Gamma_{(a,b)^* D (b,a)}(p,q)
& \Gamma_{(a,b)^* A_\mu (g,f)}(p,q) \\
\Gamma_{(f,g)^* A_\mu (b,a)}(p,q)
& \Gamma_{(f,g)^* A_\mu (g,f)}(p,q) \end{array} \right].
\end{equation}
One readily checks that
Eqs.(\ref{twoeleven}) to (\ref{twothirteen}) are consistent with
\begin{equation}
[\Gamma_{(a,b)^* (a,b)}](p) \equiv
\left[ \begin{array}{cc} \Gamma_{(a,b)^* (a,b)}(p)
& \Gamma_{(a,b)^* (f,g)}(p) \\
\Gamma_{(f,g)^* (a,b)}(p) & \Gamma_{(f,g)^* (f,g)}(p) \end{array} \right]
= [D(p^2)]^{-1}.
\end{equation}
With the Lagrangian in its familiar form and our notation established it is
a simple matter to write down the DSE for the electron in SQED, namely
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{S^{-1}(p) - S_{bare}^{-1}(p)} \\
&=&-\int \frac{d^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\{ D_{\mu \nu}(p-q) \gamma^\mu S(q)
\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} A_\mu \psi}^\nu (q,p) +
D_\lambda (p-q) [ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \end{array} ] [D(q)] [\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} a^* \psi}](q,p)\}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $D_{\mu \nu}$ is the photon propagator, and $D_\lambda$ the photino
propagator.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Supersymmetric Vertex Ward Identities}
\label{SWI}
Before we can find the vertices to substitute into the SDSE, we need the
SWIs which constrain them. These are found by taking functional
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Each SWI is derived from a functional derivative of
$\delta_S \Gamma =0$. The functional derivative leading to each
SWI (indicated by its equation number) is given in this table.\label{fnctl}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|}
\hline
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{Functional Derivative of
$\delta_S \Gamma =0$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{SWI} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{Functional Derivative of
$\delta_S \Gamma =0$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{SWI}\\
\hline
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta a(y) \delta a^* (x) \delta \bar{\lambda} (z))$}&
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{ephotinoa}} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta \psi(y) \delta D(z) \delta a^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{aDpsi}}\\
\hline
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta b(y) \delta b^* (x) \delta \bar{\lambda} (z))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{ephotinob}} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta \psi(y) \delta D(z) \delta b^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{bDpsi}}\\
\hline
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta f(y) \delta a^*(x) \delta \bar{\lambda}(z))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{ephotinof}} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta \psi(y) \delta D(z) \delta f^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{fDpsi}}\\
\hline
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta g(y) \delta b^*(x) \delta \bar{\lambda}(z))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{ephotinog}} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta \psi(y) \delta D(z) \delta g^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{gDpsi}}\\
\hline
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta f(y) \delta f^*(x) \delta \bar{\lambda}(z))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{efpsi}} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta b(y) \delta D(z) \delta a^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{alambdab}}\\
\hline
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta g(y) \delta g^*(x) \delta \bar{\lambda}(z))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{egpsi}} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta a(y) \delta \lambda (z) \delta b^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{blambdaa}}\\
\hline
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta \psi(y) \delta A_\mu(z) \delta f^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{ephotone}} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta g(y) \delta \lambda (z) \delta a^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{alambdag}}\\
\hline
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta \psi(y) \delta A_\mu(z) \delta g^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{ephotone2}} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta f(y) \delta \lambda (z) \delta b^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{blambdaf}}\\
\hline
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta \psi(y) \delta A_\mu(z) \delta a^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{apsi}} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma
(\delta a(y) \delta \lambda (z) \delta g^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{glambdaa}}\\
\hline
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta \psi(y) \delta A_\mu(z) \delta b^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{bpsi}} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta b(y) \delta \lambda (z) \delta f^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{flambdab}}\\
\hline
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta \psi_\alpha (y) \delta \bar{\psi}^\beta (x) \delta \lambda_\kappa (z))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{indices}} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta g(y) \delta \lambda (z) \delta f^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{flambdag}}\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c||}{}&
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\delta^3 \Gamma/
(\delta f(y) \delta \lambda (z) \delta g^*(x))$} &
\raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{\ref{glambdaf}}\\
\cline{3-4}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
derivatives of $\delta_S \Gamma =0$ where $\Gamma$ is the effective action
and $\delta_S$ is defined in Eqn.(\ref{super}).
The functional derivatives of $\delta_S \Gamma =0$ corresponding to the
following SWIs are given in table \ref{fnctl}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ephotinoa}
\lefteqn{\gamma_\mu \Gamma^\mu_{a^* A_\mu a}(p,q)} \\
&=& \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} a^* \psi}(p,q) \gamma \cdot q + e(B(p^2) - B(q^2))
+ \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} a^* \psi}(-q,-p) \gamma \cdot p, \nonumber \\
\label{ephotinob}
\lefteqn{\gamma_\mu \Gamma^\mu_{b^* A_\mu b}(p,q)} \\
&=& -i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} b^* \psi}(p,q)\gamma_5 \gamma \cdot q - e(B(p^2) - B(q^2))
- i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} b^* \psi}(-q,-p)\gamma_5 \gamma \cdot p, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ephotinof}
\gamma_\mu \Gamma^\mu_{f^* A_\mu a}(p,q) + e A(p^2)
&=& \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} a^* \psi}(-q,-p)
+ \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} f^* \psi}(p,q)\gamma \cdot q, \\
\label{ephotinog}
\gamma_\mu \Gamma^\mu_{g^* A_\mu b}(p,q) -e A(p^2)
&=& i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} b^* \psi}(-q,-p) \gamma_5
+ i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} g^* \psi}(p,q) \gamma \cdot q \gamma_5,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efpsi}
\gamma_\mu \Gamma^\mu_{f^* A_\mu f}(p,q)
&=& \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} f^* \psi}(-q,-p)
- \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} f^* \psi}(p,q), \\
\label{egpsi}
\gamma_\mu \Gamma^\mu_{g^* A_\mu g}(p,q)
&=& i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} g^* \psi}(-q,-p)\gamma_5
- i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} g^* \psi}(p,q) \gamma_5,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ephotone}
\lefteqn{i\sigma^{\mu \nu}(p-q)_\nu \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} f^* \psi}(p,q)} \\
& = & \Gamma^\mu_{\bar{\psi} A_\mu \psi}(p,q)
-i\gamma \cdot q \Gamma^\mu_{f^* A_\mu f}(p,q)
+i\Gamma^\mu_{f^* A_\mu a}(p,q) - ie\gamma^\mu A(p^2), \nonumber \\
\label{ephotone2}
\lefteqn{i\sigma^{\mu \nu}(p-q)_\nu \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} g^* \psi}(p,q)} \\
& = & i\gamma_5 \Gamma^\mu_{\bar{\psi} A_\mu \psi}(p,q)
+\gamma_5 \gamma \cdot q \Gamma^\mu_{g^* A_\mu g}(p,q)
-\gamma_5 \Gamma^\mu_{g^* A_\mu b}(p,q) + e\gamma_5 \gamma^\mu A(p^2),
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{apsi}
\lefteqn{i\sigma^{\mu \nu}(p-q)_\nu \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} a^* \psi}(p,q)} \\
& = &
i\Gamma^\mu_{a^* A_\mu a}(p,q)
- i\gamma \cdot q \Gamma^\mu_{a^* A_\mu f}(p,q) -e\gamma^\mu S^{-1}(p) \nonumber
-\gamma \cdot p \Gamma^\mu_{\bar{\psi} A_\mu \psi}(p,q) \\
&& + ie\gamma^\mu B(p^2), \nonumber \\
\lefteqn{i\sigma^{\mu \nu}(p-q)_\nu \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} b^* \psi}(p,q)}
\label{bpsi} \\ & = &
-\gamma_5 \Gamma^\mu_{b^* A_\mu b}(p,q)
+ \gamma_5 \gamma \cdot q \Gamma^\mu_{b^* A_\mu g}(p,q) \nonumber
-i\gamma_5 e\gamma^\mu S^{-1}(p) \\
&& - i\gamma_5 \gamma \cdot p \Gamma^\mu_{\bar{\psi} A_\mu \psi}(p,q)
- e\gamma_5 \gamma^\mu B(p^2). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
It follows from both (\ref{apsi}) and (\ref{bpsi}) that the rainbow
approximation, that is, dressed vertices replaced by bare vertices,
violates SUSY in the same way that it violates $U(1)$ gauge invariance.
From
\begin{eqnarray} \label{indices}
0 &=& -i(\gamma \cdot q)_\sigma^{\; \; \alpha}
(\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} f \lambda}(p,q))_\beta^{\; \; \kappa}
+ (\gamma_5 \gamma \cdot q)_\sigma^{\; \; \alpha}
(\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} g \lambda}(p,q))_\beta^{\; \; \kappa} \\
&& - i(\gamma \cdot p C)_{\beta \sigma}
\frac{\delta^2}{\delta \psi_\alpha(q) \delta f^*(p)}
(\frac{\delta \Gamma}{\delta \lambda(p-q)} C^{-1})^\kappa \nonumber \\
&& -(\gamma_5\gamma \cdot p C)_{\beta \sigma}
\frac{\delta^2}{\delta \psi_\alpha(q) \delta g^*(p)}
(\frac{\delta \Gamma}{\delta \lambda(p-q)} C^{-1})^\kappa \nonumber \\
&& - (\gamma_5 (\gamma \cdot p - \gamma \cdot q))_\sigma^{\; \; \kappa}
(\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} D \psi}(p,q))_\beta^{\; \; \alpha}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $C$ is the charge conjugation matrix, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
0 & = &
(\gamma \cdot p - \gamma \cdot q)\gamma_5 \mbox{Tr}(\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} D \psi}(p,q))
+ \gamma_\mu \mbox{Tr}(\Gamma^\mu_{\bar{\psi} A_\mu \psi}(p,q))
+ i\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} a \lambda}(p,q) \nonumber \\
&&- \gamma_5 \Gamma_{\bar{\psi} b \lambda}(p,q)
- i\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} a \lambda\psi}(-q,-p)
+ \gamma_5 \Gamma_{\bar{\psi} b \lambda}(-q,-p) \\
&& - i\gamma \cdot q \Gamma_{\bar{\psi} f \lambda}(p,q)
+ \gamma_5 \gamma \cdot q \Gamma_{\bar{\psi} g \lambda}(p,q)
- i\gamma \cdot p \Gamma_{\bar{\psi} f \lambda}(-q,-p) \nonumber \\
&& + \gamma_5 \gamma \cdot p \Gamma_{\bar{\psi} g \lambda}(-q,-p), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
by setting $\beta = \alpha$ and summing, and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eDpsi}
0 & = & i\mbox{Tr}(\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} a \lambda} (p,q))
- \gamma_5 \mbox{Tr}(\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} b \lambda} (p,q))
- i\gamma \cdot q \mbox{Tr}(\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} f \lambda} (p,q)) \\
&& + \gamma_5 \gamma \cdot q \mbox{Tr}(\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} g \lambda} (p,q))
- i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} a^* \psi}(p,q)
+ \gamma_5 \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} b^* \psi}(p,q)
- i\gamma \cdot p \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} f^* \psi}(p,q) \nonumber \\
&& - \gamma \cdot p \gamma_5 \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} g^* \psi}(p,q))
+ \gamma_\mu \Gamma^\mu_{\bar{\psi} A_\mu \psi} (p,q)
- \gamma_5 (\gamma \cdot p - \gamma \cdot q) \Gamma_{\bar{\psi} D \psi} (p,q), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
by setting $\beta = \kappa$ and summing.
Finally there are the SWIs governing the vertices of the $D$ particle;
\begin{eqnarray} \label{aDpsi}
\lefteqn{i\gamma_5 \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} a^* \psi}(p,q)} \\
& = & \gamma \cdot p \Gamma_{\bar{\psi} D \psi} (p,q)
+ \gamma_5 \Gamma_{a^* D b}(p,q)
- \gamma_5 \gamma \cdot q \Gamma_{a^* D g}(p,q), \nonumber \\
\label{bDpsi} \lefteqn{i\gamma_5 \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} b^* \psi}(p,q)} \\
& = & i\gamma_5 \gamma \cdot p \Gamma_{\bar{\psi} D \psi} (p,q)
- i\Gamma_{b^* D a}(p,q) + i\gamma \cdot q \Gamma_{b^* D f}(p,q), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{fDpsi}
\lefteqn{\gamma_5 \Gamma_{f^* D b}(p,q)} \\
& = & i\gamma_5 \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} f^* \psi}(p,q)
+ \gamma_5 \gamma \cdot q \Gamma_{f^* D g}(p,q)
+ \Gamma_{\bar{\psi} D \psi} (p,q), \nonumber \\
\lefteqn{\gamma_5 \Gamma_{g^* D a}(p,q)} \label{gDpsi} \\
& = & - \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} g^* \psi}(p,q)
+ \gamma_5 \gamma \cdot q \Gamma_{g^* D f}(p,q)
- \Gamma_{\bar{\psi} D \psi} (p,q), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{alambdab}
\lefteqn{\gamma_5(\gamma \cdot p - \gamma \cdot q) \Gamma_{a^* D b}(p,q)} \\
& = & \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} b^* \psi}(-q,-p) \gamma \cdot p
+ i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} a^* \psi}(p,q) \gamma \cdot q \gamma_5
+ ie\gamma_5 (B(p^2) - B(q^2)), \nonumber \\
\lefteqn{\gamma_5(\gamma \cdot p - \gamma \cdot q) \Gamma_{b^* D a}(p,q)}
\label{blambdaa} \\
& = & i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} a^* \psi}(-q,-p) \gamma \cdot p \gamma_5
+ \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} b^* \psi}(p,q) \gamma \cdot q
+ ie\gamma_5 (B(p^2) - B(q^2)), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{alambdag}
\lefteqn{\gamma_5(\gamma \cdot p - \gamma \cdot q) \Gamma_{a^* D g}(p,q)} \\
& = &\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} g^* \psi}(-q,-p) \gamma \cdot p
- i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} a^* \psi}(p,q) \gamma_5 + ie\gamma_5 A(q^2), \nonumber \\
\lefteqn{\gamma_5(\gamma \cdot p - \gamma \cdot q) \Gamma_{b^* D f}(p,q)}
\label{blambdaf} \\
& = &i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} f^* \psi}(-q,-p) \gamma \cdot p \gamma_5
- \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} b^* \psi}(p,q) + ie\gamma_5 A(q^2), \nonumber \\
\lefteqn{\gamma_5(\gamma \cdot p - \gamma \cdot q) \Gamma_{g^* D a}(p,q)}
\label{glambdaa} \\
& = &\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} g^* \psi}(p,q) \gamma \cdot q
+ i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} a^* \psi}(-q,-p) \gamma_5 - ie\gamma_5 A(p^2), \nonumber \\
\lefteqn{\gamma_5(\gamma \cdot p - \gamma \cdot q) \Gamma_{f^* D b}(p,q)}
\label{flambdab} \\
& = &i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} f^* \psi}(p,q) \gamma \cdot q \gamma_5
+ \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} b^* \psi}(-q,-p) - ie\gamma_5 A(p^2), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_5(\gamma \cdot p - \gamma \cdot q) \Gamma_{f^* D g}(p,q)
& = & \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} g^* \psi}(-q,-p) \label{flambdag}
- i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} f^* \psi}(p,q) \gamma_5, \\
\gamma_5(\gamma \cdot p - \gamma \cdot q) \Gamma_{g^* D f}(p,q)
& = & i\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} f^* \psi}(-q,-p) \gamma_5
- \Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} g^* \psi}(p,q) \label{glambdaf}.
\end{eqnarray}
These make up the entire set of SWIs containing only three-or-fewer point
proper functions, modulo charge conjugation. A suitable vertex ansatz must
also be consistent with the WTIs;
\begin{eqnarray} \label{WTI}
(p-q)_\mu [\Gamma_{(a.b)^* A_\mu (a,b)}]^\mu (p,q) &=&
e[\Gamma_{(a,b)^* (a,b)}] (p) - e[\Gamma_{(a,b)^* (a,b)}] (q), \\
(p-q)_\mu \Gamma^\mu_{\bar{\psi} A_\mu \psi}(p,q) &=&
eS^{-1}(p) - eS^{-1}(q).
\end{eqnarray}
We also have from charge conjugation invariance that
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{l} \label{conjugate}
\mbox{[$\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} (a,b) \lambda}$]}(p,q) =
- C [\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} (a^*,b^*) \psi}](-q,-p)^T C^{-1}, \\
\mbox{[$\Gamma_{(a^*,b^*) D (b,a)}$]}(p,q) =
- [\Gamma_{(b^*,a^*) D (a,b)}](-q,-p).
\end{array} \end{equation}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Solution to SWIs and WTIs in SQED} \label{threepoint}
Below is a solution for the SWIs and WTIs. It is the
most general set of vertices consistent with both the WTIs and the SWIs and
free of kinematic singularities if one assumes charge conjugation invariance
and
\begin{equation} \label{condition}
[\Gamma_{a^* A_\mu a}]^\mu (p,q) = [\Gamma_{b^* A_\mu b}]^\mu (p,q).
\end{equation}
Proof of this is presented in Appendix \ref{proof}. The assumption of
Eqn.(\ref{condition}) is true to all orders in perturbation
theory, and any nonperturbative violations of this assumption are
restricted by the WTIs to lie completely within their transverse components.
Our general solution is as follows: \newline
The scalar-photon vertices are
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\Gamma^\mu_{a^* A_\mu a}(p,q)
= \Gamma^\mu_{b^* A_\mu b}(p,q)} \label{onea} \\
&=& \frac{e}{p^2 - q^2}(p^2 A(p^2) - q^2 A(q^2))(p+q)^\mu
+ [p^\mu (q^2 - p\cdot q) + q^\mu (p^2 - p\cdot q)]
T_{aa}(p^2,q^2),p\cdot q), \nonumber \\
\lefteqn{\Gamma^\mu_{a^* A_\mu f}(p,q) = \Gamma^\mu_{b^* A_\mu g}(p,q)
= \Gamma^\mu_{f^* A_\mu a}(p,q)
= \Gamma^\mu_{g^* A_\mu b}(p,q)} \label{oneb} \\
&=& \frac{-e}{p^2 - q^2}(B(p^2) - B(q^2))(p+q)^\mu
+ [p^\mu (q^2 - p\cdot q) + q^\mu (p^2 - p\cdot q)]
T_{af}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q) \nonumber, \\
\lefteqn{\Gamma^\mu_{f^* A_\mu f}(p,q)
= \Gamma^\mu_{g^* A_\mu g}(p,q)} \label{onec} \\
&=& \frac{e}{p^2 - q^2}(A(p^2) - A(q^2))(p+q)^\mu
+ [p^\mu (q^2 - p\cdot q) + q^\mu (p^2 - p\cdot q)]
T_{ff}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the three functions
$T_{aa}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q),T_{af}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q)$ and
$T_{ff}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q)$, each satisfying
$T(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q) = T(q^2,p^2,p\cdot q)$, are free of
kinematic singularities and represent the only
degrees of freedom inherent in the solution. The forms (\ref{onea}) to
(\ref{onec}) are equivalent to that given by Ball and Chiu \cite{ball} in the
context of non SUSY scalar QED.
The photino vertices are
\begin{eqnarray} \label{thirtysix}
\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} a^* \psi}(p,q) &=& \frac{e}{p^2 - q^2}(p^2 A(p^2) - q^2 A(q^2))
+ \frac{e}{p^2 - q^2}(B(p^2) - B(q^2))\gamma \cdot q \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{2} e (p^2 - \gamma \cdot q \gamma \cdot p)T_{aa}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q) \\
&& + \frac{1}{2} e p^2(q^2 - \gamma \cdot p \gamma \cdot q)T_{ff}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q)
\nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{1}{2} e [\gamma \cdot p (p^2 - q^2) - 2\gamma \cdot q (p^2 - p\cdot q)]
T_{af}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{thirtyfive}
\Gamma_{\bar{\lambda} f^* \psi}(p,q) &=& \frac{-e}{p^2 - q^2}(A(p^2) - A(q^2))\gamma \cdot q
-\frac{e}{p^2 - q^2}(B(p^2) - B(q^2)) \nonumber \\
&& +\frac{1}{2} e(\gamma \cdot p - \gamma \cdot q)T_{aa}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q) \\
&& + \frac{1}{2} e(p-q)^2 T_{af}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q) \nonumber \\
&& - \frac{1}{2} e\gamma \cdot q(p^2 - \gamma \cdot p \gamma \cdot q)T_{ff}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The electron-photon vertex must be restricted at least to the form given by
Ball and Chiu\cite{ball} for non SUSY QED. For the SUSY case we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma^\mu_{\bar{\psi} A_\mu \psi}(p,q) &=&
\Gamma^\mu_{BC}(p,q) + \frac{ie}{p^2 - q^2}(A(p^2) - A(q^2))
[\frac{1}{2} T_3^\mu - T_8^\mu] \nonumber \\
&& - \frac{ie}{p^2 - q^2}(B(p^2) - B(q^2))T_5^\mu
+ \frac{1}{2} ie T_{aa}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q) T_3^\mu \nonumber \\
&& +ie T_{af}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q)
[\frac{1}{2} (p-q)^2 T_5^\mu - T_1^\mu] \\
&& + \frac{1}{2} ie T_{ff}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q)
[T_2^\mu - p\cdot q T_3^\mu - (p-q)^2 T_8^\mu], \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma^\mu_{BC}(p,q) &=& \frac{1}{2} \frac{ie}{p^2 - q^2}(\gamma \cdot p + \gamma \cdot q)
(A(p^2) - A(q^2))(p+q)^\mu \\
&& + ie\frac{1}{2} (A(p^2) + A(q^2)) \gamma^\mu
+ \frac{ie}{p^2 - q^2}(B(p^2) - B(q^2))(p+q)^\mu, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{transverse}
T_1^\mu &=& p^\mu(q^2 - p\cdot q) + q^\mu (p^2 - p\cdot q), \\
T_2^\mu &=& (\gamma \cdot p + \gamma \cdot q)T_1^\mu, \\
T_3^\mu &=& \gamma^\mu(p-q)^2 - (\gamma \cdot p - \gamma \cdot q)(p-q)^\mu], \\
T_5^\mu &=& \sigma^{\mu \nu}(p-q)_\nu, \\
T_8^\mu &=& \frac{1}{2}(\gamma \cdot p \gamma \cdot q \gamma^\mu - \gamma^\mu \gamma \cdot q \gamma \cdot p).
\end{eqnarray}
Finally there are the vertices for the $D$-boson, namely,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\Gamma_{a^* D b} (p,q) = -\Gamma_{b^* D a} (p,q)} \\
& = & \frac{ie}{p^2 - q^2}(p^2 A(p^2) - q^2 A(q^2))
- iep\cdot q T_{a^* a}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q) \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{2} ie p^2 q^2 T_{ff}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q), \nonumber \\
\nonumber \\
\lefteqn{\Gamma_{f^* D g} (p,q) = -\Gamma_{g^* D f} (p,q)} \\
&=&\frac{ie}{p^2 - q^2}(A(p^2) - A(q^2))
+ ie T_{a^* a}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q) \nonumber \\
&&- ie p\cdot q T_{f^* f}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q),
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{g^* D a} (p,q)&=& \frac{ie}{p^2 - q^2}(B(p^2) - B(q^2)) \\
&&-ie (q^2 - p\cdot q) T_{af}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q), \nonumber \\
\Gamma_{a^* D g} (p,q) &=& \frac{-ie}{p^2 - q^2}(B(p^2) - B(q^2)) \\
&&+ie (p^2 - p\cdot q) T_{af}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q), \nonumber \\
\Gamma_{f^* D b} (p,q) &=& \frac{-ie}{p^2 - q^2}(B(p^2) - B(q^2)) \\
&&+ie (q^2 - p\cdot q) T_{af}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q), \nonumber \\
\Gamma_{b^* D f} (p,q) &=& \frac{ie}{p^2 - q^2}(B(p^2) - B(q^2)) \\
&&-ie (p^2 - p\cdot q) T_{af}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{\bar{\psi} D \psi}(p,q) &=&
\frac{1}{2} ie\gamma_5 [(p^2 - q^2)T_{af}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q) \\
&& +(\gamma \cdot p + \gamma \cdot q)T_{a^* a}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q) \nonumber \\
&& -(\gamma \cdot q p^2 + \gamma \cdot p q^2)T_{ff}(p^2,q^2,p\cdot q)]. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Conclusion}
We have derived the three-point SWIs for SQED and found a solution, given in
sections \ref{twopoint} and \ref{threepoint},
which, under the reasonable assumptions of charge conjugation invariance
and symmetry between $[a]$ and $[b]$
with respect to their photon interaction, comprises the most general
set of vertices consistent with both the SWIs and WTIs and free of kinematic
singularities. They are, in fact, the SUSY equivalent of the
Ball-Chiu vertex. These SUSY Ball-Chiu vertices
have only three degrees of freedom
between them once the electron propagator is known,
compared with non SUSY QED which has eight. The loss of degrees of freedom
occurs entirely within the electron-photon vertex. The scalar-photon vertices
remain unchanged from non SUSY scalar QED (with auxiliary fields).
We have given the form of the electron DSE. There is no need to consider also
the DSE for scalar partners since SWIs ensure that the propagators of all
chiral multiplet fields can be written in terms of the same two scalar
functions $A(p^2)$ and $B(p^2)$ (See Sec.(\ref{twopoint})). Solving the DSE for
any chiral multiplet field can therefore be accomplished by projecting from
the electron DSE a pair of coupled integral equations for $A(p^2)$ and $B(p^2)$.
Numerical solutions of the analogous calculation in non SUSY QED
\cite{HW95,HWR96,HSW97,RW94} and QED$_3$ \cite{BR91,CPW92}
using the minimal Ball-Chiu and Curtis-Pennington \cite{CP91} vertex
ans\"atze exist in the literature. The same task in SUSY is conceptually
similar and the presence of extra terms in the DSE is not expected to
reduce its feasibility. Indeed such numerical work has
been done already in the rainbow approximation in SQED$_3$ \cite{me}.
The way now lies
open to transcend the rainbow approximation in the analysis of SQED and
SQED$_3$ in the nonperturbative limit.
|
\section{Introduction}
A solution to the gauge hierarchy, based on extra spacial
dimensions, was recently proposed by Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali
\cite{theory}. They assumed the space-time is $4+n$ dimensional, with the
standard model (SM) particles living on a brane. While the electromagnetic,
strong, and weak forces are confined to this brane, gravity can propagate
in the extra dimensions. To solve the gauge hierarchy problem they
proposed the ``new'' Planck scale $M_S$ is of the order of
TeV with very large extra dimensions. The size $R$ of these extra dimensions
can be as large as 1 mm, which corresponds to a compactification scale
$R^{-1}$ as low as $10^{-4}$ eV. The usual Planck scale
$M_G=1/\sqrt{G_N} \sim 1.22 \times 10^{19}$ GeV is related to this effective
Planck scale $M_S$ using the Gauss's law:
\begin{equation}
R^n \, M_S^{n+2} \sim M_G^2 \;,
\end{equation}
where $n$ is the number of extra dimensions.
For $n=1$ it gives a large value for $R$, which is already ruled out
by gravitational
experiments. On the other hand, $n=2$ gives $R \mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}} 1$ mm, which is
in the margin beyond the reach of present gravitational experiments.
The graviton including its excitations in the extra dimensions
can couple to the SM particles on the brane with an effective strength of
$1/M_S$ (instead of $1/M_G$) after summing the effect
of all excitations collectively, and thus the gravitation interaction
becomes comparable in strength to weak interaction at TeV scale. Hence, it
can give rise to a number of phenomenological activities testable at existing
and future colliders \cite{collider}.
So far, studies show that there
are two categories of signals: direct and indirect. The indirect signal
refers to exchanges of gravitons in the intermediate states, while direct
refers to production or associated production of gravitons in the final
state. Indirect signals include fermion pair,
gauge boson pair production, correction to precision variables, etc.
There are also other astrophysical and cosmological signatures and
constraints \cite{others}. Among the constraints the cooling of supernovae
by radiating gravitons places the strongest limit on the effective Planck
scale $M_S$ of order 50 TeV for $n=2$, which renders collider signatures
for $n=2$ uninteresting. Thus, we concentrate on $n\ge 3$.
In this work, we perform a global analysis of the lepton-quark neutral
current data on the low scale gravity model. The global
data include HERA neutral current deep-inelastic scattering,
Drell-yan production at
the Tevatron, and total hadronic, $b\bar b$ and $c\bar c$ pair cross sections
at LEPII. In addition, we also include the leptonic cross sections
$e^+ e^- \to \mu^+\mu^-, \tau^+ \tau^-$ at LEPII in our analysis.
The $\nu$-N scattering data from CCFR and NuTeV have been shown
by Rizzo \cite{collider} to be very insignificant in constraining the low
scale gravity, and so we shall not include this data set in our analysis.
We shall see that
the Drell-yan production, due to the large invariant mass data, provides
the strongest constraint among the global data.
By combining all data, the effective Planck scale $M_S$ must be larger
than about 1.12 TeV for $n=3$ and 0.94 TeV for $n=4$ at 95\%CL.
This is our main result.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In the next section, we
shall describe each set of data used in our global analysis and derive the
effect of the low scale gravity.
In Sec. III, we give the numerical results and interpretations for our fits,
{}from which we can draw the limits on the effective Planck scale.
\section{Global Data}
Before we come to each data set, let us first give a general expression
for the square of amplitude for $e^- e^+ \to q \bar q$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum \left| {\cal M} \right |^2 &=&
4 u^2 \left( |M_{LL}|^2 + |M_{RR}|^2 \right) +
4 t^2 \left( |M_{LR}|^2 + |M_{RL}|^2 \right) \nonumber \\
&+& 2\pi^2 \; \left( \frac{\cal F}{M_S^4} \right )^2 \;
( t^4 - 6 t^3 u + 18 t^2 u^2 - 6 t u^3 + u^4 ) \nonumber \\
&+& 8 \pi e^2 Q_e Q_q \; \frac{\cal F}{M_S^4} \; \frac{(u-t)^3}{s}
\nonumber \\
&+& \frac{8 \pi e^2}{\sin^2\theta_{\rm w} \cos^2 \theta_{\rm w} } \;
\frac{\cal F}{M_S^4} \; \frac{1}{s - M_Z^2} \;
\biggr[ g_a^e g_a^q ( t^3 - 3t^2 u - 3t u^2 + u^3 )
+ g_v^e g_v^q ( u-t)^3 \biggr ] \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $s,t,u$ are the usual Mandelstam variables, $e = \sqrt{4\pi \alpha}$
is the electromagnetic coupling constant, $Q_f$ is the
electric charge of the fermion $f$, $\theta_{\rm w}$ is the Weinberg mixing
angle, $g_a^f$ and $g_v^f$ are, respectively, the axial-vector and the
vector $Z$ couplings to the fermion $f$.
The reduced amplitudes $M_{\alpha\beta}$ ($\alpha,\beta= L,R$) are
\begin{equation}
\label{reduce}
M_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{e^2 Q_e Q_q}{s} +
\frac{e^2}{\sin^2\theta_{\rm w} \cos^2 \theta_{\rm w} } \;
\frac{g_\alpha^e g_\beta^q}{s - M_Z^2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
g_L^f = T_{3f} - Q_f \sin^2\theta_{\rm w}\;, &&
g_R^f = - Q_f \sin^2\theta_{\rm w} \nonumber \\
g_v^f = (g_L^f + g_R^f)/2\;, && g_a^f = (g_L^f - g_R^f)/2 \nonumber \;.
\end{eqnarray}
In the derivation, we have followed the notation in Han {\it et al}.
\cite{collider} and
we have taken $M_S^2 \gg s, |t|, |u|$ and in this case the propagator
factor $D(s)=D(|t|)=D(|u|)$, which is given by
\begin{equation}
\kappa^2 |D(s)| = \frac{16 \pi}{M_S^4}\; \times {\cal F} \;,
\end{equation}
where the factor ${\cal F}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{F}
{\cal F} = \Biggr \{
\begin{array}{l}
\log \left( \frac{M_S^2}{s} \right ) \;\; {\rm for}\;\; n=2 \;, \\
\frac{2}{n-2} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; {\rm for}\;\; n>2 \;.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
For $n\ge 3$ ${\cal F}$ is always positive.
The amplitude square for the crossed channels $e^\pm \stackrel{(-)}{q} \to
e^\pm \stackrel{(-)}{q}$ can be obtained using the crossing symmetry.
\subsection{HERA neutral-current data}
Both H1 and ZEUS have measured the neutral-current deep-inelastic
scattering cross sections at high-$Q^2$ region.
Despite the excess in cross section reported in early 1997, the 1997 data
alone agreed well with the SM. The double differential cross section
for $e^+ p \to e^+ X$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d^2\sigma}{dy dQ^2} &=& \sum_q
\frac{f_q(x)}{16\pi}\, \frac{Q^2}{s y^2} \; \Biggr \{
(1-y)^2 ( |M_{LL}|^2 + |M_{RR}|^2) + |M_{LR}|^2 + |M_{RL}|^2 \nonumber \\
&&+
\frac{\pi^2}{2}\, \left( \frac{Q^2}{y} \right )^2 \,
\left( \frac{\cal F}{M_S^4} \right )^2 \;
(32 - 64 y +42 y^2 -10y^3 + y^4 ) \nonumber \\
&&+
2 \pi e^2 Q_e Q_q \;\left( \frac{\cal F}{M_S^4} \right )\;
\frac{(2-y)^3}{y} \nonumber \\
&&+
\frac{2\pi e^2 }{\sin^2\theta_{\rm w} \cos^2\theta_{\rm w}}\;
\left( \frac{\cal F}{M_S^4} \right )\;
\left( \frac{Q^2}{y} \right )\; \frac{1}{-Q^2 - M_Z^2} \; \biggr[
g_a^e g_a^q (6y -6y^2 +y^3 ) + g_v^e g_v^q (y-2)^3 \biggr ] \Biggr \}
\nonumber \\
&&+
\frac{\pi}{2}\, f_{g}(x) \, \frac{Q^2}{s y^2} \;
\left( \frac{\cal F}{M_S^4} \right )^2 \;
\left( \frac{Q^2}{y} \right)^2 \; (1-y)(y^2 -2y + 2) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q^2 =s x y$ is the square of the momentum-transfer, $\sqrt{s}=300$ GeV,
and $f_{q/g}(x)$ are the parton distribution functions.
The reduced amplitudes $M_{\alpha\beta}$ are given in Eq. (\ref{reduce})
with $s$ replaced by $-Q^2$.
The last term in the above equation
comes from the additional channel $e^+ g \to e^+ g$ allowed by
the low scale gravity interactions. The channels
$\sum_{\bar q} e^+ \bar q \to e^+ \bar q$ are also included.
The $Q^2$ data of ZEUS \cite{h1-zeus}, including systematics, are
recently published
while the H1 data \cite{h1-zeus} used in our analysis are shown in
Table \ref{hera}.
\subsection{Drell-yan at the Tevatron}
CDF measured the double differential cross section $d^2\sigma/dM_{\ell\ell}
dy\;(\ell=e,\mu)$
for the Drell-yan production, where $M_{\ell\ell}$ and $y$ are,
respectively, the invariant mass and the rapidity of the lepton pair.
Essentially, CDF measured the cross section in the range $-1<y<1$ and then
average over $y$ to obtain the double differential cross section.
The double differential cross section for $p \bar p \to \ell^+ \ell^-$
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d^2\sigma}{dM_{\ell\ell} dy} &=& K \Biggr\{ \sum_q \; \biggr [
\frac{M_{\ell\ell}^3}{72\pi s} \;
f_q(x_1) f_{\bar q}(x_2)\; \left(
|M_{LL}|^2 + |M_{LR}|^2 + |M_{RL}|^2 + |M_{RR}|^2 \right ) \nonumber \\
&+&
\frac{\pi M_{\ell\ell}^7}{120 s}\; f_q(x_1) f_{\bar q}(x_2) \;
\left( \frac{\cal F}{M_S^4} \right )^2 \; \biggr ]
+
\frac{\pi M_{\ell\ell}^7}{80 s}\; f_g(x_1) f_g (x_2) \;
\left( \frac{\cal F}{M_S^4} \right )^2 \Biggr \} \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_{1,2}=M_{\ell\ell} e^{\pm y}/\sqrt{s}$, $\sqrt{s}=1800$ GeV,
$f_{q,g}(x_i)$ are the parton distribution functions,
and the sum over all possible $q\bar q$ pairs is
understood.
Note that after integrating the scattering angle $\cos\theta^*$ over the
whole range in the center-of-mass frame, the interference terms
proportional to $({\cal F}/M_S^4)$ vanish.
The reduced amplitudes $M_{\alpha\beta}\;(\alpha,\beta=L,R)$
are given in Eq. (\ref{reduce}) with $s$ replaced by $\hat s=M_{\ell\ell}^2$.
The QCD $K$ factor is given by $K=1+ \frac{\alpha_s(\hat s)}{2\pi}\frac{4}{3}
( 1+ \frac{4\pi^2}{3})$.
The second term of the above equation comes from
$q\bar q \to G \to \ell^+ \ell^-$ and the third one comes from
$gg \to G \to \ell^+ \ell^-$.
This $K$ factor is, in principle, not valid for the $gg$ channel, but
it will not affect our calculation because we normalize our SM calculation
to the expected number of events in each bin given by CDF when we deal with
the CDF data (similarly, we normalize to the first bin of the D0 data
when we deal with D0 data.)
On the other hand, D0 measured the differential cross section $d\sigma/dM_{ee}$
with the rapidity range integrated. The Drell-yan data \cite{dy-cdf-d0}
we used in our analysis are shown in Table \ref{dy}.
\subsection{LEPII fermion pair Cross sections}
LEPII has measured the leptonic cross sections, hadronic cross sections,
and heavy flavor ($b$ and $c$) production. Since the low scale gravity
interactions are naturally flavor-blind, we shall include the effects on all
flavors here. For a massless $q$ the expression for
$\sigma(e^+ e^- \to q \bar q)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\sigma(e^+ e^- \to q \bar q ) = K \Biggr\{
\frac{s}{16\pi} \left(
|M_{LL}|^2 + |M_{LR}|^2 + |M_{RL}|^2 + |M_{RR}|^2 \right )
+ \frac{3\pi s^3}{80} \left( \frac{\cal F}{M_S^4} \right )^2 \Biggr \} \;,
\end{equation}
where the reduced amplitudes $M_{\alpha\beta}\;(\alpha,\beta=L,R)$
are given in Eq. (\ref{reduce}), and the QCD $K$ factor is
$K=1+ \alpha_s/\pi + 1.409 (\alpha_s/\pi)^2 -12.77 (\alpha_s/\pi)^3$.
The leptonic cross sections $\sigma(e^+ e^- \to \mu^+\mu^-, \tau^+ \tau^-)$
do not have this $K$ factor.
The LEPII data \cite{lep}
used in our analysis are given in Tables \ref{lep-h} and \ref{lep-l}.
\subsection{$\nu$-N Scattering}
The recent measurements by CCFR and NuTeV \cite{ccfr} are the most precise
ones on the neutrino-quark couplings. Since the gravitons also couple to
neutrinos, the measurements should, in principle, place a constraint on
the scale $M_S$. However, the analysis by Rizzo in Ref. \cite{collider}
showed that
the constraint coming from these low energy $\nu$-N scattering is very weak.
This is because the center-of-mass energies of these collisions are only
of order of tens of GeV's, even though the neutrino beam energy is as high as
a few hundred GeV. In addition, the effective operators induced by the
low scale
gravity interactions are at least of dimension eight. This is in contrast
to the traditional four-fermion contact interactions, which are only of
dimension six. Therefore, at such low center-of-mass energies in these
collisions, the effect of low scale gravity is extremely minimal.
We are not going to include these data in our global fit.
\section{Fits}
For the fitting we follow the procedures in Refs. \cite{contact}, where
the four-fermion contact interactions are analyzed with a similar but larger
global data set. The difference is that Refs. \cite{contact} include also
the data sets from the
low energy $e$-N scattering and the atomic parity violation, which constrain
parity violating interactions. But the gravity is certainly parity
conserving and thus it receives no restriction from these parity-violating
experiments.
The interference effect between the SM amplitude and the low scale gravity
scales as ${\cal F}/M_S^4$, while the pure low scale gravity scales as
$({\cal F}/M_S^4)^2$. To linearize the fitting we use the parameter
$\eta={\cal F}/M_S^4$. We use MINUIT to minimize the $\chi^2$. The best
estimates of $\eta$ for each individual data set and the combined set are
shown in Table \ref{fit}.
The SM fit gives a $\chi^2=94.10$ for 118 d.o.f., while the fit with non-zero
$\eta$ gives a $\chi^2=94.05$ for 117 d.o.f.
Since the fits do not show any evidence for new physics, we
can then place limits on the $\eta={\cal F}/M_S^4$.
The physical region of $\eta$ is $\eta \ge 0$, and so we define the 95\%CL
upper limit for $\eta$ as
\begin{equation}
0.95 = \frac{\int_0^{\eta_+} {\cal P}(\eta) \; d\eta}
{\int_0^\infty {\cal P}(\eta) \; d\eta}\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}(\eta) = \frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{2\pi}}\; \exp \left( -\,
\frac{\chi^2(\eta) - \chi^2_{\rm min} }{2} \right ) \;.
\end{equation}
{}From $\eta_+$ we find the limits as $M_S/{\cal F}^{1/4} = \eta_+^{-1/4}$.
The limits on $M_S/{\cal F}^{1/4}$ for each data set and the combined
are also shown in Table \ref{fit}. The combined limit is
$M_S/{\cal F}^{1/4} > 939$ GeV, or
\begin{equation}
\label{result}
M_S > \Biggr\{ \begin{array}{cc}
1120 \; {\rm GeV}\;\; &{\rm for}\;\; n=3 \\
939 \; {\rm GeV}\;\; & {\rm for}\;\; n=4 \\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
at 95\%CL.
It is the Drell-yan production at the Tevatron that
gives the strongest constraint among all data. This is easy to
understand because the $\hat s$ of the Drell-yan process is the largest
of all. The new HERA data are now consistent with the SM
and only cause a very slight pull of the fit, about one third of a
$\sigma$ from zero: see Table \ref{fit}.
Both the ``ALL w/o HERA'' and the ``ALL'' fits agree well with the SM.
We show in Fig. \ref{fig1} the Drell-yan production for the SM and for
the low scale gravity model with $M_S$ and $n$ given in Eq. (\ref{result}),
together with the D0 data.
To conclude, we have used the global lepton-quark neutral current data plus
the leptonic cross sections at LEPII to constrain the low scale gravity
interactions arising from the extra dimensions. The limit that we place
on the effective Planck scale $M_S$ is about 1.12 TeV for $n=3$ and 0.94 TeV
for $n=4$ at 95\%CL.
\section*{\bf Acknowledgments}
This research was supported in part by the U.S.~Department of Energy under
Grants No. DE-FG03-91ER40674 and by the Davis Institute for High Energy
Physics.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
There is no longer any controversy about the physical relevance of noise
effects in spatially extended, nonlinear systems \cite{Bishop,GSbook}:
Indeed, the pervasive, joint role of nonlinearity and (static or dynamic)
disorder has already been recognized in biophysics, electronics, optics,
fluids, condensed matter, computational physics, etc. In most of these
fields, nonlinear phenomena involve nonlinear coherent excitations, such
as solitons or solitary waves, which play a key part in the corresponding
system dynamics. It is because of this nowadays well established fact that
much effort has been devoted to understand how stochastic perturbations
affect solitons, mostly during the decade of the 80's (see \cite{Bass,%
yo1,KVbook} for reviews). In fact, early numerical simulations
\cite{early} already revealed that $\phi^4$ solitary waves underwent
Brownian-like motion in the presence of additive white noise, i.e., of thermal
fluctuations. Subsequent works focused on the study of soliton diffusion,
since it may be crucial in a number of problems, such as photoexcitation
dynamics, photoconductivity of conducting polymers, or transport by phase
solitons in charge-density-wave systems, to name a few \cite{aplic}.
Among the different soliton-bearing nonlinear models which have been
studied in the above context, one which has received a great deal of
attention is the sG equation. The interest in this model is both
theoretical, as it displays the main features of more realistic and
complicated cases while remaining analytically tractable, and applied,
as it very approximately describes the dynamics of many physically
relevant systems, such as one-dimensional (1D) magnets \cite{mikeska} or
long Josephson junctions \cite{barone}, for instance. Soliton diffusion
governed by the sG (and other nonlinear Klein-Gordon equations)
has been studied along two main, different lines which are discussed and
compared, e.g., in Ref. \cite{ivanov}.
The first one consists
of considering extended excitations of the system (phonons) in equilibrium
with both a single sG soliton and a heat bath at temperature $T$.
This approach leads to two distinct diffusion regimes: anomalous diffusion,
characterized by a diffusion constant proportional to $T^2$, and viscous
diffusion, when the appearance of a dynamical damping coefficient yields
a diffusion constant proportional to $T^{-1}$. We will not follow this
approach here; the interested reader is referred to the detailed review
by Y.\ Wada \cite{wada}.
The second manner is {\em \`a
la} Langevin, i.e., introducing the influence of an external thermal bath
by means of local fluctuations of the string and a local damping force
related to that by an appropriate fluctuation-dissipation relationship.
The corresponding equation of motion is then
\begin{equation}
\phi_{tt} - \phi_{xx} + \sin(\phi) = -\alpha \phi_{t} + \eta(x,t),
\label{ecua1}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\eta(x,t)\rangle &=& 0, \\
\langle\eta(x,t)\eta(x',t')\rangle &=& D \delta(x-x') \delta(t-t'),
\end{eqnarray} \noindent
\label{ecua3}
\end{mathletters}
\noindent
where the diffusion coefficient
$D=2 \alpha k_{b} T$, $k_{b}$ being the Boltzmann constant,
and $-\alpha \phi_{t}$ being the damping term with a dissipation
coefficient $\alpha$. This equation has been considered a number of times
in the literature (see, e.g., \cite{Bass} and references therein; see also
\cite{cast} for related experimental work).
In this work, we focus on the Langevin version of the problem, with the
aim of improving the analytical results obtained in the aforementioned
works as well as of verifying them by numerical simulations specifically
planned to that end. Furthermore, we concern ourselves with the overdamped
limit of the sG equation, which reads
\begin{equation}
\alpha \phi_{t} - \phi_{xx} + \sin(\phi) = \epsilon\eta(x,t,\phi_,...).
\label{ecua2}
\end{equation}
Note that we have introduced a factor $\epsilon$ in front of the noise
term for convenience in the analytical calculations in section II.
This equation (without noise, $\epsilon=0$) was already considered by
Eilenberger in
\cite{bre}, as the limit of the sG equation (\ref{ecua1})
in the case when the dissipation effect
is strong enough in Eq.\ (\ref{ecua1}) and there is an input of energy
into the system (see, e.g.,
\cite{km,bennet} and references therein).
On the other hand, Eq.\ (\ref{ecua2}), with additive noise as in
(\ref{ecua3}), is interesting in itself:
For example, it has been proposed as a model for crystal growth (see
\cite{ks,ancai,rangel} and references therein). Equation (\ref{ecua2})
has also been studied to analyze the kink contribution to transport
properties when the system is driven and thermally activated
\cite{ks,butland1,butland2,kaup}. In particular, the work of Kaup \cite{kaup} is the most
closely related to the present one, as it presents a singular perturbation
theory to compute the first-order (in $T$) correction to the kink
mobility as well as the
change of its shape. However, to our knowledge the free diffusion problem
for the overdamped sG equation
has not been adressed in the literature to date and, therefore, we believe that
our results will be interesting by themselves. On the other hand,
we also hope that what we
learn in this case can be used towards obtaining a more complete, accurate
picture of the full sG problem; we will discuss this question
in the conclusions.
The outline of the paper is as follows:
In section II,
using a general perturbative method \cite{bre} which we recall in detail,
we calculate the correlation functions of the position and the velocity of
the kink center up to second-order in
$k_{b} T$, as well as the diffusion coefficient and the mean value
$\langle\phi(x,t)\rangle$ for fixed $t$.
In section III we numerically
integrate the stochastic partial differential equation
(\ref{ecua2}), with noise given by Eq.\ (\ref{ecua3}),
using the Heun scheme \cite{maxra} and
compute the time correlation function of
the position of the kink center and the diffusion coefficient. We
compare these results with the theoretical ones
obtained in section II and find an excellent agreement. Finally,
in section IV we discuss our results, summarize our main conclusions,
and sketch lines for future research.
\section{A general perturbative approach}
Following the {\em Ansatz} proposed in \cite{bre,raj}, we assume that the
solution of Eq.\ (\ref{ecua2}) can be expanded as
\begin{equation}
\phi(x,t)=\phi_{0}[x-X(t)] + \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dk\,A_{k}(t)
f_{k}[x-X(t)],
\label{ecua4}
\end{equation}
where $f_{k}[x-X(t)]$ are the eigenfunctions
of the linearized version of Eq.\ (\ref{ecua2}) [with $\epsilon=0$], which
along with $\displaystyle
f_{T} [x-X(t)] = \frac{\partial{\phi_{0}}}{\partial{x}}[x-X(t)]$,
form a complete set of orthogonal eigenfunctions (see Appendix I). The first
term in the expansion (\ref{ecua4}) represents the translational mode related to
the position of the kink center $X(t)$, whereas the second one
characterizes the phonon modes (linear excitations around a kink)
of the system. We will focus on the kink center motion as described by
$X(t)$, as it is well established that such a particle-like picture is
very generally enough to describe the behavior of the kink as a whole
($X$ playing the r\^ole of a collective coordinate; see, e.g., \cite{siam}
for a review).
In order to calculate the dynamics of the kink center, we begin by
inserting (\ref{ecua4}) in (\ref{ecua2}),
and projecting on the orthogonal
basis [see Appendix I, relationships (\ref{ap6})] we obtain
a system of differential equations for the unknown
functions $X(t)$ and $A_{k}(t)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{X}(t) & = & -
\frac{1}{8} \dot{X}(t) \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dk A_{k}(t) I_{1}(k) -
\frac{1}{16 \alpha} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dk' A_{k}(t) A_{k'}(t) R_{3}(k,k') + \nonumber \\
& + & \frac{\sqrt{D}}{8 \alpha} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f_{T} [x - X(t)] \,\ \eta(x,t) \,\ dx - \nonumber \\
& -&
\frac{1}{48 \alpha}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk_{1} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk_{2} A_{k}(t) A_{k_{1}}(t) A_{k_{2}}(t)
R_{6}(k,k_{1},k_{2}),\label{ecua5}\\
\frac{\partial{A_{k}}}{\partial{t}} + \frac{\omega_{k}^{2}}{\alpha} A_{k}(t) & = &
\dot{X}(t) \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk A_{k}(t) I_{3}(k,k') + \frac{1}{2 \alpha} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk'
A_{k}(t) A_{k'}(t) R_{4}(k,k') - \nonumber \\
& - & \frac{\sqrt{D}}{\alpha} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
f_{k'}^{*} [x - X(t)] \,\ \eta(x,t) \,\ dx + \nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{1}{6 \alpha}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk_{1} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk_{2} A_{k}(t) A_{k_{1}}(t)
A_{k_{2}}(t) R_{7}(k,k_{1},k_{2}),
\label{ecua6}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{1}(k) & = & \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{\partial f_{k}}{\partial \theta} f_{T}(\theta) d\theta =
\frac{i \pi \omega_{k}}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \,\ \cosh\Big(\displaystyle{\frac{\pi k}{2}}\Big)}, \nonumber \\
R_{3}(k,k') & = & \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f_{T}(\theta)
\frac{\partial f_{T}}{\partial \theta} f_{k}(\theta)
f_{k'}^{*}(\theta) d\theta =
-\frac{i (\omega_{k}^{2} - \omega_{k'}^{2})^{2}}{4 \omega_{k} \omega_{k'}
\,\ \sinh\Big(\displaystyle{\frac{\pi \Delta k}{2}}\Big)},\,\ \Delta k=k'-k, \nonumber \\
I_{3}(k,k') & = & \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{\partial f_{k}}{\partial \theta} f_{k'}^{*}(\theta) d\theta, \nonumber \\
R_{4}(k,k') & = & \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} [f_{k'}^{*}(\theta)]^{2}
\frac{\partial f_{T}}{\partial \theta} f_{k}(\theta)
d\theta, \,\ R_{4}(k,k) = \frac{3 i \omega_{k}}{8 \sqrt{2 \pi} \,\
\cosh\Big(\displaystyle{\frac{\pi k}{2}}\Big)}, \nonumber \\
R_{6}(k,k_{1},k_{2}) & = & \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{\partial^{2} f_{T}}{\partial \theta^{2}} f_{k}(\theta) f_{k_1}^{*}(\theta)
f_{k_2}(\theta) d\theta, \,\ \nonumber \\
R_{7}(k,k_{1},k_{2}) & = & \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \cos(\phi_{0})
f_{k'}^{*}(\theta) f_{k}(\theta) f_{k_1}^{*}(\theta) f_{k_2}(\theta)
d\theta.
\label{ecua7}
\end{eqnarray}
We now recall that, if we set $\epsilon = 0$ in (\ref{ecua2}),
the static kink is an exact solution; hence, in what follows we will
consider $\epsilon$ as a small perturbative parameter, and
expand $A_{k}(t)$ and $X(t)$ in powers of $\epsilon$.
By substituting the series $A_{k}(t) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \epsilon^{n} A_{k}^{n}(t)$ and $X(t) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \epsilon^{n} X_{n}(t)$ in
(\ref{ecua5}) and (\ref{ecua6}) we find a set of linear
equations for the coefficients of these series. We only write down here
the systems of equations up to order $\epsilon^{3}$, leaving out the
cumbersome (albeit straightforward) equation for $A_{k}^{3}(t)$:
\underline{$O(\epsilon)$}
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{X}_{1}(t) & = & \epsilon_{1}(t), \,\ \langle \epsilon_{1}(t)\rangle =0, \,\
\langle \epsilon_1(t) \epsilon_1(t')\rangle = \frac{D}{8 \alpha^{2}} \delta(t-t'), \label{ecua8}\\
\frac{\partial {A_{k}^{1}}}{\partial t}(t) + \frac{\omega_{k}^{2}}{\alpha}
A_{k}^{1}(t) & = & \frac{\epsilon_{k}(t)}{\alpha}, \,\ \langle\epsilon_{k}(t)\rangle =0, \,\
\langle\epsilon_{k}(t) \epsilon_{k'}(t')\rangle = \frac{D}{\alpha^{2}} \delta(t-t')
\delta(k-k');
\label{ecua9}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
\underline{$O(\epsilon^2)$}
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{X}_{2}(t) & = & -\frac{\dot{X}_{1}(t)}{8} \int _{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk A_{k}^{1}(t) I_{1}(k) - \nonumber \\
& - & \frac{1}{16 \alpha} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk'
A_{k}^{1}(t) A_{k'}^{1}(t) R_{3}(k,k'), \label{ecua10}\\
\frac{\partial {A_{k}^{2}}}{\partial t}(t) + \frac{\omega_{k}^{2}}{\alpha}
A_{k}^{2}(t) & = & \dot{X}_{1}(t) \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk A_{k}^{1}(t) I_{3}(k,k) + \nonumber \\
& + & \frac{1}{2 \alpha} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk'
A_{k}^{1}(t) A_{k'}^{1}(t) R_{4}(k,k');
\label{ecua11}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
\underline{$O(\epsilon^{3})$}
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{X}_{3}(t) & = &
-\frac{\dot{X}_{1}(t)}{8} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk A_{k}^{2}(t) I_{1}(k) -
\frac{\dot{X}_{2}(t)}{8} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk A_{k}^{1}(t) I_{1}(k) - \nonumber \\
& - & \frac{1}{16 \alpha} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk'
A_{k}^{2}(t) A_{k'}^{1}(t) R_{3}(k,k') - \nonumber \\
& - & \frac{1}{16 \alpha} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk'
A_{k}^{1}(t) A_{k'}^{2}(t) R_{3}(k,k') - \nonumber \\
& - &\frac{1}{48 \alpha} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk_{1} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk_{2} A_{k}^{1}(t)
A_{k_{1}}^{1}(t) A_{k_{2}}^{1}(t) R_{6}(k,k_{1},k_{2}). \label{ecua12}
\end{eqnarray}
We now proceed with the first-order equations.
The solutions of (\ref{ecua8}) and (\ref{ecua9}) can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
X_{1}(t) & = & \int_{0}^{t} \epsilon_{1}(\tau) d \tau, \quad
A_{k}^{1}(t) = \exp(-\frac{\omega_{k}^{2} \,\ t}{\alpha})
\int_{0}^{t} \exp(\frac{\omega_{k}^{2} \tau}{\alpha}) \epsilon_{k}(\tau) d \tau,
\label{ecua13}
\end{eqnarray}
respectively. From these relations we can immediately
compute averages over the quantities of interest, such as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle X_{1}(t)\rangle & = & 0, \,\ \langle X_{1}(t) X_{1}(t')\rangle =
\frac{D}{8 \alpha^{2}} M, \label{ecua14}\\
\langle \dot{X}_{1}(t)\rangle & = & 0, \,\ \langle \dot{X}_{1}(t) \dot{X}_{1}(t')\rangle =
\frac{D}{8 \alpha^{2}} \delta(t-t'),\label{ecua15}\\
\langle A_{k}^{1}(t)\rangle & = & 0, \quad \langle A_{k}^{1}(t) A_{k}^{1}(t')\rangle =
\frac{D}{2 \alpha \omega_{k}^{2}}
\Big[\exp\Big(-\frac{\omega_{k}^{2} |t'-t|}{\alpha}\Big) -
\exp\Big(-\frac{\omega_{k}^{2} (t+t')}{\alpha}\Big)\Big],
\label{ecua16}
\end{eqnarray}
where $M=min(t,t')$.
For the next orders, the calculations are more involved but not difficult.
After some tedious algebra,
from Eqs.\ (\ref{ecua10})-(\ref{ecua12}) we find
the average values of the position and velocity of the kink center
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle X_{2}(t)\rangle & = & 0, \,\langle \dot{X}_{2}(t)\rangle = 0, \label{ecua17}\\
\langle X_{3}(t)\rangle & = & 0, \,\langle \dot{X}_{3}(t)\rangle = 0;
\label{ecua18}
\end{eqnarray}
whereas it can be shown that, for large enough times,
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle |A_{k}^{2}(t)|\rangle &\sim &
\frac{3 \sigma k_{b} T}{16 \sqrt{2 \pi} \omega_{k}^{2}},\\
\sigma &=& \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dk}{\omega_{k}
\cosh\Big(\displaystyle{\frac{\pi k}{2}}\Big)} \approx 1.62386.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
The corresponding correlation functions for $X_{2}(t)$ and $\dot{X}_{2}(t)$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle X_{2}(t) X_{2}(t')\rangle & = & \frac{D^{2} M}{512 \alpha^{3}} +
\frac{D^{2} \pi}{4096 \alpha^{2}} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{\Big[\exp\Big(-2 \omega_{k}^{2} M/\alpha \Big)-1 \Big] dk}{\omega_{k}^{2}
\cosh^{2}\displaystyle{\Big(\frac{\pi k}{2}\Big)}}, \label{ecua19}\\
\langle \dot{X}_{2}(t) \dot{X}_{2}(t')\rangle & = & \langle \dot{X}_{1}(t) \dot{X}_{1}(t')\rangle \times \nonumber \\
& \times &
\frac{D \pi}{256 \alpha} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{\exp\Big(- \omega_{k}^{2} |t'-t|/\alpha \Big) -
\exp\Big(- \omega_{k}^{2} (t'+t)/\alpha \Big) dk}
{\cosh^{2}\displaystyle{\Big(\frac{\pi k}{2}\Big)}}.
\label{ecua20}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that the cross correlation function of $X_{1}(t)$ and
$X_{3}(t)$ is of the same order as $\langle X_{2}(t) X_{2}(t')\rangle $,
and also
that $\langle X_{1}(t) X_{2}(t')\rangle =0$. So, from Eqs.\ (\ref{ecua8}) and (\ref{ecua12})
we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle {\langle X_{3}(t) X_{1}(t')\rangle = \langle X_{2}(t) X_{2}(t')\rangle - \frac{D^{2}}{256 \alpha^{3}}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk \,\ I_{1}(k)} \times \\
\\
\displaystyle {\times \Big\{ \Big(
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dm \frac{R_{4}(m,m)}{\omega_{m}^{2}} \Big) \,\
\Big[\frac{M}{\omega_{k}^{2}} +
\frac{\alpha (\exp(-\omega_{k}^{2} M/\alpha)-1)}{\omega_{k}^{4}} \Big]} - \\
\\
\displaystyle {- \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dn
\frac{R_{4}(n,n)}{\omega_{n}^{2}} \,\
\frac{\alpha}{2 \omega_{n}^{2}-\omega_{k}^{2}}
\Big[\frac{(\exp(-2 \omega_{n}^{2} M/\alpha)-1)}{2 \omega_{n}^{2}} -
\frac{(\exp(-\omega_{k}^{2} M/\alpha)-1)}{\omega_{k}^{2}}\Big] \Big\}},
\label{ecua21}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle {\langle \dot{X}_{3}(t) \dot{X}_{1}(t')\rangle = - \frac{1}{8}
\langle \dot{X}_{1}(t) \dot{X}_{1}(t')\rangle \times } \,\ \nonumber \\
\displaystyle{\times \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dk\Big \{
\langle A_{k}^{2}(t)\rangle I_{1}(k) - \frac{1}{8} \langle [A_{k}^{1}(t)]^{2}\rangle |I_{1}(k)|^{2}
\Big \}}.
\label{ecua22}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Finally, from (\ref{ecua15}), (\ref{ecua20}) and (\ref{ecua22}) we obtain
the final result, namely
that for large $t$ [i.e., taking the limit $t\to\infty$ in Eqs.\
(\ref{ecua20}) and (\ref{ecua22}) in all terms except those related to
$X_1(t)$] the correlation function
$\langle \dot{X}(t) \dot{X}(t')\rangle $ is given up to
order $\epsilon^{4}$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \dot{X}(t) \dot{X}(t')\rangle & = &
\epsilon^{2} \langle \dot{X}_{1}(t) \dot{X}_{1}(t')\rangle + \nonumber \\
& + &
\epsilon^{4} (\langle \dot{X}_{2}(t) \dot{X}_{2}(t')\rangle +
\langle \dot{X}_{1}(t) \dot{X}_{3}(t')\rangle + \langle \dot{X}_{3}(t) \dot{X}_{1}(t')\rangle )+... \nonumber \\
& = &
\frac{\epsilon^{2}}{8}
\langle \dot{X}_{1}(t) \dot{X}_{1}(t')\rangle \Big\{ 1+ \epsilon^{2} \Big(\frac{3}{32} + \frac{3}{128}
\sigma^{2}\Big) k_{b} T \Big \} + o(\epsilon^{4}).
\label{ecua23}
\end{eqnarray}
We now return to our original equation notation: We set
$\epsilon$ equal to one and consider $\sqrt{k_{b} T}$ as the small parameter.
When $t$ goes to infinity and imposing $\epsilon=1$, from
Eqs.\ (\ref{ecua14}), (\ref{ecua19}) and
(\ref{ecua21}) we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle [X(t)]^{2}\rangle & = &
\frac{k_{b} T}{4 \alpha} t \Big\{ 1+ \Big(\frac{3}{32} + \frac{3}{128}
\sigma^{2}\Big) k_{b} T \Big \}.
\label{corrx}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the slope of this function is the kink diffusion coefficient, so if one
takes into account
the second-order correction one obtains that the diffusion coefficient is a
quadratic function of the temperature. We postpone our comments to Sec. IV, where a comparison with the previously available
results will be made.
To complete this work, we can calculate in a very simple way
the average value of the wave
function $\phi(x,t)$ in first order:
{}From Eq.\ (4) we have that
\begin{equation}
\langle \phi(x,t)\rangle =\langle \phi_{0}[x-\epsilon X_1(t)]\rangle + O(\epsilon^{2}).
\label{avphi}
\end{equation}
In this last relation we have taken into account that
$\langle A_{k}(t)\rangle =\epsilon \langle A_{k}^{1}(t)\rangle +
O(\epsilon^{2})$ and $\langle A_{k}^{1}(t)\rangle =0$ [see Eq.\ (\ref{ecua16})].
If we solve the corresponding Fokker-Planck equation for $X_{1}$ [see Eq.\ (\ref{ecua8})],
we obtain that the probability distribution function for $X_{1}$ is a Gaussian function given by
\begin{equation}
p(X_{1})=\sqrt{\frac{4 \alpha^{2}}{\pi t D}}
\exp\Big(-\frac{4 \alpha^{2} X_{1}^{2} }{D t} \Big).
\label{pdf}
\end{equation}
So, one can define the average value $\langle \phi(x,t)\rangle $ as
\begin{equation}
\langle \phi(x,t)\rangle = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dX_{1} p(X_{1}) \phi_{0}[x-\epsilon X_{1}(t)].
\label{inte}
\end{equation}
Unfortunately we have not found the analytical expression for this integral.
But
we have calculated it numerically, and below we will compare it to the
simulations for the full partial differential equation.
\section{Numerical simulations}
For our numerical simulations of the partial differential equation
(\ref{ecua2}), we have used
the Heun method \cite{maxra}, whose stochastic properties are well
known and suitable for comparison to our theoretical predictions. We
numerically integrate Eqs.\ (\ref{ecua2}), with white noise (\ref{ecua3}),
starting from an unperturbed kink
at rest and taking the average values over 1000 realizations.
The other parameters are
$\alpha=1$, $\Delta x = 0.05$,
and $\Delta t = 0.001$. In the evaluation of the simulations, we have defined the
center of the kink as follows: We first find all the lattice points $i$ such that
$\phi_{i} \le \pi$ and $\phi_{i+1} \ge \pi$ or vice versa.
We then interpolate to obtain the points $x_{i}$ where the field $\phi$ crosses $\pi$. In case
that, due to the noise-induced deformation of the kink, there is more than one
such $x_{i}$, we average them to finally obtain the numerical kink center
position, $x_{c}$. As discussed below, this introduces some error, but
other alternatives we tested (such as the center of mass, for instance)
gave results which did not really represent the kink location, and
moreover its calculation from numerics is much less accurate.
Once the center is obtained, we computed
also its variance $\langle [X(t)]^{2}\rangle $.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace{-2.4cm}
\epsfig{file=fig1a.eps, width=2.7in, angle=-90}
\epsfig{file=fig1b.eps, width=2.7in, angle=-90}\\
\hspace{-2.4cm}
\epsfig{file=fig1c.eps, width=2.7in, angle=-90}
\epsfig{file=fig18.eps, width=2.7in, angle=-90}\\
\ \\[15mm]
\caption[]{Simulations with initial condition given by
a static kink initially located at
$X(0)=0$, and subject to a thermal bath.
As a continuous
(but wiggly) line, we have plotted
$\langle [X(t)]^{2}\rangle $ as obtained by numerical integration of
Eq.\ (\ref{ecua2})
for (a) $k_{b} T=0.2$, (b) $k_{b} T=0.4$,
(c) $k_{b} T=0.6$ and (d) $k_{b} T=0.8$. Overimposed to these lines
the linear regression of the numerical results
for $t\ge30$ is shown (long-dashed line).
The solid line is the theoretical prediction $\langle [X(t)]^{2}\rangle $
from Eq.\ (\ref{corrx}); this line practically overlaps with the linear
regression in Fig.\ a, b, and c. The first-order result
$\langle [X(t)]^{2}\rangle $ from Eq.\ (\ref{ecua14}) is shown as a dot-dash
line.}
\label{graph1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{graph1}(a)-(d) show a comparison of our numerical results with the
analytical predictions, Eqs.\ (\ref{ecua14}) and (\ref{corrx}),
for different values of $k_{b} T$. We see that there is an excellent
agreement between theory and numerics except for the highest value of
$k_bT$ [Fig.\ \ref{graph1}(d)]. We have checked that this disagreement
arises from the way we compute the kink center: For such large values of
the noise, points where $\phi(x,t)=\pi$ are found all over the system,
irrespective of their distance to the kink center (we note, however, that
the temperature was not high enough to create new kink-antikink pairs).
Those points contribute to the center position through our averaging
procedure, and in fact their contribution can be shown to be additive,
i.e., it amounts to move the whole curve
$\langle [X(t)]^{2}\rangle $ upwards. This is indeed what occurs in
Fig.\ \ref{graph1}(d), and as we will see below the slope is very close
to the predicted one. The same behavior is found for higher temperatures
in so far no new kinks are created (not shown). Interestingly,
a first conclusion that can be drawn
from these figures is that already for not so high temperatures,
$k_bT\ge 0.4$, as time passes the kink behavior becomes more and more
different from the first-order prediction, showing clearly the
necessity for the second-order correction.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace{-2.4cm}
\epsfig{file=figu2.eps, width=5.0in, angle=-90}
\ \\[15mm]
\caption{Lower solid line: the function
$D_{1}$; upper solid line:
$D_{2}$, which represent the first- and second-order results for the kink
diffusion coefficient [see Eqs.\
(\ref{ecua14}) and (\ref{corrx})]. Diamonds
represent the numerical values of
the kink diffusion coefficient, obtained by numerical integration of Eq.\ (\ref{ecua2})
with final time
$t_{f}=200$ (as in Fig.\ \ref{graph1})
and different values of $k_{b} T$. A quadratic regression
of these numerical values is also plotted (long-dashed line).}
\label{graph2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We have calculated the numerical values of the diffusion coefficient for
several temperatures by taking the slope of $\langle [X(t)]^{2}\rangle $,
which we obtain from a linear fit of the data for not so early times
($t \ge 30$)
to avoid transient effects coming from the adjustment of the kink to the
heat bath. Note also that our prediction for the second-order contribution
was obtained in the large-time limit, so we should not try to fit the
whole evolution.
The figures also show those linear regressions.
Subsequently, in Fig.\ \ref{graph2} we have compared the computed slopes
with the first and second-order coefficients
$\displaystyle{D_{1}=\frac{k_{b} T}{4 \alpha}}$, and
$\displaystyle{D_{2}=\frac{k_{b} T}{4 \alpha}
\Big\{ 1+ \Big(\frac{3}{32} + \frac{3}{128}
\sigma^{2}\Big) k_{b} T \Big \}}$ [see. Eqs.\ (\ref{ecua14}) and
(\ref{corrx})]. The comparison is once again very good, and points out
very clearly that for values of $k_bT$ as low as 0.3, the first-order
prediction begins to deviate from the diffusion constant measured in
the simulations. In
addition, the quadratic fit to the simulation results, shown as a
long-dashed line in Fig.\ \ref{graph2}, practically coincides with the
second-order prediction in the whole studied range.
As a final verification of our results, in Fig.\ \ref{graph3}
we have plotted the mean value $\langle \phi(x,t) \rangle$ of the wave
function at three different
times along its evolution, both as obtained from the
numerical simulation of the partial differential equation and
{}from the numerical evaluation of Eq.\ (\ref{inte}).
The perfect agreement between these expressions provides us with a hint
to derive an approximate analytical estimate of the evolution
of $\langle \phi \rangle$
{}from the integral (\ref{inte}).
{}From Fig.\ \ref{graph3} one immediately concludes that the width of $\langle \phi \rangle$
increases with temperature and time. Let us
define the width of $\langle \phi \rangle$ by
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace{-2.4cm}
\epsfig{file=k400m.eps, width=2.7in, angle=-90}
\epsfig{file=k800m.eps, width=2.7in, angle=-90}
\ \\[15mm]
\caption{Solid lines: Snapshots of the evolution of
$\langle \phi(x,t)\rangle $, obtained from numerical
simulations of the partial differential equation, for fixed times
40, 120 and 200, respectively. The initial kink (unperturbed, at rest,
is also included for comparison). The width of $\langle \phi \rangle $
increases as
time progresses.
The overimposed points have been computed numerically from
the integral (\ref{inte}). Plots correspond to $k_{b} T=0.4$
(a), and 0.8 (b); the width of $\langle \phi \rangle $
is seen to increase also with temperature.}
\label{graph3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle {
L(t)=\sqrt{\frac{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} x^{2} \langle [\phi_x(x,t)]^{2}\rangle dx}
{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \langle [\phi_x(x,t)]^{2}\rangle dx}}.
}
\label{anwidth}
\end{equation}
With this definition, we can now calculate $\langle [\phi_x(x,t)]^2\rangle $
by using the distribution function of $X_{1}(t)$; this procedure yields
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle {
L(t) \approx
\sqrt{L_{0}^{2}+\langle [X_{1}(t)]^{2}\rangle }},
\label{eqL}
\end{equation}
where
${\displaystyle L_{0}^{2}=\frac{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx \,\
[x^{2}/\rm cosh^{2}(x)]}
{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx \,\ [1/\rm cosh^{2}(x)]}=0.8225}$.
It is important to note that, of
course, we could define $L(t)$ using $\langle \phi_x(x,t)\rangle $
instead of $\langle [\phi_x(x,t)]^{2}\rangle $ in the above expression,
or equivalently another quantity which is localized around the kink
center.
However, as all possible (and sensible)
definitions of $L(t)$ give more or less the same results,
the difference between them becomes a constant factor
when $\langle [X_{1}(t)]^{2}\rangle $ increases above
$L_{0}^{2}$ (for example, for large enough $t$).
So, we expect that the ratio
\begin{equation}
\label{ratio}
\frac{L(t)}{L(t_{fix})} \to \sqrt{\frac{t}{t_{fix}}},
\end{equation}
for large enough $t$ and $t_{fix}$.
Figure \ref{graph4} shows a comparison of this prediction
with the numerical evaluation of the width of $\langle \phi \rangle $ from Eq.\ (\ref{inte}).
{}From these plots we see that the
broadening of $\langle \phi \rangle $ behaves indeed as $\sqrt{t}$:
We can compare the analytical slope equal to $0.5$ with
the numerical ones equal to $0.4276$ and $0.4517$ for plots (a) and
(b) respectively. The slope in (b) is closer to the analytical value
due to the fact that $t_{fix}$ is larger than in case (a),
which agrees with the above considerations.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}\hspace{-2.4cm}
\epsfig{file=figu4.eps, width=2.7in, angle=-90}
\epsfig{file=figu4a.eps, width=2.7in, angle=-90}
\ \\[15mm]
\caption{Solid lines: Analytical values of
$\rm ln[L(t)/L(t_{fix})]$ for $t_{fix}=40$ (a) and $t_{fix}=80$ (b).
In both cases $\alpha=1$ and $k_{b} T=0.6$.
Long-dashed lines: numerical values, calculated from (\ref{inte}).
The solid lines over the long-dashed ones correspond to
the linear regression of the
numerical points.}
\label{graph4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
As we have seen in the previous section, our second-order theoretical
predictions constitute a very accurate description of the kink dynamics
for a wide range of temperatures, up to a value of $k_bT\simeq 1$.
In fact, the range of validity of the analytical results might be
somewhat higher, provided a better way to estimate the kink center from the
numerical simulations could be devised. In any event, the occurrence of
$\pi$-crossings far away from the kink center for values around
$k_bT\simeq 1$ indicates that further increments of the temperature
would undoubtedly produce kink-antikink pairs, thus invalidating our
collective coordinate approach which necessarily relies on the identification
of the individual kink propagation. We note that this value is a little
over 10\% of the kink rest mass ($M_0=8$ in our units); in this respect, a similar
result was obtained in \cite{jacek} for the overdamped $\phi^4$ model
by means of a similar perturbative approach (with the caveat that the numerical
data presented in \cite{jacek} only allow one to guess what is the range of
validity of their results).
It is interesting to pursue further the comparison of the results for
the sG and $\phi^4$ cases. In our calculations for sG, we have found
that the second-order correction is clearly smaller (albeit relevant)
than the first-order one. The structure of the perturbative calculation
allows to identify the origin of that correction: It comes from the
interaction of the phonons (described by the functions $A_k$) with
the kink. Now, in the $\phi^4$ case, the situation is quite different:
Indeed, the second-order correction is much {\em larger} than the one
we find here, and the reason is the so-called internal mode,
present for $\phi^4$ kinks and absent in the sG case. The coupling
between this internal mode (which has been shown to act as a reservoir
of energy available for exchange with the kink translation mode
\cite{Campbell}) and the kink motion can be shown, by a careful examination
of the calculation in \cite{jacek}, to be responsible
for most of the second-order correction, while the phonons produce a
second-order term comparable to the one we have found. We thus see that,
while the range of validity of the analytical approach is in principle
the same in both cases, the physics is certainly different, and in fact
the question arises as to the validity of this kind of perturbative
calculation for the $\phi^4$ problem in view of the large contribution
of the internal mode. This is an interesting question that deserves
further analytical and numerical work.
Coming back to our results for the sG kink, the fact that the second-order
correction is smaller than the first-order term makes us confident that
our expansion is likely to be free of problems coming from secular terms.
This belief is reinforced by the result that, up to the validity range
discussed above and limited by kink-antikink creation phenomena, the
second-order result describes very accurately the kink behavior, which
deviates very little from the predicted diffusive motion. It is then
reasonable to expect higher-order contributions (whose calculation is
extremely cumbersome, but feasible in principle) to be negligible,
thus yielding our theoretical result as the final one for the kink
diffusion in the overdamped sG problem. In this context, it is also important to
realize that Eqs.\ (\ref{ecua8})-(\ref{ecua9}), which are only first-order,
can also be obtained
following the McLaughlin and Scott procedure \cite{McL} (see also
\cite{siam}). However, the advantages
of the perturbative scheme we have used are, on one hand,
that we were able to obtain the next order in the expansion,
and on the other hand, we demonstrated that the second order originates in
the interaction between phonon and translational modes of the sG
kink.
A final remark on our results relates to the mean value of the wave function
$\langle \phi(x,t)\rangle $ as a function of $t$,
that must {\it{not}} be interpreted as the shape
of the kink; in contrast to the interpretation in \cite{jacek}. We first note that the width of the kink
cannot increase from its value when unperturbed at rest; the sG equation,
being Lorentz invariant, implies that the kink width diminishes when in
motion, and therefore an increasing of the width would be very difficult to
understand on physical grounds. Indeed that is not the case. The
broadening of the mean wave function comes in fact from the dispersion
of the individual realizations, as is immediately seen from Fig.\
\ref{graph5}. As may be seen all individual realizations show a width comparable
to the initial kink width, which agrees with our physical intuition. The
observed
$\sqrt{t}$ behavior, discussed at the end of the preceding section,
is then evidently related to the fact
that the variance of the kink position has that behavior too. The correct
interpretation of the width of $\langle \phi(x,t)\rangle $ is that it represents the
area in which the kink can be located as its diffusive motion
progresses. A similar result has been found for multiplicative noise
in \cite{armero} (see also \cite{GSbook} and references therein).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace{-2.4cm}
\epsfig{file=figu5.eps, width=5.0in, angle=-90}
\ \\[15mm]
\caption{Average of the wave function for $k_{b}T=0.4$ and $t=200$
obtained from 1000 realizations (wider solid line), compared to
the average of only 5 realizations (dot-dashed line). Also represented
are 3 of these individual realizations. Note the different slope
and width of the average values as compared to individual realizations.
}
\label{graph5}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To conclude, we want to stress that our main result is the quadratic
dependence of the diffusion constant on the temperature, stemming from the kink-phonon
interactions. This has been verified numerically to a high degree of
accuracy. We have carried out
standard Langevin dynamics simulations following a well grounded
procedure, the Heun method, as far as statistical properties are
concerned \cite{maxra}. We can thus be sure that what we are dealing with is
indeed the dynamics of a sG kink at finite temperature. Therefore, our
analytical calculations and our numerical simulations establish firmly
the quadratic dependence of the kink diffusion constant on the temperature for the first
time. Now the question remains as to the behavior of {\em underdamped}
sG kinks. Preliminary
calculations \cite{us} seem to indicate that for underdamped sG kinks the
second-order correction is of the same order as that found here,
which would support the applicability of the previous calculations at least
for small temperatures and not too small damping. To date, no detailed comparison with
numerical simulations has ever been done to check the importance of
the second-order correction. On the other hand, it would be interesting to compare
the results of our approach with the theoretical analysis and experiments in
\cite{cast}. Such comparison would provide much insight into the importance of second
and higher-order corrections in actual physical systems.
Work along these lines is in progress \cite{us}
\section*{Acknowledgement}
We are grateful to Esteban Moro, Grant Lythe, and Jos\'e Mar\'\i a Sancho for
discussions.
Work at GISC (Legan\'es) has been supported by CICyT (Spain) grant MAT95-0325
and DGES (Spain) grant PB96-0119. Travel between Bayreuth and Madrid is
supported by ``Acciones Integradas Hispano-Alemanas'', a joint program of
DAAD (Az.\ 314-AI) and DGES. This research is part of a project supported
by NATO grant CRG 971090.
\bigskip
{\em Note added in proof:} After acceptance of this paper, we have
implemented an improved algorithm for detecting the kink center in
our code. With this new procedure, no spurious contributions (see
discussion below Fig.\ \ref{graph1}) to the
variance appear: Specifically, Fig.\ \ref{graph1}(d) is largely
improved, and the numerical results overlap the theoretical prediction,
thus confirming the interpretation we have provided of the discrepancy.
A detailed report will be given in \cite{us}.
\section*{Appendix I}
One class of solutions of (\ref{ecua2}) [with $\epsilon=0$] is represented by
a static kink
\begin{equation}
\phi_{0}(x,t)= 4 \,\ \mbox{arctan}[\exp(x)].
\label{ap1}
\end{equation}
The perturbations over this equation may be treated by assuming that the solution of
(\ref{ecua2}) [with $\epsilon=0$] has the form
\begin{equation}
\phi(x,t)=\phi_{0}(x) + \psi(x,t), \,\ \,\ \psi(x,t) \ll \phi_{0}(x).
\label{ap2}
\end{equation}
If we substitute Eq. (\ref{ap2}) in (\ref{ecua2}) [with $\epsilon=0$] and linearize
around $\phi_{0}(x)$, we obtain the following equation for $\psi(x,t)$
\begin{equation}
\alpha \psi_{t} = \psi_{xx} - \Big[1-\frac{2}{\cosh^{2}(x)}\Big] \psi.
\label{ap3}
\end{equation}
Then, the solution of (\ref{ap3}) may be written as
$\displaystyle {\psi(x,t) = f_{k}(x)
\exp\Big(-\frac{\omega_{k}^{2} \,\ t}{\alpha}\Big)}$, where $f_{k}(x)$ satisfies
the eigenvalue problem given by
\begin{equation}
-\frac{\partial^{2} f_{k}}{\partial x^{2}} + \Big[1-\frac{2}{\cosh^{2}(x)}\Big]
f_{k} =
\omega_{k}^{2} f_{k}.
\label{ap4}
\end{equation}
This equation admits the following eigenfunctions with their respective
eigenvalues
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{T}(x) = \frac{2}{\cosh(x)}, \,\ \omega_{T}^{2} & = & 0, \\
f_{k}(x) = \frac{\exp(i k x) \,\ [k + i \mbox{tanh}(x)]}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \,\ \omega_{k}}, \,\
\omega_{k}^{2} & = & 1 + k^{2}.
\label{ap5}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice, that $f_{T}(x)$ and $f_{k}(x)$ form a complete set of functions with
the orthogonality relations
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f_{T}^{2}(x) \,\ dx & = & 8, \quad
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f_{T}(x) f_{k}(x) \,\ dx = 0, \\
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f_{k}(x) f_{k'}^{*}(x) \,\ dx & = &\delta(k-k').
\end{eqnarray}
\label{ap6}
\end{mathletters}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
In many terrestrial flows of granular materials, gravity consolidates
the medium to a state where sustained frictional contact between the
particles is the dominant mode of momentum transfer. In this regime
of high solids fraction and low deformation rate, models based on
concepts in metal plasticity and soil mechanics have been
traditionally used to describe the flow~\citep{jackson83}. While many
gross features of granular flows can be predicted using these models,
one aspect they fail to capture is the thickness of shear layers;
often when granular materials are sheared, large portions of the
material do not suffer sustained deformation. In the experiments of
\citet{roscoe70, neddermanandlaohakul80, gudehusandtejchman91}, the
velocity gradients are confined to layers approximately 5--40 particle
diameters in thickness. Moreover, the thickness of the shear layers
is influenced by the nature of the boundaries; when the flowing medium
is confined by smooth walls, it is found that the thickness of the
shear layers is less than that in the case of rough walls
\citep{neddermanandlaohakul80, tejchmanandgudehus93}.
Conventional models of plasticity do not predict shear
layers~\citep{tejchmanandwu93, mohanetal97}. The failure of the
frictional models to predict the thickness of the shear layers
accurately has been attributed to the absence of a material length
scale in their constitutive equations~\citep[cited
in~\citealp{muhlhausandvardoulakis87}]{muhlhaus86}. To overcome this
deficiency of the classical models, the particle size must be
incorporated in the constitutive equations. In the absence of a
comprehensive micro-mechanical model to describe friction, a continuum
theory that includes a material length scale in the constitutive
equations can be constructed by modelling the granular material as a
Cosserat continuum~\citep{muhlhaus86}. We shall argue later that the
frictional nature of particle interactions provides sufficient grounds
for using this approach. We note here that models based on kinetic
theory~\citep[see, for example,][]{lunetal84}, involve the particle
diameter in the constitutive relations. However, these models are
expected to hold only for rapid flows, where particle interactions may
be approximated by instantaneous collisions.
In this paper, we explore the use of a Cosserat plasticity model to
describe steady, fully developed, plane flow of a granular material in
a vertical channel under the action of gravity. The predictions of
the model will be compared with data reported in the literature. While
Cosserat plasticity models have been applied to problems in granular
flow in the past
\citep{muhlhausandvardoulakis87,muhlhaus89,tejchmanandwu93,%
tejchmanandgudehus93,tejchmanandwu94}, these studies address
unsteady flows and are posed in terms of strain increments; with this
formulation, \citet{tejchmanandgudehus93} found it difficult to
integrate the equations numerically for large times. To the best of
our knowledge, the present work represents the first attempt to
examine steady flow in this context. We indicate below how the model
is developed, and then apply it to channel flow.
\section{The Cosserat model}
\label{sec:cosserat}
The field variables of the classical continuum are the density $\rho$,
the linear velocity $\Vector{v}$, and the stress tensor
$\Tensor{\sigma}$. A Cosserat
continuum~(\citep[p.~223]{jaunzemis67}; \citep{cowin74}) involves
two additional field variables, namely, the angular velocity
$\Vector{\omega}$, and the couple stress tensor $\Tensor{M}$.
Considering a Cartesian coordinate system (\fig{1}), $M_{xz}$
represents the couple per unit area exerted about the $z$-axis on a
plane~$x = \mathrm{constant}$, by the material to the left of this
plane. A positive value of $M_{xz}$ is taken to impose an
anti-clockwise rotation on this plane~(\fig{1}). For a Cosserat
continuum, the mass and linear momentum balances must be supplemented
by the angular momentum balance, which relates $\Vector{\omega}$,
$\Tensor{M}$, and $\Tensor{\sigma}$. For steady, fully developed flow,
spatial gradients of $\Tensor{M}$ cause $\Tensor{\sigma}$ to be
asymmetric. This is in contrast to the classical continuum, which
assumes implicitly that there are no couple stresses, body couples,
and intrinsic angular momentum; hence the angular momentum balance can
be satisfied identically by requiring $\Tensor{\sigma}$ to be
symmetric.
There is enough analytical evidence to motivate the use of a Cosserat
model in the present problem. \citet{dahler59} used a statistical
mechanical approach to develop expressions for the stresses in a fluid
composed of diatomic molecules. For molecules interacting via central
forces, which are directed along the lines joining the centers of mass
of the molecules, $\Tensor{\sigma}$ is found to be symmetric. However,
his model suggests that non-central forces may cause $\Tensor{\sigma}$
to be asymmetric. \citet{campbell93a} simulated the shearing of
circular discs between parallel plates, assuming that the collisions
between discs, and between a disc and the wall, were instantaneous. In
the latter case, wall roughness was incorporated by imposing (after
collision) either (i)~a zero relative velocity between the surface of
the disc and the wall, or~(ii)~a zero relative velocity between the
center of the disc and the wall. In both cases $\Tensor{\sigma}$ was
asymmetric near the wall, and there were non-zero couple stresses.
\citet{jenkins89} constructed a micro-mechanical model for an assembly
of identical spheres. They found that asymmetric stresses resulted
when the distribution of contact normals was anisotropic; however,
they secured the symmetry of the stress tensor by suitably enforcing
the rotation of particles.
Dry friction, the dominant mode of momentum transfer in high-density
flows, introduces non-central forces in an inherently complex fashion.
Hence, we expect that a micro-mechanical model for dry friction would
result in a continuum with asymmetric stresses; such materials can be
modelled as Cosserat continua. A satisfactory micro-mechanical model
is not yet available, and it is hoped that this issue will be
addressed by future investigators.
\subsection{Equations of motion}
\label{sec:eqnofmotion}
It is instructive to write the equations for the case of steady plane
flow, and later simplify them for the case of fully developed flow.
For flow parallel to the $xy$ plane~(\fig{1}), the velocity field has
the following form:
\begin{equation}
\label{e-1}
v_{x} = v_{x} (x, y); \; v_{y} = v_{y} (x, y); \; v_{z} = 0; \;
\omega_{x} = \omega_{y} = 0; \; \omega_{z} = \omega_{z} (x, y),
\end{equation}
where $v_{x}$ and $\omega_{x}$ are the $x$ components of the linear
and angular velocity, respectively. A positive value of $\omega_{z}$
is associated with an anti-clockwise rotation about the $z$-axis.
The balances for mass and linear momentum are
\begin{align}
\label{e-5}
\pder{}{x} (\nu v_{x}) + \pder{}{y} (\nu v_{y}) &= 0,\\
\label{e-6}
\pder{\sigma_{xx}}{x} + \pder{\sigma_{yx}}{y} +
\rho_{p}\nu\matder{}\:v_{x} &= 0,\\
\label{e-7}
\pder{\sigma_{xy}}{x} + \pder{\sigma_{yy}}{y} +
\rho_{p}\nu\matder{}\:v_{y} &= - \rho_{p}
\nu g,
\end{align}
where $\nu$ is the solids fraction or the volume fraction of solids,
$\sigma_{ij}$'s are the components of the Cauchy stress tensor,
defined in the compressive sense, $\rho_{p}$ is the intrinsic
density of the particles, assumed constant, and $g$ is the
acceleration due to gravity.
Following~\citet[p.~233]{jaunzemis67}, the $z$ component of the
angular momentum balance is
\begin{equation}
\label{e-8}
\pder{M_{xz}}{x} + \pder{M_{yz}}{y} - \rho_{p} \nu
\zeta_{z} + \sigma_{xy} - \sigma_{yx} + \rho_{p}\nu\matder{}\:\eta_{z}
= 0,
\end{equation}
where $M_{iz}$'s are the couple stresses, $\eta_{z}$ is the $z$
component of the intrinsic angular momentum (per unit volume), and
$\zeta_{z}$ is the $z$ component of the body couple acting on the
material.
To close the above set of equations, constitutive relations for the
$\sigma_{ij}$ and $M_{iz}$ are required.
\subsection{Constitutive equations}
\label{sec:consteqn}
\citet{muhlhausandvardoulakis87} and~\citet{tejchmanandwu93} have
developed Cosserat plasticity models for studying the development of
shear bands in granular flow. In their models, the yield condition and
the flow rule were modified to account for the influence of the couple
stress and to provide a relation for the angular velocity. We have
adapted their model to the present problem. The constitutive equations
comprise of a yield condition and a flow rule, which are elaborated
below.
\subsubsection{Yield condition}
Following~\citet[cited in~\citealp{lippmann95}]{besdo74},
\citet{deBorst93}, and~\citet{tejchmanandwu93}, we use a yield
condition of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{e-9}
F \equiv \tau - Y = 0,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{e-10}
\tau \equiv \mysqrt{\left(a_{1} \sigma_{ij}' \sigma_{ij}' + a_{2}
\sigma_{ij}' \sigma_{ji}' + \Frac{1}{(L d_{p})^{2}} M_{ij}
M_{ij} \right)},
\end{equation}
$\sigma_{ij}' = \sigma_{ij} - \textfracp{1}{3}\,\sigma_{kk}\,
\delta_{ij}$ is the deviatoric stress, $\delta_{ij}$ is the
Kronecker delta, $a_{1}$, $a_{2}$, and~$L$ are material constants,
and $d_{p}$ is the particle diameter. Here $L\,d_{p}$ is a
characteristic material length scale; the value of $L$ will be
chosen later. \citet{deBorst93} assumes that the yield limit $Y$
depends on the mean stress $\sigma\equiv\textfrac{\sigma_{kk}}{3}$,
and a hardening parameter $h$. Here we identify $h$ with the solids
fraction $\nu$.
\citet[p.~112]{schofieldandwroth68} and~\citet{jackson83} discuss
the use of a yield condition of the form $F(\Tensor{\sigma}, \nu) =
0$ in the classical frictional models. The yield
condition~\eqref{e-9} with $Y = Y(\sigma, \nu)$ represents an
attempt to include couple stresses within this framework. Only two
of the three parameters $a_{1}$, $a_{2}$ and $L$ in~\eqref{e-10} are
independent, because the third parameter may be absorbed in the
definition of $Y(\sigma,\nu)$~(see~\eqref{e-9}). Following
\citet{muhlhausandvardoulakis87} we set $a_{1} + a_{2} =
\textfrac{1}{2}$, without loss of generality.
\citet{tejchmanandwu93} use $\mathrm{A}\equiv\textfrac{a_{2}}{a_{1}}
= \textfrac{1}{3}$ and $L = 1$. Here we retain their choice of
$\mathrm{A}$ and and treat $L$ as an adjustable parameter, whose
value is chosen as described later. \citet{deBorst93} found that
changes in the values of $\mathrm{A}$ and $L$ affected the post-peak
behaviour of a sample which was sheared between parallel plates.
Unfortunately, neither experiments nor satisfactory micro-mechanical
models are available to guide the choice of $\mathrm{A}$.
Following~\citet{prakashandrao88}, we assume the following form for
the yield limit $Y$
\begin{equation}
\label{e-11}
Y = \sigma_{c}(\nu) \sin \phi
\left(
n \alpha - (n - 1) \alpha^{\textfracp{n}{(n - 1)}}
\right); \quad \alpha\equiv\Frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{c}(\nu)}.
\end{equation}
Here $\sigma_{c}(\nu)$ is the mean stress at a critical state, $\phi$
is a material constant called the angle of internal friction, and $n$
is a material constant. The significance of a critical state will be
explained shortly. The dependence of $\sigma_{c}$ on the solids
fraction $\nu$ is taken to be~\citep{johnsonandjackson87}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:24}
\sigma_{c}(\nu) =
\begin{cases}
0 &\nu < \nu_{\min},\\
\Lambda\Frac{(\nu - \nu_{\min})^{p}}{(\nu_{\max} -
\nu)^{q}} &\nu_{\min} \leq \nu \leq \nu_{\max}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Here $\Lambda$, $\nu_{\min}$, $\nu_{\max}$, $p$ and $q$ are material
constants. Note that $\sigma_{c}(\nu)$ has been chosen to be zero
below $\nu_{\min}$, the solids fraction at loose random packing, and
to diverge as $\nu$ approaches $\nu_{\max}$, the solids fraction at
dense random packing.
\subsubsection{Flow rule}
\citet{tejchmanandwu93} have used incremental elasto-plastic
constitutive equations, which they attribute to~\citet{muhlhaus89}.
Elastic effects are ignored in the present work to simplify the
analysis. Because we are interested in sustained flow, the plastic
strain increments used by~\citet{tejchmanandwu93} are replaced by
suitable velocity gradients~\citep{muhlhaus89}. In Cartesian tensor
notation, the flow rule is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:22}
E_{ij} \equiv \pder{v_{i}}{x_{j}} + \varepsilon_{ijk}\omega_{k} =
\dot{\lambda} \pder{G}{\sigma_{ji}}; \quad H_{ij} \equiv
\pder{\omega_{i}}{x_{j}} = \dot{\lambda}\pder{G}{M_{ji}},
\end{equation}
where $G(\Tensor{\sigma}, \Tensor{M}, \nu)$ is the plastic potential,
$\varepsilon_{ijk}$ is the alternating tensor, and $\dot{\lambda}$ is
a scalar factor. We note here that $E_{ij}$ is the sum of the rate of
deformation tensor $D_{ij}$ and an objective antisymmetric tensor
representing the difference between the spin tensor and the particle
spin $\varepsilon_{ijk}\omega_{k}$. $E_{ij}$ and $H_{ij}$ are
conjugate to the stress $\sigma_{ji}$ and the couple stress $M_{ji}$,
respectively, in the sense that the rate of working per unit volume by
the contact forces and couples is given by $-(\sigma_{ji}E_{ij} +
M_{ji}H_{ij})$~\citep{muhlhaus89}. In a classical continuum,
$\Tensor{M}$ vanishes and $\Tensor{\sigma}$ is symmetric; hence the
above expression reduces to $-\sigma_{ji}D_{ij}$, where $D_{ij} =
\textfracp{1}{2}\:(\textpder{v_{i}}{x_{j}} + \textpder{v_{j}}{x_{i}})$
denotes a component of the rate of deformation tensor.
Lacking detailed information on the plastic potential $G$, we adopt
the most commonly used closure, namely the associated flow rule
\citep[p.~43]{schofieldandwroth68}:
\begin{equation}
\label{e-17}
G \equiv F = \tau - Y.
\end{equation}
This form of the flow rule accounts for density changes accompanying
deformation.
\section{Application to channel flow}
\label{sec:problem}
For the case of steady, fully developed, plane flow, the velocity
field is given by
\begin{equation}
v_{y} = v_{y}(x); \quad \omega\equiv\omega_{z}(x),\label{e-35}
\end{equation}
and the other velocity components vanish. Hence the mass
balance~\eqref{e-5} is identically satisfied and the balances of
linear and angular momentum~\eqref{e-6}--\eqref{e-8} reduce to
\begin{gather}
\der{\sigma_{xx}}{x} = 0;\quad\der{\sigma_{xy}}{x} = -
\rho_{p} \nu g,\label{e-20}\\
\der{m}{x} + \sigma_{xy} - \sigma_{yx} = 0,
\label{e-21}
\end{gather}
where $m \equiv M_{xz}$. It is assumed that the yield condition is
satisfied at every point in the channel, so that the factor
$\dot{\lambda}$ in~\eqref{eq:22} is always non-zero. In
writing~\eqref{e-21}, it is assumed that there are no body couples.
\subsection{The stress field}
\label{sec:Some-cons-assum}
For fully developed flow, it will now be shown that all the normal
stresses are equal. Equation~\eqref{eq:22} implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-27}
E_{xx} = \pder{v_{x}}{x} = 0 = \Frac{\dot{\lambda}}{6\tau}
(2 \sigma_{xx}' - \sigma_{yy}' - \sigma_{zz}') -
\Frac{\dot{\lambda}}{3}\pder{Y}{\sigma}.
\end{equation}
Writing the corresponding equations for $E_{yy}$ and $E_{zz}$ and
summing, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:23}
\pder{Y}{\sigma} = 0,
\end{equation}
or using~(\ref{e-11})
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:31}
\sigma = \sigma_{c}(\nu); \quad Y = \sigma_{c} \sin \phi.
\end{equation}
Thus the material is at a critical state or a state of isochoric
deformation, because $E_{ii} = \nabla \cdot \Vector{v} = 0$.
Comparison of \eqref{e-11} and \eqref{eq:31} shows that the value of
$n$ is not relevant. It also follows from~\eqref{e-27}, \eqref{eq:31}
and~\eqref{e-20} that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:33}
\sigma_{xx} = \sigma_{yy} = \sigma_{zz} = \sigma_{c}(\nu) =
\mathrm{constant}.
\end{equation}
Hence the solids fraction does not vary across the width of the
channel.
Using~\eqref{eq:31} and \eqref{eq:33}, the yield condition~\eqref{e-9}
reduces to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:34}
\mysqrtp{a_{1}(\sigma_{xy}^{2} + \sigma_{yx}^{2}) + 2 a_{2}
\sigma_{xy}\sigma_{yx} + \Frac{m^{2}}{{(Ld_{p})}^{2}}} -
\sigma_{c}(\nu)\sin\phi = 0.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Velocity field}
\label{sec:Const-relat}
The non-trivial equations of the flow rule~\eqref{eq:22} are
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{xy} & = & \omega = \Frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\tau}
\left(a_{1} \sigma_{yx} + a_{2} \sigma_{xy}
\right),\label{e-32}\\
E_{yx} & = & \der{v_{y}}{x} - \omega =
\Frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\tau} \left(a_{1} \sigma_{xy} + a_{2}
\sigma_{yx}
\right),\label{e-33}\\
H_{zx} & = & \der{\omega}{x} =
\Frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\tau} \Frac{m}{(L d_{p})^{2}}.
\label{e-34}
\end{eqnarray}
On eliminating $\dot{\lambda}$ we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\der{v_{y}}{x}& = & \Frac{(\mathrm{A} + 1)(\sigma_{xy} +
\sigma_{yx})\,\omega}{\sigma_{yx} + \mathrm{A}
\sigma_{xy}},\label{e-46}\\
\der{\omega}{x} & = &
\Frac{2(\mathrm{A} + 1)\,m\,\omega}{(L d_{p})^{2} (\sigma_{yx} + \mathrm{A}
\sigma_{xy})}. \label{e-45}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Boundary conditions}
\label{sec:Boundary-conditions-2}
Considering symmetric solutions, we have
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{xy}(0) = 0;\qquad \omega(0) = 0.\label{e-23}
\end{equation}
The angular velocity $\omega$ must vanish at the centerline of the
channel, because a non-zero value implies a preferred direction of
rotation.
Equations~\eqref{e-32} and~\eqref{e-23} imply
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:11}
\sigma_{yx}(0) = 0,
\end{equation}
provided $m(0)$ is bounded, \ie, $\nu<\nu_{\max}$ (see \eqref{e-10},
\eqref{eq:24}, and \eqref{eq:34}). Because $\sigma_{xy}$ and
$\sigma_{yx}$ both vanish at the centerline, the yield
condition~\eqref{eq:34} implies that the couple stress at the
centerline is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:12}
m(x = 0) = \pm L d_{p}\sigma_{c}
\sin \phi.
\end{equation}
While both roots in~\eqref{eq:12} are mathematical solutions, only the
negative root yields a physically reasonable solution. The
justification for choosing this root, and the reason for discarding
the other are discussed in Appendix~A.
At the right hand wall $x = W$ we use the usual friction boundary
condition~(\citep{brennenandpearce78}; \citep[p.~40]{nedderman92})
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:5}
-\Frac{\sigma_{xy}}{\sigma_{xx}} = \tan \delta \quad \text{at} \quad
x = W,
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ is a constant called the angle of wall friction.
Using~\eqref{e-20} and~\eqref{eq:33}, \eqref{eq:5} reduces to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:35}
\Frac{\rho_{p}\nu g W}{\sigma_{c}(\nu)} = \tan\delta \quad \text{at} \quad
x = W,
\end{equation}
which determines the value of $\nu$ for specified values of $W$ and
$\delta$.
Following~\citet{tejchmanandgudehus93}, we assume that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-63}
v_{y} = -Kd_{p}\,\omega \quad \text{at} \quad x = W,
\end{equation}
where $K$ is a dimensionless constant which reflects the roughness of
the wall. To get a feel for this condition, consider a single
spherical particle sliding or rolling down a vertical wall. Let
$v_{y}'$ and $\omega{'}$ represent the linear velocity of the center
of the particle and its angular velocity about an axis through its
center, respectively. If the particle slides without rolling,
$\omega{'} = 0$, but $v_{y}'$ is arbitrary. Conversely, if it rolls
without slipping
$\Modulus{v_{y}'}=\textfracp{d_{p}}{2}\:\Modulus{\omega{'}}$. For the
boundary condition~\eqref{e-63}, these limits correspond to $K
\rightarrow \infty$ and $K \rightarrow \textfrac{1}{2}$, respectively.
Reverting to the continuum, we expect that $K$ will decrease as the
wall roughness increases.
One more boundary condition is needed to permit determination of all
the integration constants. Here we set
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:26}
\omega(x = W) = \omega_{w},
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{w}$ is a constant whose value is determined by
adjusting either the mass flow rate or the centerline velocity to
match the measured value. In experiments, the mass flow rate may be
varied within limits by varying the width $2 W_{s}$ of the exit slot
at the bottom of the channel. Because we are considering fully developed
flow, $W_{s}$ does not occur explicitly in the governing equations,
but its influence is incorporated by changing $\omega_{w}$.
\section{Solution procedure}
\label{sec:solution}
Introducing the dimensionless variables
\begin{align}
\xi & = \Frac{x}{W}; & \epsilon
&=\Frac{d_{p}}{W}; & u &= -
\Frac{v_{y}}{\mysqrtp{g W}}; \notag\\
\overline{\omega} &= \omega\left(\Frac{W}{g}\right)^{\textfrac{1}{2}};
&\overline{\sigma}_{ij} &= \Frac{\sigma_{ij}}{\rho_{p} g W}; &
\overline{m} &= \Frac{m}{\rho_{p} g W d_{p}},\notag
\end{align}
the balance equations~\eqref{e-20} and~\eqref{e-21} may be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\der{\overline{\sigma}_{xx}}{\xi} &= 0,\label{e-54}\\
\der{\overline{\sigma}_{xy}}{\xi} &= - \nu,\label{e-55}\\
\epsilon\der{\overline{m}}{\xi} + \overline{\sigma}_{xy} -
\overline{\sigma}_{yx} &= 0,\label{e-61}
\end{align}
where $\nu$ is the constant solids fraction across the channel, and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2}
\epsilon\equiv\Frac{d_{p}}{W}.
\end{equation}
The dimensionless form of the yield condition~\eqref{eq:34} is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:8}
a_{1}(\overline{\sigma}_{xy}^{2} + \overline{\sigma}_{yx}^{2}) + 2
a_{2} \overline{\sigma}_{xy} \overline{\sigma}_{yx} +
\Frac{\overline{m}^{2}}{L^{2}} =
(\overline{\sigma}_{c}\sin\phi)^{2}.
\end{equation}
Here $\overline{\sigma}_{c}(\nu) = \textfrac{\sigma_{c}}{(\rho_{p} g
W)}$. The flow rule~\eqref{e-46} and~\eqref{e-45} is given by
\begin{align}
\der{u}{\xi} &= - \Frac{(1 + \mathrm{A})(\overline{\sigma}_{xy} +
\overline{\sigma}_{yx})\,\overline{\omega}}
{\overline{\sigma}_{yx} + \mathrm{A}
\overline{\sigma}_{xy}},\label{e-59}\\
\der{\overline{\omega}}{\xi} &= \Frac{2(1 + \mathrm{A})\,
\overline{m}\,\overline{\omega}}{\epsilon L^{2}
(\overline{\sigma}_{yx} +
\mathrm{A}\overline{\sigma}_{xy})}.\label{e-60}
\end{align}
The boundary conditions are:
\eqnannounce{at the centerline ($\xi = 0$)}
\begin{equation}
\overline{\sigma}_{xy} = 0; \quad \overline{\omega} = 0.\label{eq:6}
\end{equation}
\eqnannounce{at the wall ($\xi = 1$)}
\begin{equation}
\Frac{\nu}{\overline{\sigma}_{c}(\nu)} = \tan \delta; \quad u = \epsilon K
\overline{\omega}.\label{eq:7}
\end{equation}
Equations~\eqref{eq:11} and~\eqref{eq:12} may be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:54}
\overline{\sigma}_{yx} = 0, \quad \overline{m} =
-NL\nu \quad \text{at}
\quad \xi = 0,
\end{equation}
where $N\equiv\textfrac{\sin\phi}{\tan\delta}$, and~\eqref{eq:7} has been
used to simplify the second of equations~\eqref{eq:54}.
\subsection{Method of solution}
\label{sec:Method-solution}
For the special case $\mathrm{A} = -1$, an analytical solution may be
obtained as discussed in Appendix~A. This shows that
$\overline{m}=\mathrm{constant}$,
$\overline{\sigma}_{yx}=\overline{\sigma}_{xy}$, and
$\overline{\omega}$ and $u - u(0)$ display a power law dependence on
$\xi$. (The case $\mathrm{A}<-1$ is discussed in Appendix~A.)
We now discuss the case $\mathrm{A}>-1$. Inspection
of~\eqref{e-54}--\eqref{eq:54} shows that the stress field is
uncoupled from the velocity field. Hence we first integrate the
equations~\eqref{e-54},~\eqref{e-55} and~\eqref{eq:6}.
Equations~\eqref{e-54} and~\eqref{e-55} may be solved along with the
first of boundary conditions~\eqref{eq:6} to get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:19}
\overline{\sigma}_{xx} = \mathrm{constant}; \quad
\overline{\sigma}_{xy} = -\nu\xi.
\end{equation}
The yield condition~\eqref{eq:8} may be solved for
$\overline{\sigma}_{yx}$ to get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:56}
\overline{\sigma}_{yx} = \mathrm{A}\nu\xi \mp
\mysqrtp{(\mathrm{A}^{2} - 1)(\nu\xi)^{2} +
2(\mathrm{A} + 1)\left(N^{2}\nu^{2} -
\Frac{\overline{m}^{2}}{L^{2}}\right)}.
\end{equation}
In our calculations, only the root with the negative sign before the
square root term in~\eqref{eq:56} was chosen. The justification for
doing so is described in Appendix~A. After substituting this
expression for $\overline{\sigma}_{yx}$ in~\eqref{e-61}, we solve the
equation along with the boundary conditions~\eqref{eq:54} as an
initial value problem by marching from $\xi = 0$ to $\xi = 1$.
Equation~\eqref{e-61} is solved numerically using the \textsc{lsoda}
routine~\citep{petzold83} from \textsc{odepack} in \textsc{netlib}. It
should be noted that the above package estimates $\overline{m}$ at a
small distance $\xi_{1}$ from $\xi = 0$ as
\begin{gather*}
\overline{m}(\xi_{1}) \approx -NL\nu + \der{\overline{m}}{\xi}(0)\,
\xi_{1} = -NL\nu,
\end{gather*}
because~\eqref{eq:54} and~\eqref{e-61} imply that
$\der{\overline{m}}{\xi}(0) = 0$. This causes the term under the
square root in~\eqref{eq:56} to be negative. To avoid this
problem~\eqref{e-61} is integrated numerically from $\xi=\xi_{1}$ to
$\xi = 1$, with the initial condition given by
\begin{equation*}
\overline{m}(\xi_{1}) = -NL\nu + \Frac{1}{2}
\dertwo{\overline{m}}{\xi}(0)\,\xi_{1}^{2},
\end{equation*}
with $\xi_{1}=10^{-5}$. The use of a smaller value of $\xi_{1}$ does
not significantly affect the results.
Here $\dertwo{\overline{m}}{\xi}(0)$ is calculated by
differentiating~\eqref{e-61} with respect to $\xi$, and
using~\eqref{eq:19} and~\eqref{eq:56}. The resulting indeterminate
expression is evaluated using the L'Hospital's rule to get
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:20}
\epsilon\dertwo{\overline{m}}{\xi}(0) = (\mathrm{A} + 1)\nu \mp
\nu\mysqrtp{\mathrm{A}^{2}-1+
2(\mathrm{A} + 1)\Frac{N}{L\nu}\dertwo{\overline{m}}{\xi}(0)}.
\end{gather}
This can be rearranged to get a quadratic equation for
$\dertwo{\overline{m}}{\xi}(0)$, and we choose the root that satisfies
\begin{gather*}
\epsilon\dertwo{\overline{m}}{\xi}(0) \leq (\mathrm{A} + 1)\nu,
\end{gather*}
as the other root is inconsistent with~\eqref{eq:a2}.
Once the stresses are obtained, the velocities are calculated by
integrating the flow rule~\eqref{e-59}) and~\eqref{e-60} from $\xi = 1$ to
$\xi = 0$ using the initial conditions~\eqref{eq:7}. The integration
is started from $\xi = 1$ because
\begin{gather}
B(\xi)\equiv \Frac{2(1 + \mathrm{A})\,\overline{m}}{\epsilon
L^{2}(\overline{\sigma}_{yx} +
\mathrm{A}\overline{\sigma}_{yx})}\label{eq:18}
\end{gather}
becomes unbounded as $\xi\rightarrow0$, and hence the right hand side
of~\eqref{e-60} is indeterminate at $\xi = 0$.
Equation~\eqref{e-60} is therefore integrated from $\xi = 1$ to get
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:9}
\overline{\omega}(\xi) = \overline{\omega}_{w}\exp\left(-
\Int{\xi}{1}{B(\xi')}{\xi'}\right),
\end{gather}
where $\overline{\omega}_{w} =
\omega_{w}(\textfrac{W}{g})^{\textfrac{1}{2}}$ is the dimensionless
angular velocity at the wall. It is shown in Appendix~B that
$\Int{\xi}{1}{B(\xi')}{\xi'}$ becomes unbounded as $\xi \rightarrow
0$. Hence $\overline{\omega}$ satisfies the boundary condition
$\overline{\omega}(0) = 0$ for all finite values of
$\overline{\omega}_{w}$.
It is also of interest to determine the behaviour of the solutions in
the limit $\epsilon\equiv\textfrac{d_{p}}{W}\rightarrow0$. The issue
here is the scaling of the shear layer thickness as a function of the
channel half-width, $W$. For small $\epsilon$, an asymptotic solution
is constructed using a perturbation technique described in Appendix~C.
The predictions of this solution are discussed in the next section
along with the numerical results.
\subsubsection{Parameter values}
\label{sec:Parameter-values}
The intrinsic density of the particles ($\rho_{p}$) was taken from the
studies of \citet{neddermanandlaohakul80}, \citet{natarajanetal95}
and~\citet{tuzunandnedderman85}. Glass beads were used in all the
experiments. For want of data, the angle of internal friction $\phi$
was taken to be equal to the reported angle of repose.
The parameters $\nu_{\min}$ and $\nu_{\max}$ were chosen to be 0.5 and
0.65, respectively. The parameters in~\eqref{eq:24} were estimated as
follows. \citet{jyotsnaandrao97} used the data of~\citet{fickieetal89}
to obtain an expression for the variation of the mean stress at a
critical state ($\sigma_{c}$) as a function of the solids fraction
$\nu$. This expression was used to generate the values of
$\overline{\sigma}_{c}$ for $\nu$ in the range 0.54--0.58, and the
latter were used to estimate $\textfrac{\Lambda}{(\rho_{p} g W)}$, $p$
and~$q$ by the method of nonlinear least squares, using the
Marquardt-Levenberg algorithm~\citep[p.~678]{pressetal92}. The
parameter values were found to be $\textfrac{\Lambda}{(\rho_{p} g W)}
= 817$, $p = 2.5$, and~$q = 2.2$.
In the experiments of~\citet{neddermanandlaohakul80} and
\citet{natarajanetal95}, a layer of particles was stuck to the walls of
the channel. This will be referred to as a fully rough wall. When we
compare model predictions with their data, the angle of wall friction
is chosen as $\delta = \tan^{-1} (\sin \phi)$~\citep{kaza82}. For
comparing the predictions with stress measurements
of~\citet{tuzunandnedderman85}, the measured angle of wall friction,
$\delta = 10^{\circ}$, was used.
The value of the parameter $L$, which occurs in the yield
condition~\eqref{eq:8} was estimated to be $10$ by matching predicted
velocity profiles with the data of \citet{neddermanandlaohakul80}~(see
\fig{2}). This value was used in comparisons with all other data. The
parameter $K$ was set to 0.5.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
In this section we compare the predictions of the theory with the data
of~\citet{neddermanandlaohakul80}, \citet{natarajanetal95},
and~\citet{tuzunandnedderman85}.
\subsection{Velocity profiles}
\label{sec:velocity}
With $L = 10$, there is a good match between predicted and measured
linear velocity profiles of~\citet{neddermanandlaohakul80} (\fig{2}).
(Predictions of the theory with $L = 2$ and $L = 20$ are also shown in
\fig{2} for comparison.) The solids fraction of 0.60 predicted by the
model is in close agreement with the measured average value of 0.61.
While there is no sharply defined plug layer in the model (and in the
experiments), there is a region of low shear rate near the center of
the channel. In order to compare predictions with the data
of~\citet{neddermanandlaohakul80}, the apparent thickness of the
``plug'' layer, $\xi_{p}$ is calculated from
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:13}
\Frac{u(\xi_{p})}{u(\xi = 0)} = 0.95.
\end{equation}
Hence the shear layer thickness, scaled by the particle diameter is
$\Delta\equiv(1 - \xi_{p})(\textfrac{W}{d_{p}})$. The model predicts a
central plug layer and a shear layer adjacent to the wall whose
thickness is about 10.5 particle diameters.
With $L = 10$, the predicted velocity profile also agrees well with
the data of~\citet{natarajanetal95} as shown in~\fig{3}. This is an
encouraging result because the ratio of the channel width to the
particle diameter differs by a factor of 3.5 for the two sets of data.
For the profile shown in \fig{3}, the solids fraction of 0.59 lies in
the range 0.55--0.67 estimated from the experiments.
The open circles in figures~2 and~3 show the asymptotic velocity
profiles for small $\epsilon$ --- the deviation from the numerical
solution is greater in \fig{3} because $\epsilon$ is larger than that
in \fig{2}. For $\epsilon=\textfrac{1}{600}$, the asymptotic solution
is indistinguishable from the numerical solution, as shown in
\fig{4}.
The angular velocity ($\overline{\omega}$) profile, shown in \fig{5},
differs slightly from that of half the dimensionless vorticity
$\textfracp{1}{2}\:\textder{u}{\xi}$. As expected, the difference is
more pronounced in the shear layer. (In a classical continuum,
$\textfracp{1}{2}\:\textder{u}{\xi}$ represents the local angular
velocity of an infinitesimal spherical material volume.) The
asymptotic solution deviates significantly from the numerical solution
for $\epsilon=\textfrac{1}{30}$~(\fig{5}), but the two solutions agree
well for $\epsilon=\textfrac{1}{600}$ (\fig{6}).
\subsection{Influence of channel width on the thickness of the shear
layer}
\label{sec:Infl-chann-width}
For a fixed value of the particle diameter $d_{p}$, the thickness of
the shear layer $\Delta$ increases with the half-width of the
channel~$W$ (solid line in~\fig{7}). This is roughly in accord with
the data of~\citet{neddermanandlaohakul80}, which are represented by
solid symbols in \fig{7}. For each value of the $\textfrac{W}{d_{p}}$,
there are three data points; these correspond to the estimates of
$\Delta$ obtained by fitting three different functional forms to the
measured velocity profile.
For small values of $\epsilon=\textfrac{d_{p}}{W}$, the perturbation
solution~(Appendix~C) shows that
\begin{equation*}
\Delta \sim \left(\Frac{L^{2}}{2}\right)^{\textfrac{1}{3}}
\epsilon^{\textfrac{-1}{3}}.
\end{equation*}
Thus the dimensional thickness of the shear layer is proportional to
$(\textfrac{d_{p}}{W})^{\textfrac{-1}{3}}$ when $\textfrac{d_{p}}{W}
\ll 1$, and hence does not attain a constant value in this limit. It
would be interesting to conduct experiments with much larger values of
$\textfrac{W}{d_{p}}$ than in the range shown in \fig{7}. This would
permit a more stringent test of the model predictions.
\subsection{Influence of the parameter $L$ on the thickness of the
shear layer}
As mentioned earlier, the length scale $L d_{p}$ was chosen to fit the
model predictions to the data of~\citet{neddermanandlaohakul80}. It is
important to know how the predictions vary with changes in this
parameter. Figure~8 shows that the thickness of the shear layer is a
weak function of~$L$. In the limit of small $\epsilon$, the shear
layer thickness varies as $L^{\textfrac{2}{3}}$ (Appendix~C).
\subsection{Influence of the wall-roughness factor $K$ on
thickness of the shear layer}
The variation of the shear layer thickness with the roughness
parameter $K$ is shown in figure~9. As mentioned earlier, $K \to
\infty$ corresponds to a very smooth wall; it decreases as the wall
roughness increases. Figure~9 shows that there is little variation
with $K$ of the shear layer thickness for small $K$, but significant
variation in the range $\approx$ 1--200. For $K$ greater than 200,
the velocity at the wall is greater than 95\% of the centerline
velocity. Hence, by our definition \eqref{eq:13}, the thickness of the
shear layer is zero. As shown in Appendix~C, the shear layer
thickness is independent of $K$ in the limit of small $\epsilon$.
\subsection{Stresses}
\subsubsection{Stress profiles}
Figure~10 shows the profiles of the shear stresses
$\overline{\sigma}_{xy}$ and $\overline{\sigma}_{yx}$ for $\epsilon =
\textfrac{1}{30}$ and $\textfrac{1}{600}$. It is clear that the
difference between $\overline{\sigma}_{xy}$
and~$\overline{\sigma}_{yx}$ increases with $\xi$. Because
$\overline{\sigma}_{yx} > \overline{\sigma}_{xy}$, the couple stress
$\overline{m}$ also increases with $\xi$~(\fig{11}), in accord
with~\eqref{e-61}.
The open symbols in figures~10 and~11 represent the asymptotic solution
for small $\epsilon$. When $\epsilon=\textfrac{1}{600}$, it is clear
that the asymptotic solution is indistinguishable from the exact
solution, and the difference $\overline{\sigma}_{xy} -
\overline{\sigma}_{yx}$ is also very small.
\subsubsection{Wall stresses}
We now compare the predicted wall stresses with the data
of~\citet{tuzunandnedderman85} \mytable{1}. The normal and shear
stresses are over-predicted, but are of the same order of magnitude as
the measured values. As noted by~\citet{mohanetal97}, the dimensions of
the channel used in the experiments are such that the front and the
back faces may support a significant part of the weight of the
material. Hence the shear stress measured at the side wall is expected
to be less than the prediction, which assumes a channel of infinite
depth. It is interesting to note that the estimate
of~\citet{tuzunandnedderman85} for the average solids fraction is 0.63
and the model predicts a value of 0.625.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{$H$} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Normal stress} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Shear
stress}\\
&&Static&Flowing&Static&Flowing\\
&0.91&2.7--3.6&4.0--5.1&0.30--0.39&0.29--0.35\\
Experiments&1.07&2.7--2.9&3.8--4.6&0.30&0.41--0.58\\
&1.22&2.7--3.6&4.6--5.7&0.52--0.65&0.58--0.76\\
Cosserat model&---&---&7.97&---&1.12\\
Kinetic model &---&---&2.51&---&1.15
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of predicted wall stresses with the data
of~\citet{tuzunandnedderman85} for glass beads. Here $H$ is the
depth measured from the top of the channel. Units: $H$--~m,
stress--~kN/$\mathrm{m}^{2}$. Parameter values: $W =
0.155~\mathrm{m}$, $d_{p} = 2.29~\mathrm{mm}$, $\rho_{p} =
1180~\mathrm{kg}/\mathrm{m}^{3}$, $\phi = 30^{\circ}$, $\delta =
8^{\circ}$.}
\label{tab:wallstresses}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Comparison with other models}
\subsection{The classical frictional model}
The classical frictional model predicts a flat velocity profile. This
is consistent with the profile predicted by the Cosserat model in the
limit $d_{p}\rightarrow0$ for a fixed value of $W$. Further, the
Cosserat continuum reduces to the classical continuum in this limit,
because $m\rightarrow0$ and $\sigma_{xy}\rightarrow\sigma_{yx}$.
\subsection{The kinetic and frictional-kinetic models}
\label{sec:Comp-Coss-model}
The broken curves in~\fig{7} show the results obtained by using the
(high density) kinetic model and the frictional-kinetic model. For
these models we have used the equations given in~\citet{mohanetal97},
except that the mean stress at critical state ($\sigma_{c}$ in their
paper) is evaluated using~\eqref{eq:24}.
The kinetic model is based on constitutive equations derived by using
the kinetic theory of dense gases~\citep[see, for
example,][]{lunetal84}. Two of the underlying assumptions of this
theory, namely instantaneous binary collisions between particles and
molecular chaos with respect to particle velocities, are expected to
break down at high solids fractions. Therefore it is surprising, and
perhaps fortuitous, that the predicted thickness of the shear layer
is in fair agreement with the data~(\fig{7}) even though the solids
fraction is in the range of 0.64--0.65.
Based on the results shown in~\fig{7}, it is difficult to discriminate
between the Cosserat and the kinetic models. It should be noted that
both these models contain a material length scale in their
constitutive equations. As noted by~\citet{tejchmanandwu94}, this may
be a pre-requisite for a satisfactory description of shear layers.
The frictional-kinetic model is constructed by assuming that the
stress tensor is the sum of the kinetic stress tensor and the
frictional stress tensor. This model grossly underestimates the
thickness of the shear layer (see the dotted curve in \fig{7}),
probably because (i)~frictional effects dominate kinetic effects in
the shear layer, and~(ii)~the frictional constitutive equations do not
contain a material length scale.
\subsection{The model of \citet{tejchmanandgudehus93}}
\label{sec:Comparison-with-work}
The work of \citet{tejchmanandgudehus93} appears to be the only other
study which uses a Cosserat model for channel flow. They use an
elasto-plastic model to examine the batch discharge of material from a
cylindrical bin. The constitutive equations involve the Jaumann stress
rate and the `velocity strain' tensor. Since they do not present
results for steady fully developed flow, a direct comparison of our
predictions with theirs is not possible. We are currently attempting
to use their model for the problem at hand, but some issues require
consideration before results can be obtained. For example,
\citet{dienes79} have reported that the Jaumann stress rate furnishes
an unrealistic oscillatory response in simple shear for a hypoelastic model.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:Discussion}
Unlike the classical frictional model~\citep{mohanetal97}, the present
Cosserat model predicts velocity profiles which agree well with the
data of~\citet{neddermanandlaohakul80} and~\citet{natarajanetal95}.
Further, the variation of the thickness of the shear layer with the
width of the channel is also captured reasonably well by the model.
The predicted wall stresses are of the same order of magnitude as the
measured values, but there is considerable scope for improvement. In
this context, it may be desirable to account for the finite spacing
between the front and back walls.
Our solution of the model for the limiting case of an infinitely wide
channel~($\epsilon\rightarrow 0$) with fully rough walls indicates
that the shear layer thickness, scaled by the particle diameter, grows
as $\epsilon^{\textfrac{-1}{3}}$, where $\epsilon$ is the ratio of the
particle diameter to the channel width. It would be interesting to
compare this result with experiments conducted for a wide range of
$\epsilon$.
In the present work, and in most applications of the frictional
Cosserat models, \textit{ad hoc} values are prescribed for the
parameters~$a_{1}$, $a_{2}$, and~$L$ in the yield
condition~\eqref{e-10}. Either suitably designed experiments, or a
micro-mechanical treatment, would be valuable in providing estimates
for these parameters. Similarly, it would be desirable to have a
micro-mechanical basis for the kinematic boundary
condition~\eqref{e-63}. An unsatisfactory feature of our model is that
the solids fraction is constant across the channel. This is in
variance with qualitative observations of~\citet{natarajanetal95} that
the density in the shear layer is lower than that in the plug region.
Perhaps the inclusion of elastic or kinetic effects in the model would
correct this feature. In any case, accurate density measurements in
channel flow are lacking, and more investigations in this direction
are needed.
|
\section{Introduction}
In the last twenty years increasing attention has been paid to the study of
dwarf galaxies in order to understand their crucial role in galaxy formation
and evolution. In hierarchical clustering theories (White \& Frenk 1991;
Kauffmann, White, \& Guiderdoni 1993) these systems can constitute the
building blocks from which larger systems have been created by merging,
while in monolithic collapse scenarios (Tinsley \& Gunn 1976; Tinsley 1980a)
they have been suggested to represent the debris of massive galaxies unable
to form stars until z$\sim$1. A population of newly star--forming dwarfs at
z$<$1 has been also invoked in some evolutionary models (Broadhurst, Ellis, \&
Shanks 1988;
Babul \& Ferguson 1996; see also Ellis 1997 for a review on the subject)
to reproduce the excess of faint blue galaxies observed in deep photometric
surveys, the most famous being the Hubble Deep Field (Williams et al. 1996).
Early--type dwarfs (dEs and dSphs) are gas poor and constituted by
intermediate and old stellar populations, while late--type dwarfs (dIrrs)
are gas rich and their light is dominated predominantly by very young stars
associated with bright HII regions, indicators of an ongoing star formation
process. The former kind of dwarfs show a smooth luminosity distribution
with a low surface brightness (like Sextants, NGC~147, Leo~I, Fornax, Sculptor,
etc.), while the latter group appears with a patchy intensity distribution
(NGC~6822, NGC~1569, IC~1613, etc.) and an intermediate surface brightness
which can become very high in the bright blue knots of blue compact dwarf
galaxies (hereinafter BCDGs).
At present it is not well understood if there is an evolutionary
interconnection between dIrr and dE galaxies
(see e.g. Gallagher 1998), as no consistent picture
of dwarf galaxy evolution has emerged yet. It has been suggested
(Davies \& Phillips 1989; and references therein) that the natural
evolution of dIrrs could be the condition of dEs through the phase of
BCDG. In this hypothesis, a strong starburst (intense star formation episode
concentrated in a very short time) can originate a galactic superwind
(Heckman 1995) with the mechanical energy supplied by stellar winds and
supernova explosions generated by newly formed massive stars. This wind
can blow out all the gas from a dIrr, due to its shallow potential well,
and transform the galaxy into a gas--poor dE. Indeed, narrowband H$\alpha$
images and X-ray maps show evidence of the existence of these superwinds in
some irregulars and BCDGs, as for example NGC~1569 (Heckman 1995), NGC~1705
(Meurer et al. 1992), IZw18 (Martin 1996; Petrosian et al. 1997), etc.
On the other hand, taking into account observed chemical, photometric and
kinematic properties of both dwarf irregulars and ellipticals, it seems quite
hard to find an efficient mechanism to transform a late-type dIrr into a dE
(Jerjen \& Binggeli 1997). The derivation of the star formation history of
dwarf irregular galaxies and the corresponding identification of objects with
a starbursting regime become thus of primary importance to gain an insight
into the nature and evolution of dwarf galaxies in general.
IZw18 (also Mrk 116 or UGCA 166) is possibly the BCDG with the most striking
properties. At a recession velocity of 745$\,\pm\,$3 km/sec (Dufour, Esteban,
\& Casta\~{n}eda 1996a), corresponding to a distance of 10 Mpc (H$_0\,$= 75
km\,sec$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$), this system shows very blue colors. The most
recent estimates on emission-line corrected broadband images
give U--B=\,--\,0.88 and B--V=\,--\,0.03 (Van Zee et
al. 1998). These colors are indicative of a very young
population, but do not exclude an underlying older one.
The total mass of IZw18 from the rotation curve at a radius of
10$^{\prime\prime}\!$--12$^{\prime\prime}$ is estimated to be
$\sim 10^8$ M$_{\odot}$ (e.g. Davidson \& Kinman 1985;
Petrosian et al. 1997; Van Zee et al. 1998).
A large amount of neutral gas is detected all around the system,
totalling $\sim 7\times10^7$ M$_{\odot}$. This
corresponds to $\sim$70$\%$ of the total mass, but only $ 10^7$
M$_{\odot}$ of HI are associated with the optical part of the galaxy
(e.g. Lequeux \&
Viallefond 1980; Van Zee et al. 1998). When discovered by Zwicky (1966),
IZw18 was described as ``two galaxies separated by 5\farcs6 and
interconnected by a narrow luminous bridge'', surrounded by two ``very faint
flares'' at 24$^{\prime\prime}$ northwest. More recent CCD ground--based
images (Davidson, Kinman, \& Friedman 1989; Dufour \& Hester 1990; hereinafter
respectively DKF89 and DH90) have revealed a more complex structure: the
{\it two galaxies} are in fact two
star--forming regions of the same galaxy (usually indicated as NW and SE
components), while the {\it two flares} are just the most prominent of a few
nebulosities surrounding IZw18. These minor systems are roughly aligned
toward the northwest and were initially believed at the same distance,
but now we know from spectroscopic studies that only one component
(referred to as component C in DKF89) is at the same distance
as IZw18
and is physically associated with the main body (Dufour et al. 1996a;
Petrosian et al. 1997; Van Zee et al. 1998). The
other diffuse objects have been recognized as background galaxies (see Fig.~1a
of Dufour et al. 1996b, D96, for an overview of the whole IZw18 system). In
the following we will refer to IZw18 and to component C respectively as main
body and secondary body (or companion) of IZw18.
Both systems have been resolved into single stars
for the first time only with HST/WFPC2 by Hunter \& Thronson (1995,
hereinafter HT95) and D96.
Indeed, IZw18 and its companion
irregular galaxy are currently one of the most distant systems ever
resolved into stars.
This apparently insignificant BCDG became famous right after its discovery,
when Searle \& Sargent (1972) measured from its emission-line spectrum an
oxygen abundance [O/H]= --1.14, corresponding to only 7$\%$ of the solar value
and indicating a quite unprocessed gas content. Furthermore, the first studies
on its color and composition (Sargent \& Searle 1970; Searle \& Sargent 1972;
Searle, Sargent, \& Bagnuolo 1973) already emphasized a current star
formation rate (SFR) much
higher than the mean value in the past. All these observational evidences
brought to the formulation of the basic question on the nature of IZw18: is it
a young galaxy which is presently experiencing its first burst of star
formation, or is it an old system which has already formed stars in the past
in at least another episode of star formation ?
Subsequent spectroscopic studies in IZw18 (Lequeux et al. 1979; French 1980;
Kinman \& Davidson 1981; Davidson \& Kinman 1985; Dufour, Garnett, \&
Shields 1988; Garnett 1989, 1990; Pagel et al. 1992; Skillman \& Kennicutt
1993; Kunth et al. 1994; Stasi\'nska \& Leitherer 1996; Garnett et al. 1997;
Izotov \& Thuan 1998) have confirmed its extreme metal deficiency, around
1/30--1/50 of Z$_{\odot}$. Despite many efforts to detect other galaxies
with very low metallicity (Terlevich, Skillman, \& Terlevich 1995), IZw18 still
remains the galaxy with the lowest metal and helium content known so far. This
makes the system a fundamental point in the derivation of the primordial
helium abundance (Izotov, Thuan, \& Lipovetsky 1994, 1997; Olive, Steigman,
\& Skillman 1997; Izotov \& Thuan 1998) and in the study of the properties
of chemically unevolved galaxies. However, there are several observational
indications that IZw18 is not a primordial galaxy, for instance the presence
of relatively high C/O and N/O abundance ratios justified only with an earlier
population of low and intermediate mass stars (Dufour et al. 1988; Garnett et
al. 1997) and the photometric evidence of an underlying red stellar population,
both from surface photometry of the whole galaxy in the NIR (Thuan 1983) and
from photometry of single stars in the optical bands (HT95, D96).
For nearby galaxies the safest determination of their SF
history is obtained resolving their stellar population into single stars
and inferring their SFR and initial mass function (IMF) with the synthetic
color--magnitude diagram (CMD) method. This method was first developed for
dwarf irregular galaxies in the Local Group observed with ground-based
telescopes (Ferraro et al. 1989; Tosi et al. 1991, hereinafter TGMF; Greggio et
al. 1993, GMTF; Marconi et al. 1995, MTGF) and has now been updated (Greggio et
al. 1998, hereinafter G98) for an optimized application to galaxies observed
with HST. A procedure for the comparison between observed and synthetic CMDs
has been developed also by Tolstoy \& Saha (1996), who have introduced the
concept of Bayesian inference to give the relative likelihood of different
models to constitute a suitable representation of the data. Gallart et al.
(1996) also follow a similar approach and have introduced in the method the
concept of metallicity evolution following a given law for the chemical
enrichment of the interstellar medium. Here we have applied the synthetic CMD
method to IZw18 using the HST archive data from HT95 and D96.
The data reduction is described in Sect.2 and the resulting CMDs and LFs in
Sect.3. The method and a description of the comparison of these
data with theoretical synthetic CMDs and LFs are given in Sect.4, with
the resulting conclusions on the recent evolution of IZw18 and its companion.
An overall discussion of these conclusions in the
framework of the current common knowledge on this galaxy is finally given
in Sect.5.
\section{Observations and Data Reduction}
IZw18 has been observed with different instruments on board of
HST\footnote{Observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble
Space Telescope, are obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute,
which is operated by AURA for NASA under contract NAS5-26555}
by different investigators. For our purposes we have retrieved from the
HST archive and re-reduced all the HST/WFPC2 images available at January
1st, 1998.
\subsection{The data}
Two sets of deep exposures were taken in
November 1994 and a third set of shorter ones in March 1995.
In the first set of data (PI: Hunter, GO-5309, November 1994) IZw18 was
centered on the PC CCD, with an effective plate scale of
0\farcs045 pixel$^{-1}$ and a field of view corresponding to
36$^{\prime\prime} \times$ 36$^{\prime\prime}$. The target
was observed in the three broadband filters F336W, F555W and F814W
(similar to the standard ground-based broadbands U, V and I),
and in the two narrowband filters F469N and F656N (sampling the nebular lines
HeII $\lambda$4686 and H$\alpha$ $\lambda$6563), in order to map
the ionized gas and WR stars. Results from
this set of data are presented in HT95.
The second set of exposures (PI: Dufour, GO-5434, November 1994) consists
of deep frames of IZw18 and its companion system on the WF3 CCD, with a
plate scale and a field of view of 0\farcs1 and 80$^{\prime\prime}
\times$ 80$^{\prime\prime}$ respectively. The frames are available in
the three broadband
filters F450W, F555W and F702W (corresponding indicatively to B, V and
R), and in the two narrowband filters F502N and F658N, mapping the
two nebular lines [OIII] $\lambda$5007
and [NII] $\lambda$6583. Photometric results from this set of data are
presented by D96.
Finally, the third set of images (PI: Dufour, GO-5434, March 1995), are
in the three broadband filters F439W, F555W and F675W (the F439W is a filter
in the B band region narrower than the F450W; the F675W is a filter in
the R band region narrower than the F702W).
A complete summary of all the data available for IZw18 as observed with the
HST/WFPC2 is presented in Table 1, where we have indicated
the filter (column 1), the WFPC2 camera where the target was centered on
(column 2), the principal investigator (column 3), the epoch of observation
(column 4), the integration time in seconds for each single exposure (column
5) and the image root names (column 6).
We actually used only a subset of all the data available on IZw18,
as indicated in Table 1 by an asterisk near the image name. In fact, we were
interested in obtaining the color-magnitude diagrams V, B--V and V, V--I for
IZw18 with the highest possible resolution (i.e. from the PC camera)
and the color-magnitude diagram V, B--V of its companion on WF3.
The observations in the narrowband filters were used to take into account
the contribution of the ionized gas in the different bands.
\subsection{Photometric reduction}
We reduced the data applying all the corrections required
to minimize photometric uncertainties and to achieve the highest photometric
accuracy. All the reductions were performed in the IRAF
\footnote {IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories,
which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.}
environment.
For each single exposure we corrected warm pixels and
flagged hot pixels in the data quality files using the IRAF/STSDAS task
{\it warmpix}. To restore the correct relative count numbers
between pixels at different positions on the CCD,
we performed geometric distorsion and CTE corrections on each single
frame by applying respectively the correcting image f1k1552bu.r9h available
from the Archive (see Leitherer 1995 for more details) and the linear-ramp
image with the appropriate value depending on the background as indicated in
Holtzman et al. (1995a, b; hereinafter H95a and H95b).
Multiple frames through each filter in each dataset were simultaneously
co-added and cosmic-ray removed. We also removed where possible the
contribution of ionized gas from broadband images, proceeding as follows:
after having adequately smoothed narrowband images to eliminate pointlike
sources from gas maps, we calculated with SYNPHOT the percentage of
flux detected in each narrowband filter and subtracted it from each broadband
image.
The pre-reduction provided the following data useful for our purposes:
for IZw18 and its companion on the WF3 camera, four deep
frames in the F555W, F450W, F502N and F658N filters (total integration time
of 4,600 seconds for each filter); for IZw18 on the PC camera we have two
images in the F555W filter, the deepest one obtained from Hunter's frames
(for a total integration time of 6,600 seconds) and the shorter one from
Dufour's data (1,200 seconds in total). We preferred not to
combine the two final PC F555W frames,
because of a great rotational
displacement of one frame with respect to the other, which would have implied
a repixelization and data manipulation.
Also available are: one deep image
in the F814W band (6,600 seconds), a less deep frame in the F439W band (2,000
seconds) and a quite deep frame in F656N filter (total integration time of
4,200 seconds). In Figs~\ref{VimagePC} and \ref{VimageWF3}
we show the deepest WFPC2 images in the F555W filter respectively for IZw18
on the PC camera and for its companion galaxy on the WF3 detector:
both systems are well resolved into single stars. It is also possible to
distinguish HII regions in the SE part of IZw18 as well as the NW cluster,
while 2 bright star clusters are evident in the center and in the NW part
of the companion system.
The photometric reduction of the frames was performed using the
DAOPHOT package in IRAF for PSF-fitting photometry in crowded fields on both
original and gas-subtracted broadband images. First we applied the automatic
star detection routine {\it daofind} to the deepest F555W frame
(detection threshold at 4$\sigma$ above the local background level), and
then we performed an accurate inspection by eye of each single detected object
to reject any feature misinterpreted as star by the routine
(namely, nuclei of faint galaxies, PSF tendrils, noise spikes, etc.).
The identification of stars in the other filters was then forced assuming the
final positions of the stars detected in the F555W deeper image as input
coordinates for the starting centering and aperture photometry in the new
frame. We also tried to force
the photometry from the deepest F555W image to the rotated F439W image,
taking into account the coordinate transformation, but we obtained
systematically higher photometric errors, introduced by transformation
uncertainties. We therefore decided to couple the F439W image with the
shallower but unrotated F555W one.
In spite of the performed centering, forcing the photometry in the second
band leads to some mismatches.
These have been identified by plotting the distance
between the centers in the two images as function of the
F555W instrumental magnitude. To overcome this problem, we used the two
routines {\it daomatch} and {\it daomaster}, kindly made available by P.
B. Stetson, to finally match the coordinate lists in the two coupled filters.
In order to obtain the best PSF for our frames we
experimented three different methods: a) we used some well isolated stars
(3 or 4) in each frame to build the observed PSF, b) we ran the {\it Tiny Tim}
software (Krist \& Hook 1996) to obtain a theoretical PSF and, c) we made
use of the new tool of the WFPC2 PSF library to get empirical PSFs. The
different PSFs considered give quite similar results for the PC camera;
eventually we preferred to adopt the observed PSF since it takes into
account all technical conditions occurring at the epoch of data
acquisition (real focus value, thermal breathing, etc.). For the WF3 camera
theoretical PSFs seem instead to work better, since in this case we have to
deal with a more dramatic undersampling of the observed/empirical PSFs which
introduces a higher photometric uncertainty.
Once all the stars were measured with the PSF--fitting, those with a disturbed
image (as indicated by the two image--peculiarity indices $\chi^2$ and {\it
sharpness}) were identified and rejected. The index $\chi^2$ gives essentially
the ratio of the observed pixel--to--pixel scatter in the fitting residuals to
the expected scatter based on the values of the detector characteristics
(readout noise and gain). The {\it sharpness} is related to the intrinsic
angular size of the astronomical object. We removed all the objects with
$\chi^2\!>\,$3 and {\it sharpness} lower than --1 or larger than +1, i.e.
objects with size smaller than a star (like cosmic rays or image defects)
or objects too extended (like blends or semi-resolved star clusters, HII
regions and galaxies). We also checked individually all the stars in critical
positions in our reference CMDs (i.e. the CMD of stars with photometric error
smaller than 0.2 mag in both filters), like
very bright blue and red stars (possible blends, unresolved stellar clusters,
or unidentified cosmic rays), very faint objects (possible
peaks of noise in the forced filters, or residuals of cosmic rays detections).
Finally, we checked accurately all the red stars, which are particularly
important to discriminate among different SF histories.
\subsection{Calibration}
The instrumental magnitudes obtained with the PSF--fitting technique were then
converted into calibrated magnitudes following the prescription of H95a and
H95b. Since in H95a and H95b the standard calibration is given for an aperture
of 0\farcs5, we transformed the instrumental magnitudes on an
aperture radius of 2 pixels into the corresponding ones on an aperture radius
of 0\farcs5 (11 pixels for PC and 5 pixels for WF3) by calculating
the aperture correction.
This turned out to be a very delicate step, due to the small number of isolated
stars, suitable for aperture photometry, in the field of
IZw18. The derived aperture corrections strongly depend on
the choice of the adopted stars, and the small number of good
templates leads to a large statistical uncertainty. Figure~\ref{apcorr}
illustrates this point for the deepest V and I frames.
For all the isolated stars in each frame (5--15 objects) we measured the
instrumental magnitudes based on aperture photometry
with different radii. For each star, the aperture corrections (i.e.
the difference between the magnitude at a certain aperture radius and
the PSF-fitting magnitude) are shown as open circles for different
values of the aperture radius. The full dots represent the
correction averaged over all the measured stars, with a
2$\sigma$ rejection algorithm, and the vertical bars show the
corresponding 2$\sigma$ ranges. To these mean
aperture corrections we added the encircled energy corrections as
indicated by H95b; the obtained values corresponding to the conventional
radius of 0\farcs5 are indicated by crosses.
As apparent from Fig.~\ref{apcorr}, the uncertainty in the calibration
increases with the aperture radius, with more points deviating
from the mean value, as it becomes increasingly difficult to find no
defects in the outer pixels which are progressively included in the
calculation. However, once averaged and corrected for the encircled
energy, the aperture correction turns out fairly constant. The mean of
the aperture correction values over the
considered range of aperture radii is indicated in Fig.~\ref{apcorr}
by the horizontal thick line, which corresponds to
corrections of $-0.38$ mag and $-0.54$ mag in the $V$ and $I$ bands
respectively. These values are almost identical to those given by
H95b, which is encouraging. We thus used directly the
H95b corrections for our deepest F555W and F814W frames.
For homogeneity, we extended the use of H95b aperture corrections to
the other frames of IZw18 on the PC camera, as
well as to the frames of the companion galaxy
on WF3, where the aperture corrections are much more difficult to determine
empirically.
We finally corrected our measures for the gain factor, the WF3 normalization
and the contamination effect, where necessary, and applied the zero
points to scale the photometry into the WFPC2 synthetic system relative to
Vega (Table 9 of H95a). When the value of one of these correcting parameters
was not available (as for the F450W filter) we took it from public images
of calibration programs (e.g. the aperture correction for F450W on WF3) or
assumed it from the corresponding value of similar filters (F439W instead of
F450W).
\subsection{Completeness analysis}
One of the larger uncertainties affecting galaxy photometry is due to
crowding. Thus we carried out an accurate completeness analysis using
the DAOPHOT routine {\it addstar}.
For each frame we performed a series of tests, by adding each time $\sim$10\%
of the stars detected in each half-magnitude bin on the original
image. We then performed a new photometric reduction of the frame using
the same procedure applied to the original frame, and considering the
same rejection criteria for spurious objects. We then checked how many added
stars were lost either because not detected by the automatic routine or because
recovered with a large mag difference $\Delta$m which makes them migrate
to another magnitude bin. We eventually estimated the completeness
factors by averaging the results obtained repeating the test
10--20 times on each frame. Due to the uneven distribution of stars on the
images, fainter objects are more easily recovered in the outer, less crowded
regions. In order to derive the average completeness factors affecting our CMDs
we constrained the {\it Addstar} routine to put artificial stars in the frame
regions where the galaxy is actually located.
For every pair of filters used to construct the CMD, we performed
the completeness analysis independently on each frame. Since we forced the
stellar detection in the shallower frame, the overall completeness factor is
actually that corresponding to the shallower filter: in practice, either
the B or the I frame. Table 2 shows the completeness factors (percentage of
recovered artificial stars) and the
corresponding uncertainties as a function of magnitude for all the frames
considered in our photometric analysis. The listed values take also into
account the star selection with photometric error smaller than 0.2 mag
described in the next section. The completeness factors are averages over
the whole galaxy. Clearly, incompleteness
can be quite different from one region to the other, depending on crowding.
For instance in the most crowded zone in the NW cluster, incompleteness
is so dramatic that we recover only $\sim$20\% of the artificial stars already
at the 23 magnitude. HII regions and the rich star clusters are unresolved
in our images and are therefore to be considered fully incomplete. Although
it could be more appropriate to apply different completeness factors in
different regions, when computing our theoretical simulations we apply only
the average completeness factors in Table 2. Indeed the resolved objects are
not numerous enough to allow us to simulate individual different regions.
The completeness tests allowed us also to evaluate the influence of
blending in our photometry and the goodness of the applied rejection criteria
($\chi^2$, sharpness, error, etc.).
In the deepest V and I images of IZw18 on the PC detector the rejection
criteria seem to affect more intermediate/faint magnitudes
(24$\la$V$\la$27 and 23$\la$I$\la$25), while in the shallower B and V frames
they remove more objects at brighter magnitudes (22$\la$V$\la$24.5 and
22$\la$B$\la$24). A large fraction of the artificial stars rejected for
$\chi^2\!>\,$3 and {\it sharpness} outside the range from $-$1 to 1
(actually a few objects, usually
rejected for the $\chi^2$ parameter) were recognizable as blends: we have been
able to actually see the companion star for $\sim$50\% of the objects rejected
in the B image, for $\sim$65\% in both the V images and $\sim$75\% in the I
image. For IZw18's secondary body on WF3 there were very few objects discarded,
and they were all blends in both the V and B frames. This result confirms the
need of applying these criteria in order to remove from the CMDs spurious
objects due to blends.
We also looked at the effect of blending on the derived stellar
magnitude, by selecting the artificial stars which were
recovered with a magnitude brighter than $\Delta$m=0.25 mag with respect to
the input value. This happened for 4.7\% and 4.0\% of the stars added
in the deeper V and I frames of IZw18; for 2.9\% and 5.2\% in the shallower
V and B images, and around 3.5\% in both the V and B frames for the companion
system on WF3.
These values give an estimate of the frequency of cases in
which blending affects the photometry more than our allowed photometric
error in the CMDs ($\sigma_{DAO}\!<\,$0.2 mag in both filters).
We conclude that
our data are affected by blending at an average level of $\sim$4\%,
which we consider negligible for the interpretation of the CMD with
the simulation procedure.
\subsection{Photometric errors}
Figures~\ref{errPC} and \ref{errWF3} show the behavior of the photometric error
$\sigma_{DAO}$ (estimated by DAOPHOT) as a function of magnitude, respectively
for IZw18 in each combined PC image and for the companion galaxy
in each combined WF3 frame. In these plots we considered all the stars fitted
in both coupled filters: respectively 568 and 321 objects for the V vs V--I
and V vs B--V diagrams relative to IZw18, and 117 stars for the V vs B--V
diagram of the companion.
When the rejection criteria of $\chi^2$ and {\it sharpness} are applied,
most of the points with high $\sigma_{DAO}$ at bright magnitudes disappear,
since they are most probably small unresolved stellar associations,
HII regions or blends.
For the theoretical interpretation we will restrict our CMD to objects
with photometric error smaller than $\sim$ 0.2 mag. We notice that
$\sigma_{DAO}$ remains below
0.2 mag down to m$\sim$26 in each deeper frame of both IZw18 and the companion,
and down to m$\sim$25 in the less deep ones of IZw18.
However, $\sigma_{DAO}$ may underestimate by $\sim$20\% the
total photometric error (Stetson \& Harris 1988) and we have therefore
derived an independent estimate of the latter using the outcome of
the completeness tests, and looking at the amplitude of the
difference $\Delta$m between the assigned and recovered magnitudes
of the artificial stars. It turned out that for the companion of IZw18,
the upper envelope of the distribution of the $\Delta$m
coincides with that of the observed $\sigma_{DAO}$, indicating that in this
case the errors are well estimated. For the PC frames with IZw18, instead,
$\sigma_{DAO}$ underestimates by more than 20\% the actual error, especially
at the brightest magnitudes. The larger error estimates $\Delta$m have
therefore been adopted in the CMD simulations described in Sect.4.
\subsection{Comparison with previous photometric analyses}
We have compared the photometric results obtained for IZw18 in the deep
F555W and F814W images on the PC camera with the results of HT95. The
comparison of our CMD (see Fig.~\ref{VIcmdPC}) with that published by HT95
(see their Fig.~5) shows that we reach a fainter limiting magnitude. Our
diagram contains many more blue and red stars fainter than V$\sim$26.
We have carefully checked the faintest objects to reject any uncertain
detection with ambiguous shape or profile, but most of
them remain and are localized in the outer and less crowded part of the
SE star-forming region where the photometry of fainter objects is easier.
A possible reason for our fainter limiting magnitude could be our
forcing the photometry in the shallower filter.
We re-measured all the stars listed in Table 2 of HT95, adopting their x and y
coordinates, in order to directly compare our mags with theirs: despite
the same photometric package (DAOPHOT) and the same parameters
for the photometric conversion of the instrumental magnitudes into the
calibrated ones (zero points, gain, contamination, etc.),
we found a shift in the zero points of $\sim$0.22 in F555W and $\sim$0.14
in F814W, in the sense that we are
brighter and bluer than HT95. This can be seen in Fig.~\ref{photcomp}.
The difference may arise from the use of gas subtracted images or from
the PSFs and aperture corrections. However, we have verified that there is
no significant
difference in the photometric reduction of images with and without gas
subtraction (except for some peculiar objects), and that there is no shift
in the zero points resulting from the use of PSFs obtained with different
techniques (as described in \S~2.2). We thus believe that the offset is
due to the difficulty in estimating the aperture corrections
from the stars in the images of this very problematic field.
As described in \S~2.3, there are too few isolated and reliable stars and the
dependence of the photometric correction on the chosen stars, shown in
Fig.~\ref{apcorr},
may well lead to offsets of some tenths of mag in the calibration.
We have compared also our CMD in the F450W and F555W filters for IZw18's
companion in the WF3 camera (see Fig.~\ref{BVcmdWF3}) with
the corresponding diagram published by D96 in their Fig.~3, accounting
for the reddening correction. The
general aspect of the two distributions is quite similar, despite
some differences. In our CMD there are less faint objects with unphysical
color (B--V)$\la-$1, probably thanks to the task for
masking hot and warm pixels (that could be mistaken as faint stars), which
has become available after the photometric reduction by D96.
There is also an offset in the zero points of both filters, with our
distribution being $\sim$0.5 mag brighter than D96 in V and in B.
D96 worked on gas-subtracted and rebinned images in order to construct
an artificial PSF better sampled than the observed one, while we preferred
to work on the original frames (but, again, we found no differences at all
using the gas subtracted images) and to use a PSF simulated
with the {\it Tiny Tim} software. As for the HT95 data, we
attribute the photometric offsets to uncertainties in the estimate of
the aperture corrections, enhanced in this case by the
undersampling of the WF3 camera.
For what concerns the CMD in the F439W and F555W filters of IZw18 on the PC
camera, the archival data have not been published yet. We can therefore
compare only indirectly our resulting CMD (see our Fig.~\ref{BVcmdPC}) with
that derived from the F450W and F555W filters on the WF3 detector and
plotted in D96's Fig.~2. Both diagrams show a fairly large sequence
and are very similar to each other. When accounting for the reddening,
our edge of the blue plume
(at V$\,\simeq\,$22.5), the faint limiting magnitude (at V$\,\simeq\,$27),
and the average color of the star distribution around (B--V)$\,\simeq\,$0
seem consistent with those in D96.
\section{Observed color-magnitude diagrams and luminosity functions}
\subsection{IZw18 Main Body}
Figures~\ref{VIcmdPC} and \ref{BVcmdPC} show the CMDs derived from the
PC images of IZw18 in the HST
F555W, F814W and F439W bands, that in the following will be referred
to as the V vs V--I and the V vs B--V CMDs respectively.
In panel a) of each figure we plotted
all the objects measured in both filters with a $\chi^2\!<\,$3 and
--1$<\!sharpness\!<$1 (respectively 444 in the V vs V--I and 267 in the V
vs B--V), while in panel b) we show only the stars with a photometric
error $\sigma_{DAO}\!<\,$0.2 in both bands, after removing
spurious detections (247 objects remain in the red CMD and 106 in
the blue one). The main features
of the complete diagram remain unaltered after the $\sigma_{DAO}\!<\,$0.2
selection. Thus we used the CMDs in panels b) as reference diagrams
for the theoretical simulations, as they have a more reliable photometry.
Since this target is located at high galactic latitude (b=+45$^{\circ}$), its
CMDs do not suffer from significant contamination from foreground stars
belonging to our Galaxy, and it is not necessary to consider this factor of
uncertainty in our simulations or to correct for it our observed CMDs.
A first analysis of the observed V vs V--I diagram of IZw18 (panel b) of
Fig.~\ref{VIcmdPC}) shows that we
reached a limiting magnitude of V$\,\simeq\,$26.5 which goes down to
V$\,\simeq\,$27 for objects with the reddest V--I color. From a morphological
viewpoint, in this CMD we can easily distinguish the typical blue plume
observed in ground-based observations of Local Group irregulars: this plume
is populated both by main-sequence (MS) stars and by stars at the hot edge of
the post-MS evolutionary phases. For IZw18 the plume extends up to
V$\,\simeq\,$22 and has a median color V--I$\,\simeq\,$0, indicative of a very
low reddening. This is in agreement with the most recent values proposed for
this parameter, e.g. E(B--V)=0.04 in HT95.
We can also notice the presence in the CMD of several bright supergiants
with a wide spread of colors from blue to red,
and some faint red stars. As described in the previous sections, they
all turned out to be real stars after a detailed analysis of their
shape and profile.
All the bright blue and red stars are concentrated in the innermost and more
crowded regions, particularly in the NW component of IZw18.
All the HII regions recognized by HT95 (as well as many stars in the badly
resolved NW cluster), were automatically removed from our V, V--I diagram
because they turned out to have $\chi^2\!>\,$3 and/or $sharpness$ outside the
range [--1,1]\,. Also the bright star clusters and associations are rejected
for the same reason.
This implies that our CMD is not sampling extremely young stars. The
percentage of flux discarded with this procedure corresponds roughly to
3.5\% (2\%) of the total flux of the whole galaxy in the V (I) filter, while
it is $\sim$40\% of the total flux sampled by the resolved stars in both bands.
An inspection of the V vs B--V diagram shows that also in this case we reached
the limiting magnitude V$\,\simeq\,$26. We have however a shallower cut-off as
the B--V color becomes redder: this is due to the shorter integration time and
to the lower sensitivity of the F439W filter with respect to the F814W. Again
in this CMD we can recognize the typical blue plume of the MS and post-MS
stars, with a median color of B--V$\,\simeq\,$0, and an upper
brightness limit of V$\,\simeq\,$22.5. Also in this case we are not retaining
the HII regions of HT95 and the star clusters,
the total flux of the galaxy lost with the rejection criteria being
1\% (0.5\%) in the V (B) band, again $\sim$40\% of the light in the
resolved stars.
To estimate the masses of the stars visible in the CMDs and the
corresponding lookback times, we have converted stellar evolutionary tracks
into the observational plane, and superimposed them on the observed CMDs.
In Fig.~\ref{tracksPC} we show the Padova tracks with Z=0.0004
(Fagotto et al. 1994) converted to the V vs V--I (panel a) and V vs
B--V (panel b) plane, having adopted a distance modulus of (m--M)$_0$=
30 and a reddening value E(B--V)=0.04. The V vs V--I diagram
shows that in IZw18 we have detected MS stars
with masses higher than 12 M$_{\odot}$ (corresponding to lifetimes younger
than $\sim$ 20 Myr) and blue-loop stars
with masses down to $\sim$3--4 M$_{\odot}$ (thus with ages up to
$\sim$0.2 Gyr). The faintest clump of red objects in Fig.~\ref{tracksPC}
can be populated by (red) core helium burning, asymptotic giant branch (AGB)
stars and bright red giant branch (RGB) stars,
whose masses can be in principle as low as $\sim\,$1 M$_{\odot}$,
extending the lookback time up to several Gyr. However, given the large
photometric error, it is not possible to estimate precisely the mass, and
therefore the age, of these faint stars. In the following we will
conservatively assume a lookback time of 1 Gyr.
In the V vs B--V diagram we see objects with mass larger than 12 M$_{\odot}$
in the MS stage ($\tau\la\,$20 Myr) and larger than 7 M$_{\odot}$ in
the post-MS phase, thus with ages less than $\sim$ 50 Myr. We will use the
V vs V--I diagram to infer the SF history of IZw18 over the last
$\sim$ 1 Gyr, while the V vs B--V diagram will be used as a further
check over the last $\sim$ 50 Myr.
In Fig.~\ref{PCLFs} we plot the differential luminosity functions (LFs) of
all the stars with $\sigma_{DAO}\!<\,$0.2 in both filters present in
the V vs V--I and the V vs B--V diagrams (panels a) and b) respectively).
We can see in both cases a rather smooth trend. The LFs will be used in the
simulations to check the consistency between models and observations.
It is clear from Fig.~\ref{tracksPC} that the blue plume of IZw18 is
populated by stars both on the MS and at the hot edge of the blue loop
evolutionary phase and that no safe criterion can be found to separate
the two different populations. For this reason we do not even attempt to
derive a MS-LF, which would be inevitably affected by too large uncertainties
to be of any use.
Also the derivation of the slope of the LF may turn out too uncertain, once
we consider that, as listed in Table 2, the data start to be
incomplete already at the brightest mags and significantly incomplete at
V=24. For mere sake of comparison with other galaxies, and warning that these
values should only be taken as indicative, we have nonetheless
computed the slope by means of a maximum likelihood fitting on the deeper
V data. Down to V=23,
where the data are almost complete, but only very few stars are present,
$\Delta$log\,N/$\Delta$V = 1.28 $\pm$ 0.04; at V=24, where completeness
is 85\%, the slope is 0.68 $\pm 0.02$, and at V=25 (75\% of completeness)
it is 0.45 $\pm$ 0.04.
The latter value is consistent with those derived by HT95 from the same
data for stars in three different locations (slopes between 0.58 and 0.65),
once we consider that they have corrected them for incompleteness.
HT95 pointed out that these slopes are steeper than those derived for other
star forming systems like R136 and NGC~604. They also appear steeper
than the average $0.70\pm0.03$ derived by Freedman (1985) and
Hoessel (1986) from a large sample of irregulars and than those derived
by us in Local Group irregulars (TGMF, GMTF, MTGF)
and in NGC~1569 (G98), since those were derived
in the complete portion of the stellar sample distribution.
The difference is more striking if one considers that
the literature values are supposed to refer to MS stars, whereas here we have
all kind of objects, and in general MS-LFs are steeper than global ones,
which can include bright supergiants.
As discussed by HT95, it seems unlikely that such steep LF is due
to a steep IMF and we certainly endorse their opinion, since we will show
in the following that the data of IZw18 are actually best reproduced by
assuming a flat and not a steep IMF. We are rather inclined to attribute this
unusual steepness to the particular
star formation history of the galaxy which can have superimposed around
V=24--25 two distinct stellar populations, making that mag bin much
more populated that the brighter ones.
\subsection{IZw18 Companion System}
Figure~\ref{BVcmdWF3} shows the V vs B--V diagram for IZw18's companion,
resolved into individual stars in the field of view of the WF3 camera. In
panel a) we plotted the 109 stars measured in both the F555W and F450W filters
with $\chi^2\!<\,$3 and --1$<\!sharpness\!<$1, while in panel b) we considered
only the subsample of stars (58 objects) with $\sigma_{DAO}\!<\,$0.2, after an
accurate check for spurious detections.
It is worth to point out that the rejection criteria eliminate $\sim$1\%
of the total flux of the secondary body in both B and V filters, and contrary
to IZw18, this corresponds only to $\sim$15\% of all the light in the
measured stars.
Furthermore the error constraint implies the loss of a lot of
faint stars, and saves only the brightest part of the blue plume and a
few red supergiants and giants. The blue plume has a median color
B--V$\,\simeq\,$0 and reaches the bright limit of V$\,\simeq\,$24 (the
brightest point at V$\,\simeq\,$22 in panel a) corresponds to the star
cluster in the center of the system). Given the high galactic latitude of the
system, again we expect no contamination problems. The foreground reddening
is assumed to be E(B--V)=0.04, as for the main body.
In Fig.~\ref{WF3LF} we report the differential LF in the V band which refers
to the CMD of the secondary body. The derivation of the slope of the LF is
even more uncertain than for the main body; we have nonetheless computed it
by means of a maximum likelihood fitting. Down to V=25, incompleteness is
low, but only 10 stars are present, and the slope is
$\Delta$log\,N/$\Delta$V = 0.60 $\pm$ 0.16; down to V=26, where completeness
is 80\%, the slope is $0.50\pm0.08$. These values are totally consistent with
those derived for other irregulars (see previous subsection).
As already done for the main body, in Fig.~\ref{tracksWF3} we
show the comparison between the Padova tracks with Z=0.0004 and the V vs B--V
diagram of the companion galaxy.
Taking into account the photometric error, the resolved stars could all
be MS objects, yielding a lookback time of only a few tens of Myr at most.
The two brightest red stars, which appear as evolved objects of $\sim$ 7 M$_{\odot}$,
are in fact the two objects circled in Fig.~\ref{VimageWF3}, located rather
far from the bulk of the system, and might therefore be foreground objects.
As an alternative interpretation, the observed CMD can be populated by only a
few MS stars, with most of the detected objects in the blue loop
phase. In this case most of the MS would be fainter than our limiting
magnitude, and the CMD would be sampling the evolved progeny
of 4 to 9 M$_{\odot}$ objects, yielding a lookback time of $\sim$0.2 Gyr.
From a comparison between the CMDs of IZw18 and its companion it is evident
that the blue plume of the main system is $\sim\,$2 magnitudes brighter in
V than that of the secondary body: at first glance this may be interpreted
as an indication of a considerably younger population in the bigger
system. However, the interpretation can be quite
different, once we take into proper account the different contributions
to the blue plume of MS and post-MS stars.
\section{Comparison with synthetic diagrams}
In order to derive the SF history and IMF of IZw18 and its companion, we
have compared the observed CMDs and LFs with theoretical simulations based on
homogeneous sets of stellar evolutionary tracks. The procedure applied here
for the creation of synthetic CMDs is the same described in detail in TGMF
for ground-based observations of Local Group irregulars
and in G98
for HST optical data of the nearest starburst dwarf NGC~1569. In the
latter paper a detailed description of the whole procedure and of the
conversion of synthetic CMDs to the HST/WFPC2 Vega-mag system is also given.
Literature values for the distance to IZw18 range from 9.8 to 11.2
Mpc, corresponding to true distance moduli between 30 and 30.3
mag. For our simulations we adopted (m-M)$_0$ = 30,
and for the reddening
E(B--V)=0.04 (HT95), which turned out to provide synthetic MSs
with average color in agreement with the observed one.
For an adopted IMF, SFR and set of stellar evolutionary
tracks of a given metallicity, the final product of the simulation is a
synthetic diagram containing the same number of objects (247 for V, V--I and
106 for V, B--V in the main body, and 58 in the companion) above the same
limiting magnitude as the observed CMD and
with the same properties of photometric uncertainties and incompleteness
(Figs \ref{errPC} and \ref{errWF3}, and Table 2).
The free parameters for the CMD simulations are: IMF slope; starting epoch,
duration, and ending epoch of the star formation activity; mode of the
SF (continuous or episodic, constant or exponentially decreasing with time).
For any adopted set of stellar evolution models, we have first generated
synthetic CMDs assuming constant SF throughout all the observable lookback
time and Salpeter's (1955) IMF ($\alpha$=2.35), and
then modified the assumptions on each parameter to see the resulting
effect on the comparison between the predicted CMD and LF
and the empirical data.
Here we show only a few illustrative cases; for a larger compilation of
model samples see Aloisi \footnote{The Ph.D. Thesis is available in
electronic form upon request to the first author} (1998, hereinafter A98).
The comparison between the simulated CMDs and the observed one is carryed out
in terms of the major features of the stellar distribution
in the color-magnitude plane, as for example the relative number of stars in
different evolutionary phases, the color and magnitude of the brightest stars
or of the blue plume, etc.
A more quantitative comparison is performed on the LFs.
We do not perform quantitative tests on the color distribution because
of the large intrinsic uncertainties in the effective temperatures of
models of massive stars in their post-MS stage, which are reflected
in the color determination.
To constrain the model selection as much as possible, we have simulated
independently the V, V--I and the V, B--V diagrams and compared the
corresponding results only a posteriori. This approach may appear
timewasting, since the two diagrams correspond to the same galactic area
and therefore represent the same stellar population, but it adds
independent and useful constraints because stars of different temperature
have quite different weight on the distribution of B--V and V--I CMDs,
and because the photometric errors and incompleteness factors are different
in different frames. Besides, these independent simulations
provide a useful test on the self consistency of the method. The B--V CMD
is in general too shallow to provide by itself reliable information on the SF
history of IZw18; nonetheless it is very useful for a further selection of
the models providing the better agreement for the V--I data, thanks to its
higher sensitivity to the younger (i.e. bluer) population. We have
found that only a few of the models selected in
V--I turn out to reproduce also the B--V observed features.
This has significantly constrained the overall scenario
able to fit both the B--V and the V--I distributions.
To evaluate the theoretical uncertainties due to different stellar codes,
input physics, and metallicity effects, it is always important to generate
synthetic CMDs with more than one set of homogeneous tracks, when
available. Since the overall metallicity of IZw18 and its companion is
estimated to be between Z$\sim$0.0006 and Z$\sim$0.0004, we have performed our
simulations for both systems using the Padova tracks with Z=0.0004 (Fagotto et
al. 1994) and the Geneva tracks with Z=0.001 (Schaller et al. 1992)
and Z=0.0004 (kindly made available by D. Schaerer).
These sets of stellar models differ from each other in several aspects, some
of which have significant effects on the synthetic CMDs:
\begin{itemize}
\item At the same nominal metallicity (Z=0.0004) the Padova tracks have the
same temperatures as the Geneva ones for MS stars (core H-burning phases) and
for stars at the hot edges of the blue loops (core He-burning phases), but
lower temperatures for red giants and supergiants, thus spanning a larger
color range.
\item The Geneva tracks with Z=0.001 assign lower temperatures to the red
stars (due to the higher metallicity) and cover the maximum color
interval, in spite of their slightly cooler hot edges of the
blue loops.
\item The lifetimes of massive stars at the blue loop edge are systematically
longer in the Geneva tracks than in the Padova ones. This implies that the
Geneva models tend to predict post-MS massive stars mostly at the blue edge
of the loops, whereas the Padova models populate more homogeneously all the
colors from the red to the blue edges. The opposite occurs for intermediate
mass stars, for which the Padova models predict longer lifetimes at the blue
edge than the Geneva ones.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Main body: Simulations with Padova tracks.}
We have performed about 300 simulations with the set of Padova models with
metallicity Z=0.0004,
testing various values for the slope of the IMF, the starting epoch, the mode
and the duration of the SF activity, under
the hypotheses of one or two SF episodes occurred during the last 1 Gyr.
All the synthetic CMDs based on these tracks show a short color extension:
the bluest stars are properly reproduced, but the coolest objects predicted
by these models have systematically V--I$\leq$1.7, whereas the empirical
ones are as red as V--I$\,\simeq\,$2. The cause of this inconsistency could
be an excessively low metallicity parameter in the tracks, or an inadequacy
of stellar models to reproduce the effective temperatures
in the coolest phases. Besides, the color conversions are more uncertain
in these phases, due to the much more difficult treatment of molecules in
model atmospheres. On the other hand,
the calibration of HST data may still be slightly uncertain
and the data may present color equations not properly taken into account.
Independently of the IMF and SFR, the most evident result which clearly
emerges from the comparison of synthetic and observed CMDs is that we can
safely exclude that only one single recent burst has occurred, started later
than a few 10$^7$ years ago.
This scenario definitely does not allow us to reproduce
the observed red and blue stars fainter than V$\sim$26 populating the V vs
V--I diagram, and leads in general to an overabundance of bright blue stars
compared to those observed both in the V--I and in the B--V CMDs.
As an example, in the left hand panels of
Fig.~\ref{sim1fin} we have plotted the V--I and B--V CMDs
and corresponding LFs of a SF episode started
10 Myr ago and still ongoing at a constant rate.
In this case the IMF is
steep ($\alpha$=3.0, much steeper than Salpeter's 2.35).
With such a late start, all the objects with masses lower than $\sim$
20 M$_{\odot}$ ~are still on the MS and there is no chance to populate the
blue loops at intermediate and faint magnitudes. As a result, the synthetic
stars are all bluer than V--I$\,\simeq\,$0, at variance with the
observational distribution. In addition, the
synthetic LF turns out underpopulated in
the V$\,\ga\,$25.5 portion, and overpopulated in the range V$\,\la\,$23.
Flattening the IMF clearly worsens the result. Also the V, B--V synthetic
diagram is inconsistent with the data, being populated only with stars
bluer than B--V$\,\simeq\,$0.2.
To fit the data we need an earlier start of the SF activity:
from many tests, we have found that to obtain acceptable results, the SF
in IZw18 must have started at least 200 Myr ago (see A98).
A continuous SF provides results consistent with the data
either with a currently ongoing SF, or with one stopped
not earlier than 5 Myr ago. In the central panels of Fig.~\ref{sim1fin}
we present the V vs V--I, V vs B--V and relative LFs
for the case of one episode started 1 Gyr ago with an exponentially
decreasing SF activity (e-folding time $\tau$=500 Myr) and still ongoing.
The adopted IMF is $\alpha$=1.5. Notice that in the LF the maximum deviation
of the model from the observational points is around 3\,$\sigma$. Similar
results are obtained with a later onset of the SF. With this type of models
we reproduce fairly well the
CMDs and LFs, provided that the adopted IMF is flat (1.5$\leq\alpha\leq$1.8).
Steeper slopes (even when coupled with a constant SFR) lead to worse
results, since they don't provide enough bright stars when the faint end
of the LF is matched. For instance the best model obtained with a Salpeter's
slope ($\alpha$\,=\,2.35) leads to a LF which deviates in several magnitude
bins by more than 4\,$\sigma$ from the observational points (A98).
Trying to better reproduce the observed color distributions of the stars,
we have considered a two-episode scenario. Models in which the old episode
occurs from $\sim$1--0.2 Gyr to 100--50 Myr ago, and the young one from
$\sim$100--30 Myr ago on, provide acceptable results (similar to those
shown in the central panels of Fig.~\ref{sim1fin} for a single episode)
when the IMF is flat (1.5$\leq\alpha\leq$1.8). In these cases the predicted
LF is always within 1--2\,$\sigma$ from the empirical one.
From these simulations we find that the SFR in
the two episodes is quite similar, and that a significant quiescent
intermediate phase is not necessary (see A98). At the end of the two-episode
simulations, we can thus assert that IZw18 has experienced a rather continuous
star-formation activity over a large fraction of the whole lookback time
sampled by our CMDs.
The distribution of the yellow and red supergiants in the observed CMD
is quite peculiar: there is a clump of faint red stars
(at V$\sim\,$26--27),
and a continuous distribution of objects at brighter
magnitudes (V$\sim\,$23), with a gap in between. These features are not
reproduced by the simulations, unless a very specific SF history
(hereinafter the burst scenario) is adopted, as we discuss below. As
already mentioned, these stars have
been carefully checked and confirmed to be most likely actual single
objects (not extended ones or spurious detections), members of
IZw18. We have thus considered two different episodes, one of
which could efficiently populate the evolved portions of the tracks
with masses between 12 and 15 M$_{\odot}$ (see Fig.~\ref{tracksPC}). This
corresponds
to force most of the stars in this mass range to be in a post-MS
phase, and is equivalent to consider a burst occurred between 20 and
15 Myr ago. An older longer episode of SF populates the fainter red
giant region. As an example, in the right hand panels of
Fig.~\ref{sim1fin} we show the CMDs and
LFs obtained assuming a first episode of SF from 1 Gyr to 30 Myr
ago and a second one, ten times
stronger, from 20 to 15 Myr ago, both with $\alpha$=1.5.
It can be noticed that in this case all the observational features are
reproduced pretty well, with deviations of models from the data
always less than 1\,$\sigma$.
All the models in better agreement with the data assume quite flat IMFs.
However, while the second burst can reproduce the observed features only
if $\alpha\simeq\,$1.5, acceptable distributions are also obtained when
a Salpeter IMF is adopted for the first episode ($\alpha\simeq\,$2.35),
with a proper tuning of the SF parameters.
\subsection{Main body: Simulations with Geneva tracks.}
The set of Geneva tracks with Z=0.0004 (kindly provided by D. Schaerer)
only has models for stars with masses M$\,\ga\,$3 M$_{\odot}$.
Consequently our simulations cover only the last 0.3 Gyr.
The synthetic CMDs based on this set are all characterized by
a color extension even smaller than that of the Padova models with the same
nominal metallicity. As a general result, these simulations tend to
overpredict the number of bright blue supergiants, while
underpopulating the magnitude range around $V \sim 23.5$. Varying the
IMF and SFR parameters the agreement can be improved, but we did not
find a satisfactory representation of the
data (see A98). An illustrative case is shown in Fig.~\ref{sim3nn},
which assumes two episodes of SF: the first
from 300 to 100 Myr
ago, and a second one started 90 Myr ago and still ongoing.
The IMF slope is $\alpha$ = 2, and the SF rates in the two episodes
are similar to each other. In spite of being one of our best simulations
with this set of tracks,
the deficiency of stars with V$\,\simeq\,$23.5 can still be noticed in the LF,
where the maximum deviation is almost 4\,$\sigma$.
Different from the others, the Geneva set with Z=0.001 does span a color range
as large as the one observed in the main body of IZw18.
In spite of the relatively large value of the $Z$ parameter, the
synthetic blue plume overlaps the observed one when the canonical
E(B--V)=0.04 is adopted.
As already found with the other sets of stellar tracks, models with only
one and recent episode of SF activity are definitely inconsistent with the
observed CMD and LF. This can be easily understood from Fig.~\ref{tracksPC1}
where we show the superposition of the observed V--I CMD with the Geneva
Z=0.001 tracks. In order to populate the region at V--I$\,\ga\,$1,
and fainter than V$\,\simeq\,$25.5, stars of 3--5 M$_{\odot}$ ~must have had the
time to evolve off the MS, indicating SF activity earlier
than $\sim$ 100 Myr ago. Moreover, in the faintest portion of the blue plume
we find objects of $\simeq$\,5--7 M$_{\odot}$, with ages up to 100 Myr.
For these reasons, simulations with SF starting later than $\sim$ 0.1 Gyr
are inconsistent with the observations, as already shown in the
previous subsection for the Padova set.
Figure~\ref{sim2fin} shows three of the best cases obtained with this set of
tracks under different assumptions for the SF history. In all the cases
the IMF slope is 1.5. In the left hand panels we plot the result of
assuming a constant SF over the last 1 Gyr, but stopped
5 Myr ago. Despite the flat IMF, the synthetic LF is underpopulated around
V$\,\simeq\,$24, with deviations at a 2\,$\sigma$ level,
an inconsistency which worsens with steeper IMFs. Had the SF
continued in more recent epochs too many bright blue stars would have
appeared.
The central panels show a simulation with
two SF episodes, the oldest one started 500 Myr ago and
stopped 100 Myr ago, while the recent one started 100 Myr ago and still
active.
The rate of SF in the first episode is slightly higher
than in the second one.
In the V vs B--V diagram we can see only the stars born during the most
recent activity. Both the B--V and the V--I LFs deviate from the empirical
one by at most $\sim$\,3\,$\sigma$, but the color distribution,
especially for the brightest stars, is not satisfactorily reproduced.
As already discussed, this particular feature is difficult to
reproduce due to the short lifetimes of massive stars in the post-MS
phases. The only way to overcome this problem is to
force the models to populate the bright part of the diagram only with
evolved stars (i.e. with no contribution from the upper MS).
This can be achieved assuming that the more recent SF episode
stopped fairly long ago (15 Myr ago) so that no stars brighter than
V$\,\simeq\,$25 can be on the MS. The right hand panels of Fig.~\ref{sim2fin}
show one of the best cases of this
type, with the first SF episode from 200 to 30 Myr
ago and the second one from 20 to 15 Myr ago. To obtain enough stars in the
brighter portion of the CMD, we find that the SF rate in the second
burst has been almost 7 times higher than in the old one.
These models reproduce fairly well both the observed distribution of cool and
warm supergiants and the curvature of the upper blue plume in the V--I
CMD. They also reproduce quite well the
observational B--V CMD.
\subsection{Summary of the results for the main body}
The results obtained with the three sets of stellar models
are consistent with each other in suggesting the overall scenario
for the recent evolution in IZw18. The different values obtained for the
various parameters depending on the adopted tracks give an estimate of the
theoretical uncertainty still associated with stellar evolution models.
Their relatively small differences support the reliability of our
conclusions. Some of the results are completely independent of the adopted
stellar models, like the flatness of the IMF and the presence of stars with
intermediate ages.
In all the simulations we have found indications of an IMF significantly
flatter than Salpeter's ($\alpha\,$=2.35). The
exponents which have turned out to be mostly consistent with the observations
are in the range $\alpha\,$=1.5--2.0, with some preference for the
flatter extreme of this range. Steeper IMFs look inappropriate also
in the case of currently ongoing SF,
because they imply too few massive MS stars and too many
intermediate mass stars, with a consequent overpopulation of the
faint blue plume. Notice, however, that the derived slope obviously
refers to the visible range of masses.
At the distance of IZw18, nothing can be inferred with our method on the
IMF of stars less massive than $\sim$ 2 M$_{\odot}$.
Given the relatively short lookback time of the empirical CMDs of
IZw18,
we have considered a star formation activity distributed over one or at most
two episodes with a regime constant or exponentially decreasing with time.
We should recall that two is possibly the maximum number
of SF bursts allowed by the extremely low metallicity of this galaxy (e.g.
Kunth, Matteucci, \& Marconi 1995).
In no case have we been able to reproduce the observed CMDs and LFs with one
single episode of SF started
more recently than 0.1 Gyr ago. This rules out, beyond any reasonable doubt,
that IZw18 has started very recently to form its first stars.
A single SF episode can reproduce rather well the data if extending over
a sufficiently long period of time ($\ga$ 0.2 Gyr). With an IMF slope of 1.5
we derive typical SF rates of $\sim 6\times10^{-3}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ ~for stars more
massive than 1.8 M$_{\odot}$. If the SF episodes sampled by the resolved stars
in IZw18 are two, we find a better agreement between synthetic predictions
and empirical data especially when the younger episode is relatively old and
7--10 times stronger than the previous one. To reproduce the observed features,
the younger episode must have occurred between $\sim$ 20 and 15 Myr, with a
SFR of $\sim 3 (6) \times10^{-2}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ ~for the Geneva (Padova) tracks.
The older episode can have started any time between 1 and 0.2 Gyr ago, and
continued until approximately 30 Myr ago. An earlier stop of the latter
SF activity would lead to an underpopulated blue plume at the faint
magnitudes. If we want instead the SF in IZw18 to have taken place until
recently, not only in the densest unresolved regions (Kunth et al. 1995; De
Mello et al. 1998; Izotov \& Thuan 1998; Van Zee et al. 1998), but also in
the resolved field, the best agreement is attained if the most recent of
these two episodes has occurred from 0.1 Gyr ago at a rate of
2--5 $\times10^{-3}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$. In this case, however, as well as in the
single-episode case, the yellow/red supergiants observed in IZw18 are not reproduced
by the models. For this reason we definitely prefer the burst scenario with
the intense SF episode between 20 and 15 Myr ago.
To evaluate the actual SFR in IZw18, the value obtained
from the synthetic CMDs must be extrapolated from the lower mass limit
adopted in the simulation (m$_{\rm low}$ = 1.8, 2 M$_{\odot}$ ~for the Padova
and Geneva sets respectively) to the physical lower mass cutoff. Since
the IMF at the low mass end is still highly uncertain (Larson 1998;
Leitherer 1998) both in the slope and in the lower mass cutoff, the
extrapolations have been performed exploring a few simple cases. For the
lower mass cutoff, we have adopted the value of 0.1 M$_{\odot}$.
If $\alpha$=1.5 over the whole mass range, the extrapolation leaves basically
unaltered the SFRs quoted above. Alternatively, if a Salpeter slope is adopted
below m$_{\rm low}$ the corrected SFR amounts to 1.4 times the values quoted
above.
Since the size of IZw18 is estimated to be 840 $\times$ 610 pc$^2$ (DH90),
the rates presented above and corrected for the IMF extrapolation
become on average 1--2 $\times$ 10$^{-2}$
M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$kpc$^{-2}$ in the cases of one or two SF episodes. Only
when the second episode stops as early as 15 Myr ago, its SFR can be as
high as 6--16 $\times$ 10$^{-2}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$kpc$^{-2}$,
depending on the adopted IMF and evolutionary tracks.
\subsection{Simulations for the secondary body}
The fiducial stars populating the CMD of IZw18 companion are so few
(58), that the comparison with the corresponding synthetic diagrams is
inevitably affected by small number statistics. Besides, only the V, B--V
CMD is available for this object, thus sensibly reducing the lookback time,
and in general the available
constraints to discriminate between different evolutionary scenarios.
Nevertheless some interesting conclusions can still be drawn, thanks
to the circumstance that all the sets of stellar tracks favor the same
overall scenarios for its star formation history. For this reason, in
the following we show only the results for the Padova set of tracks.
As illustrated in Section 3.2, the blue plume of the secondary body is
1.5--2 mags fainter than that of the main body. This is not necessarily
a signature of an older stellar population, since we have seen in the
previous sections that the brightest blue stars in the main body are mostly
post-MS objects, much brighter than their MS progenitors.
As visible in Fig.~\ref{tracksWF3}, the red portion of the blue plume
fainter than V=25.5 can be populated either by stars of approximately
4--6 M$_{\odot}$ in the blue loop, or by more massive stars still on the MS.
As a consequence, the observed magnitude distribution of the
stars in the companion can be reproduced either with a quite young SF episode
(started around 50 or less Myr ago) or with a rather old one (started
around 200 Myr ago). Nonetheless the color of the blue plume is (slightly)
better reproduced by the older scenario.
Figure~\ref{simsec1fin} shows the synthetic diagrams obtained for a SF started
10 Myr ago in the top and third panel, and a SF started 150 Myr
ago in the second panel. Their luminosity functions are shown in the bottom
panel (solid, dotted and dashed lines, for the top, second and third CMD,
respectively). In order to compensate for the higher number
of massive young stars in the top case, its IMF slope is steeper than in the
second case, 2.6 and 1.5 respectively. It can be seen that both models give
a fair representation of the data.
The third panel (and dashed LF) shows what happens to the top panel model
if one only changes the adopted IMF slope from 2.6 to 1.8.
Too many massive blue supergiants populate the top of the blue plume,
making it far too bright, and, correspondingly, too few MS stars populate
its faint end.
Similar results are obtained with the other sets of tracks, though with
somewhat different values for the parameters, reflecting the
different lifetimes in the various evolutionary stages. For example, slightly
earlier starts for the SF activity and steeper IMF slopes are derived with
the Z=0.001 Geneva sequences.
In the case of the secondary
body where the observational constraints are modest, the range of acceptable
values for the parameters is larger than for the main body. In addition,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{simsec1fin}, it is difficult to
disentangle the contribution of the IMF and of the SFR to the observed
stellar distribution.
From the hundreds simulations performed on the secondary body, we
believe that no quantitative information can be derived on its IMF slope.
The range of acceptable slopes for the IMF is large (1.5--3.0), but
the slopes leading to diagrams in better agreement with the data are peaked
at $\alpha$=2.2, somewhat flatter than Salpeter's ($\alpha$=2.35), and
definitely steeper than the slopes required for the main body. Besides, the
trend that the more recent the start of the SF episode, the steeper the IMF
is confirmed by all models. With $\alpha$ flatter than 2, a SF started more
recently than $\sim$30 Myr ago and still active has to be excluded, and one
started as early as 0.15--0.20 Gyr is preferable. For steeper IMFs,
SF activities started as late as 10 Myr ago and still ongoing can be
appropriate to interpret the observed features.
The rate of SF is obviously inversely proportional to the duration of the
activity (since the number of generated stars still visible is given by
the data). Considering the extrapolation from m$_{low}$ to the lower physical
mass cutoff 0.1 M$_{\odot}$ either with a single-slope IMF with $\alpha$=2.2
or with Salpeter's slope, the derived SFRs must be corrected
by a factor of 2.5 or 2.9, respectively. Thus for young SF episodes,
occurring in the last 10--50 Myr, the average rate is
2--5 $\times 10^{-3}$M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$,
depending on the adopted stellar tracks.
For a SF activity started as early as 0.2 Gyr ago, the average rate
is lower, 1--2 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$.
In terms of rate per unit area, these values translate into 0.7--1.7
$\times$ 10$^{-2}$ and 3.4--6.7 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$
M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$kpc$^{-2}$,
respectively, once a size of 850 $\times$ 350 pc$^2$ is assumed for the
secondary body (DH90). Therefore, the average SF rate in the secondary body
has been similar or $\sim$3 times lower than in the main body,
depending on the preferred scenario.
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
We have studied the SF history in IZw18, with the main goal of trying to
disentangle the long standing question of whether or not this system is
experiencing now its first burst of star formation. Other investigators have
already examined this question and provided contradicting answers.
To mention just one recent example: Kunth et al. (1995) inferred from a
series of chemical evolution models that
IZw18 can have experienced at most two SF bursts, each of which with duration
no longer than 10--20 Myr, whereas Legrand \& Kunth (1998, hereinafter LK)
argue from a
spectro-photometric-chemical model that the observed metal abundances and
colors can be better explained in terms of a very low SFR
(10$^{-4}$M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$), continuous during 16 Gyr, with
burst occurrence (and SFR 100 times stronger) only in the last 50 Myr.
Other authors have argued in favour of a relatively recent onset of
the SF activity in IZw18. Both HT95 and D96 suggest a continuous, and still
ongoing SF over the last 30--50 Myr, as deduced comparing the CMDs of
the resolved stellar population on WFPC2 images with isochrones.
From the kinematic analysis of ionized gas, Martin (1996) found a
bipolar bubble with a lobe more evident in the SE than in the NW part of the
galaxy. Its dynamical evolution and photometric properties are
well described by a continuous SF episode started 15--30 Myr ago at a
rate of $\sim$ 0.02 M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$. On the other hand, in the literature there are
some clues of an older SF activity in IZw18; for instance, from the
comparison of the C/O ratio with
predictions of chemical evolution models, Garnett et al. (1997) suggest
a SF episode as long as a few hundreds Myr.
Our approach is to infer the SF history of the galaxy from the CMDs and
LFs of its stars resolved by HST photometry. As already mentioned in the
previous sections, this method does not examine the denser, unresolvable
regions where some SF has certainly occurred at very recent epochs as
demonstrated by the presence of several HII regions.
The derived V, V--I and V, B--V
diagrams have been interpreted in terms of SF and IMF by means of
theoretical simulations.
In comparison with other galaxies examined with the same method, it is
more difficult to derive strict constraints on the SF history of the IZw18
system, because its larger distance makes much smaller the number of
resolved stars and consequently poorer the statistical significance of
the results, especially for the secondary body.
Nonetheless, in spite of this problem and of the difficulties described
above to fully reproduce all the observed features of the galaxy,
the comparison of all the synthetic CMDs and LFs with the corresponding
data, has led to quite firm indications on the overall
properties of the evolution of IZw18.
It is clear from the results presented in the previous
sections that in no way can a single SF episode started only a few tens of Myr
ago reproduce the observed features of the faint blue plume of the main body.
The SF in IZw18 must have been already active at least 100 Myr (but
more likely 500 Myr) ago to provide
all the observed faint stars, both blue and red. This same conclusion is
reached with all the available sets of stellar evolution tracks and is
therefore independent of the adopted models; it can then be considered quite
firm. The overall scenario for the SF history of IZw18 is thus an almost
constant SF activity from 1 Gyr up to $\sim$30 Myr ago coupled with a burst
almost ten times stronger around 15--20 Myr ago:
the oldest stellar population is practically concentrated in the SE part
of the galaxy, while the other stars are
both in the NW and SE inner dense regions (see A98).
The presence of relatively old stars excludes one of the two alternative
scenarios proposed by Kunth et al. (1995), which allows for only
one ongoing episode started a few Myr ago. The alternative case, of two
separate episodes is instead compatible with our results. At first glance,
our results seem also in agreement with LK's scenario of an almost continuous
star formation activity. However, the average SF
during the epochs covered by our analysis has turned out to be
$\sim 10^{-2}$M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$, two orders of magnitude
higher than the {\it low} level predicted by LK's model. Our rate is instead
close to what LK attribute to the current burst. On the other
hand, the duration of the SF activity is much longer in our scenario than in
LK's burst. We do find
that a burst is likely to have occurred at roughly LK's burst rate, but
in a shorter time interval (from 20 to 15 Myr ago in our scenario, from
50 Myr ago until now in LK's). Thus, our quantitative
conclusions do not necessarily agree with LK's values. This of course
does not exclude that a continuous SF activity has taken
place throughout the galaxy lifetime, but it should have had an intensity
quite lower than in their model, to compensate the longer duration of
the recent interval at high rate.
Our derived SF history is instead in agreement with Martin (1996) and Garnett
et al. (1997) results. In particular, both the epoch and the level of the SFR
in the most recent episode of our burst scenario agree with Martin's (1996)
finding. Thus, from the study of the resolved stars in IZw18 we find support
to the idea that this episode of SF powered the bipolar bubble and possibly
a galactic outflow.
For a direct comparison of the derived SFRs in IZw18 with those of other
dwarfs, it is more physically meaningful to consider the rate per unit area.
In these units the main body of IZw18 has a SFR 10$^{-2}$--10$^{-1}$
M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-2}$, and the secondary body a SFR
3--10 $\times 10^{-3}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-2}$.
The SFRs derived with the same method for Irregular Galaxies of the Local
Group (e.g. Tosi 1998) are in the range 10$^{-4}$--10$^{-2}$
M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-2}$, while for the extremely active dIrr NGC~1569
(G98) the estimated recent SFR is between 4 and 20 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$
kpc$^{-2}$ depending on the adopted IMF (2.35$\leq\alpha\leq$3.0).
In the solar neighborhood the present
SFR is in the range (0.2--1)$\times$10$^{-2}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-2}$
(Tinsley 1980b; Timmes, Woosley, \& Weaver 1995).
We can thus conclude that IZw18 shows a mean SF activity comparable to that
of the region around the sun and that of the most active Local Group
Irregulars. As a consequence, its SFR falls short of $\sim$ 2 orders of
magnitude to make IZw18 a local counterpart of the faint blue galaxies,
according to Babul \& Ferguson (1996) model.
In all the approximately 500 simulations performed for the CMDs of IZw18 we
have found indications of an IMF significantly flatter than Salpeter's
($\alpha$=2.35). The
exponents which have turned out to be mostly consistent with the observations
are in the range $\alpha\,$=1.5--2.0, with some preference for the
flatter extreme of this range.
This is the first galaxy in our sample showing such a significant evidence
in favour of a flat IMF. All the others analyzed by us with the same approach
(DDO~210, NGC~1569, NGC~3109, NGC~6822, Sex~B, WLM) turned out to have IMF
slopes
close to Salpeter's or slightly steeper, in agreement with the current general
belief (e.g. Leitherer 1998) of a roughly universal IMF in irregular galaxies.
Besides, the global LF of IZw18 seems steeper and not flatter than those of
other irregulars (see Sect.3.1). For this reason we have examined with
particular attention all the alternatives, to evaluate the
possibility that a more standard IMF could be acceptable with other parameter
combinations. However, in no case have we been able to reproduce the observed
CMDs and LFs if all the stars were born following Salpeter's IMF.
As mentioned in Sect. 4.1, we obtained acceptable results adopting a Salpeter
slope in the older SF episode,
but a flat IMF in the most recent generation seems
required by the data. Could this peculiarity be due to the extremely low
metallicity of IZw18, following the old suggestion (e.g. Terlevich 1985;
Melnick \& Terlevich 1987) that the lower the metallicity, the flatter the
IMF of massive stars ? This interesting possibility is however contradicted
by the possible trend of the older metal-poorer episode more consistent
with a steeper IMF than the younger metal-richer one
and by the circumstance that the
secondary body seems to have a more standard IMF (with $\alpha \sim 2.2$),
despite the same low metallicity of IZw18.
It is worth to stress here also the possible correlation existing between the
SF activity in IZw18 and the stellar production in its companion system.
Many papers in the literature consider the stellar population in component C
older than that in the main body. Different studies on its resolved stellar
population (D96), ionized gas (Izotov \& Thuan 1998), integrated
colors and nebular spectrum (Van Zee et al. 1998) indicate ages spanning
from 100 to 300 Myr, all consistent with our older scenario for this
minor system. The interpretation of the empirical CMD and LF in the
secondary body is however
much less constrained than for the main body, due to the small number of
observed stars. Indeed we find consistency with the data also adopting
a recent and still ongoing SF activity, provided that the IMF exponent is
steep enough.
Deeper and more accurate data would be necessary to derive
tighter conclusions.
On somewhat speculative grounds, the general trend may be that
of a SF propagating from the secondary body
through the NW part of IZw18 to its SE component, where some HII regions and
the brightest young clusters are concentrated and still visible
(HT95; D96; Izotov \& Thuan 1998). Admittedly, the spatial correlation between
stellar production in different regions of IZw18 and in its companion
system is not strong. However, in the case of recent onset of the SF activity
in the minor system (50--10 Myr ago), its starting epoch is similar to that
(20--15 Myr ago) of the stronger burst in the main body.
Also the SFRs are roughly comparable:
$\sim$0.1 M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$kpc$^{-2}$ for the intense burst in IZw18, and
$\sim$0.02 M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$kpc$^{-2}$ for the companion system. Besides,
the stars
in the main body generated during the strong burst (red and yellow supergiants)
are possibly located preferentially in the NW part, near the companion: this
burst in IZw18 might thus have been triggered by gravitational interactions.
To conclude, from the analysis of the resolved stellar population in IZw18
our major results are the following: the age of the older stars seen in the
main body reaches from a few hundreds Myrs up to $\sim$1 Gyr; therefore a
single recent
episode of SF is ruled out. Our preferred scenario for the SF history
is the burst scenario, consisting of two episodes, the younger one having
occurred between 15 and 20 Myr ago at a rate 7-10 times higher than in the
previous activity. This refers to our analyzed field, and not to the denser
regions where an ongoing SF
activity shows up through the HII regions and unresolved star clusters.
The SFRs that we derive for the main body of IZw18 are similar to
those of nearby irregulars and the solar neighborhood. The IMF,
instead, appears to be significantly flatter than in any of these normal
galaxies. This is especially true for the second of the two episodes, the real
burst. The IMF in the secondary body appears instead to be less extreme, with
a likely slope of $\alpha\simeq\,$2.2.
{\bf Acknowledgements}
We warmly thank Mark Clampin, Antonella Nota and Marco Sirianni who have been
of invaluable help. We are deeply indebted with Daniel Schaerer for having
computed for us the stellar models with Z=0.0004, to Peter Stetson for
providing some of his software and to Manuela Zoccali for help in using it.
Paolo Montegriffo has also helped a lot with his unusual skill for photometric
reduction in very crowded fields. Useful conversations with Claus Leitherer,
Daniel Schaerer and Michele Bellazzini are also acknowledged.
We are grateful to the anonymous referee for his/her useful comments
and suggestions which contributed to improve the paper. Part of this
work has been funded by the Italian Space Agency ASI.
\clearpage
|
\section{Perspective on hidden symmetries}
M-theory is defined in 11 dimensions, with one time and ten space
coordinates. It has an extended global supersymmetry characterized by 32
supercharges $Q_\alpha $ and 528 {\it abelian} bosonic charges that include
the momentum $P_\mu $, the two-brane charge $Z_{\mu \nu }$ and the
five-brane charge $Z_{\mu _1\cdots \mu _5}$ \cite{townsend}-\cite{gunaydin}
\begin{equation}
\left\{ Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \right\} =\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu P_\mu
+\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }Z_{\mu \nu }+\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mu
_1\cdots \mu _5}Z_{\mu _1\cdots \mu _5}\,. \label{M-algebra}
\end{equation}
The charges $P_\mu $, $Z_{\mu \nu }$, $Z_{\mu _1\cdots \mu _5}$ commute
among themselves and with $Q_\alpha $. In addition, the 11-dimensional SO$%
\left( 10,1\right) $ Lorentz generator $J_{\mu \nu }$ has non-trivial
commutation rules with $Q_\alpha ,$ $P_\mu ,$ $Z_{\mu \nu },$ $Z_{\mu
_1\cdots \mu _5}$ that correspond to the classification of these charges as
spinor, 1-form, 2-form, 5-form respectively in 11-dimensions. We refer to
the algebra satisfied by $J_{\mu \nu }$, $Q_\alpha $, $P_\mu $, $Z_{\mu \nu
} $, $Z_{\mu _1\cdots \mu _5}$ as the M-algebra.
It is well known that physical input in four dimensions, such as the absence
of massless interacting particles with spin higher than two, constrains the
maximum number of supersymmetries to 32 \cite{nahm}. This refers to the
maximum number of $Q_\alpha $ that commute with the momentum operators $%
P_\mu $, as is the case in the M-algebra. However, there is no physical
restriction on the number of non-linearly realized supersymmetries that do
not commute with $P^\mu $. In particular, it is possible to have
supersymmetries that do not commute with the Hamiltonian or $P^\mu $, while
being supersymmetries of the action. For example, this is the case with the
well known special superconformal symmetry generated by the fermions $%
S_\alpha $ in any superconformal theory in any dimension. In addition, it
has been discovered recently that very simple familiar systems have
previously unnoticed hidden symmetries of the type SO$\left( d,2\right) $,
that are not symmetries of the Hamiltonian \cite{lifting} \cite{super2t} but
are symmetries of the action. Such symmetries are made manifest by lifting
the system to the formalism of two-time physics by the addition of gauge
degrees of freedom together with new gauge symmetries \cite{lifting} \cite
{super2t}.
In this paper we provide arguments that the supersymmetries of the different
dual versions of M-theory are all unified within OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $,
with 64 supercharges. We will show that the M-algebra is a subalgebra of OSp$%
\left( 1/64\right) $ without any contractions. The extra 32 supercharges do
not commute with $P^\mu $ within OS$p\left( 1/64\right) $. We suggest they
are symmetries of the ``action'' of M-theory. The symmetry structures that
emerge in this way suggest that M-theory could admit a two-time physics
formulation with a total of 13 dimensions.
There has been a number of hints that M-theory may contain various two-time
structures \cite{duff},\cite{ibjapan},\cite{vafa}-\cite{nishino}. In this
paper we will show a new embedding of the symmetries of M-theory in a higher
structure suggested by the formalism of two-time physics. We show that when
the M-algebra is extended by adding the 11D conformal generator $K^\mu $,
the closure requires the full OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $. Duality and 11D
covariance suggest that $K^\mu \,$is a hidden symmetry in M-theory. The
point is that the 10D covariant type-IIB superalgebra, as well as heterotic
and type I superalgebras can be obtained from the same OSp$\left(
1/64\right) $ , and the 10D type-IIA superalgebra is just the dimensional
reduction of the M-theory algebra. While $K^\mu \,$is non-linearly realized
and remains ``hidden'' in the 11D version of M-theory, some of its
components are linearly realized in a dual version of M-theory, so $K^\mu $
is actually present non-perturbatively. A further clue is the presence of
conformal symmetry in some corners of M-theory as noted through the CFT-AdS
correspondance \cite{maldacena}-\cite{gunayd}.
These points will be illustrated in a specific toy M-model \cite{future}
with a worldline action that includes 13D p-form degrees of freedom $a^{%
\tilde{M}_1\cdots \tilde{M}_p}\left( \tau \right) $ for $p=3,6$ in addition
to the zero brane degrees of freedom $X^{\tilde{M}}\left( \tau \right) $, $%
P^{\tilde{M}}\left( \tau \right) $, $\Theta ^{\tilde{\alpha}}\left( \tau
\right) $ that normally exist in a worldline formalism \cite{super2t}. The
model introduces new concepts of local symmetries, including one that is a
bosonic cousin of kappa supersymmetry. Various gauge choices can be found to
yield the M-algebra in 11D, the type IIA, type-IIB, heterotic, type-I
extended supersymmetries in 10D, and non-Abelian superalgebras in the AdS$%
_n\times S^m$ backgrounds. Thus, the symmetries of different corners of the
moduli space of M-theory emerge as different gauge choices in this model
\cite{future}.
\section{Subgroup chains}
We first show that the M-algebra is contained in OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $.
The supergroup OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $ has 64 fermionic generators $Q_{%
\tilde{\alpha}}$ and $\allowbreak 2080$ bosonic generators $S_{\tilde{\alpha}%
\tilde{\beta}}$ that form a 64$\times $64 symmetric matrix. The Lie
superalgebra is
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\{ Q_{\tilde{\alpha}},Q_{\tilde{\beta}}\right\} &=&S_{\tilde{\alpha}%
\tilde{\beta}},\quad \left[ S_{\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{\beta}},Q_{\tilde{\gamma}%
}\right] =C_{\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{\gamma}}Q_{\tilde{\beta}}+C_{\tilde{\beta}%
\tilde{\gamma}}Q_{\tilde{\alpha}}\, \\
\left[ S_{\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{\beta}},S_{\tilde{\gamma}\tilde{\delta}%
}\right] &=&C_{\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{\gamma}}S_{\tilde{\beta}\tilde{\delta}%
}+C_{\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{\delta}}S_{\tilde{\beta}\tilde{\gamma}}+C_{\tilde{%
\beta}\tilde{\gamma}}S_{\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{\delta}}+C_{\tilde{\beta}\tilde{%
\delta}}S_{\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{\gamma}}\,
\end{eqnarray*}
The $S_{\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{\beta}}$ form the Lie algebra of Sp$\left(
64\right) $ and the constant antisymmetric matrix $C_{\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{%
\beta}}$ is the metric of Sp$\left( 64\right) $. A matrix representation of
OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $ is given by 65$\times $65 supermatrices. We are
interested in re-expressing these generators in various bases, that are
related to the basis above by unitary transformations, such that various
spacetime interpretations can be given to those bases. For this purpose
several branchings of Sp$\left( 64\right) $ will be used :
\begin{eqnarray}
A &:&Sp\left( 64\right) \supset SU^{*}\left( 32\right) \otimes SO\left(
1,1\right) \label{A} \\
&\supset &Sp^{*}\left( 32\right) \otimes SO\left( 1,1\right) \supset
SO\left( 10,2\right) \otimes SO\left( 1,1\right) \,\supset \cdots \nonumber
\\
B &:&Sp\left( 64\right) \supset SO^{*}\left( 32\right) \otimes SO\left(
2,1\right) \label{B} \\
&\supset &SU^{*}\left( 16\right) \otimes U\left( 1\right) \otimes SO\left(
2,1\right) \nonumber \\
&\supset &SO\left( 9,1\right) \otimes SO\left( 2,1\right) \otimes U\left(
1\right) \,\supset \cdots \nonumber \\
C &:&Sp\left( 64\right) \supset SO\left( 11,2\right) \supset \cdots
\label{C}
\end{eqnarray}
The (*) indicates an appropriate analytic continuation that contains the
non-compact groups listed. There is another chain of interest that involves
a supergroup that will come up in our discussion (we are not listing a
complete set of branchings).
\begin{equation}
OSp\left( 1/64\right) \supset OSp\left( 1/32\right) \otimes Sp\left(
32\right) \supset \cdots
\end{equation}
We list the first step of the decomposition of the 64$\oplus $2080
representations for the A,B,C branches. For the A-branch we have the $%
SU^{*}\left( 32\right) \otimes SO\left( 1,1\right) $ representations
\begin{eqnarray}
64 &=&32^{1/2}\oplus \overline{32}^{-1/2}, \label{A1} \\
2080 &=&\left( 1^0\oplus 1023^0\,\right) _{32\cdot \overline{32}}\,\oplus
528_{\left( 32\cdot 32\right) _s}^{+}\oplus 528_{\left( \overline{32}\cdot
\overline{32}\right) _s}^{-} \label{A2}
\end{eqnarray}
where the superscripts correspond to the SO$\left( 1,1\right) $ charge, and
subscripts indicate the products of the supercharges that produce those
representations ($s$ and $a$ stand for symmetric and antisymmetric product
respectively). For the B-branch we have the $SO^{*}\left( 32\right) \otimes
SO\left( 2,1\right) $ representations
\begin{eqnarray}
64 &=&\left( 32,2\right) , \label{B1} \\
2080 &=&\left( 1_{(32\cdot 32)_s},3_{\left( 2\cdot 2\right) _s}\right)
\,\,\,\,\oplus \left( 527_{(32\cdot 32)_s},3_{\left( 2\cdot 2\right)
_s}\right) \oplus \left( 496_{\left( 32\cdot 32\right) _a},1_{\left( 2\cdot
2\right) _a}\right) . \label{B2}
\end{eqnarray}
For the C-branch we have the $SO\left( 11,2\right) $ representations
\begin{equation}
64=64,\quad 2080=78\,\,(\tilde{J}_2)\oplus 286\,\,(\tilde{J}_3)\oplus
1716\,\,(\tilde{J}_6) \label{C1}
\end{equation}
where the $\tilde{J}_{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}$ , $\tilde{J}_{\tilde{M}_1\tilde{M}%
_2\tilde{M}_3}$, $\tilde{J}_{\tilde{M}_1\cdots \tilde{M}_6}$ are p-forms in
13D. The $\tilde{J}_p$ can be represented by p-products of 13D 64$\times 64$
gamma matrices. For $p=2,3,6$ these are 64$\times $64 symmetric matrices
that represent the 2080 components of $S_{\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{\beta}}$ in a
13D spinor basis. The A,B,C branches in this paper are related to the A,B,C
branches discussed in S-theory \cite{stheory}. The C branch provides a SO$%
\left( 11,2\right) $ covariant 13D interpretation for M-theory as we will
see with an explicit toy M-model.
\section{11D and 12D interpretations}
If SO$\left( 11,2\right) $ of the C-branch is interpreted as the conformal
group in 11-dimensions then one may re-classify all the generators as
representations of the Lorentz subgroups SO$\left( 10,1\right) \times
SO\left( 1,1\right) $ in 11-dimensions and 2-dimensions contained in 13D. To
do so, re-label the 13 dimensions with two sets, one in 10+1 and the other
in 1+1 dimensions, $\tilde{M}=\mu \oplus m$ where $\mu =0,1,\cdots ,10$ and $%
m=\left( +^{\prime },-^{\prime }\right) $, with the metric in the extra two
dimensions taken in a lightcone type basis $\eta ^{+^{\prime }-^{\prime
}}=-1 $. This conformal basis emerges naturally as one of the gauge choices
in two-time physics \cite{lifting} \cite{super2t} \cite{future} as will be
discussed later in this paper. The 64-spinor may be re-labelled as $Q_{%
\tilde{\alpha}}\sim Q_\alpha ^{1/2}\oplus S_\alpha ^{-1/2}$ with $\alpha $
denoting the 32-spinor in 11D and $\pm \frac 12$ denoting the two chiral
spinors in 2D. Then the generators $J^{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}$ of the conformal
group are identified as $J^{\mu \nu }$-SO$\left( 10,1\right) $ Lorentz
transformations, $J^{+^{\prime }\mu }\equiv P^\mu $ -translations, $%
J^{-^{\prime }\mu }\equiv K^\mu $ -special conformal transformations, and $%
J^{+^{\prime }-^{\prime }}\equiv D$ -dilatations. All the generators have
definite dimensions under the commutation relations with $D$ which generates
the SO$\left( 1,1\right) $ subgroup.
\begin{eqnarray}
D &=&1:\quad J^{+^{\prime }\mu }\equiv P^\mu ,\quad J^{+^{\prime }\mu \nu
}\equiv Z^{\mu \nu },\quad J^{+^{\prime }\mu _1\cdots \mu _5}\equiv Z^{\mu
_1\cdots \mu _5} \label{D1} \\
D &=&\frac 12:\quad Q_{\alpha \frac 12}\equiv Q_\alpha \label{D12} \\
D &=&0:\quad \left\{
\begin{array}{c}
J^{\mu \nu },\quad J^{+^{\prime }-^{\prime }}\equiv D,\quad \,J^{+^{\prime
}-^{\prime }\mu }\equiv J^\mu ,\,\,\quad J^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3},\,\, \\
J^{+^{\prime }-^{\prime }\mu _1\cdots \mu _4}\equiv J^{\mu _1\cdots \mu
_4},\,\,\quad J^{\mu _1\cdots \mu _6}\equiv \varepsilon ^{\mu _1\cdots \mu
_6\nu _1\cdots \nu _5}J_{\nu _1\cdots \nu _5}
\end{array}
\right\} \label{D0} \\
D &=&\frac{-1}2:\quad Q_{\alpha \frac{-1}2}\equiv S_\alpha \label{D-12} \\
D &=&-1:\quad J^{-^{\prime }\mu }\equiv K^\mu ,\quad J^{-^{\prime }\mu \nu
}\equiv \tilde{Z}^{\mu \nu },\quad J^{-^{\prime }\mu _1\cdots \mu _5}\equiv
\tilde{Z}^{\mu _1\cdots \mu _5} \label{D-1}
\end{eqnarray}
The dimensions $D=\pm 1,\pm \frac 12,0$ provide a 5-grading of the
superalgebra such that under the commutation rules the dimensions add $%
[X_{D_1},X_{D_2}\}\sim X_{D_1+D_2}$. If $D_1+D_2$ is not one of the
dimensions listed, the result of the commutator is zero. Then we see that
the $D\geq 0$ operators $J^{\mu \nu }$, $Q_\alpha ^{1/2}$, $P^\mu $, $Z^{\mu
\nu }$, $Z^{\mu _1\cdots \mu _5}$, form the M-algebra: the anti-commutator $%
\left\{ Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \right\} $ contains only the 528 generators $P^\mu
$, $Z^{\mu \nu }$, $Z^{\mu _1\cdots \mu _5}$ (D=1) which commute among
themselves and with $Q_\alpha ^{1/2}$ (D=1/2), while $J^{\mu \nu }$ (D=0)
generates the Lorentz transformations SO$\left( 10,1\right) $. Hence, the
11D M-algebra is contained in OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $ as a subalgebra
without considering any contractions!
OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $ is the smallest simple supergroup that includes the
M-algebra as a sub-algebra without resorting to contractions. As argued
above, if the special conformal generator $K^\mu $ is also included along
with the M-algebra, then all other generators of OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $
{\it must} also be included for consistency with the 5-grading and Jacobi
identities. Thus, conformal symmetry in 11D together with the M-algebra
demand OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $.
The 11D interpretation fits into the higher algebraic structures contained
in the A-branch (\ref{A}). The spinor decomposes as 64=32$^{1/2}\oplus
\overline{32}^{-1/2}$ under SU$^{*}\left( 32\right) \otimes SO\left(
1,1\right) $. Each 32-spinor corresponds to the fundamental representation
of Sp$^{*}\left( 32\right) \subset $SU$^{*}\left( 32\right) $ and
furthermore they are classified as real Weyl spinors of SO$\left(
10,2\right) $ of {\it same} chirality. This classification defines the
A-envelop of the 5-graded 11D superconformal algebra described above such
that 11D is embedded in 12D. One may then combine the 11D operators $J_\mu
\oplus J_{\mu \nu }\,$ into a 12D generator $J_{MN}$, and the 5-form $J_{\mu
_1\cdots \mu _5}$ may be written as a 6-form $J_{M_1\cdots M_6}$ that is
self-dual in 12D. The $J_{MN}$ form the SO$\left( 10,2\right) $ subgroup
listed in the A-branch, and together with the $J_{M_1\cdots M_6}$ they make
up the 528-adjoint of Sp$\left( 32\right) $. Similarly, the remaining
operators make up complete 12D representations, such as $P_1\oplus
Z_2=Z_{MN} $ and $Z_5=Z_{M_1\cdots M_6}^{+}$ and $J_3\oplus J_4=J_{M_1\cdots
M_4}$, etc. Finally all of these are put together as SU$^{*}\left( 32\right)
\otimes SO\left( 1,1\right) $ representations as in the first step of the
A-branch in (\ref{A1}-\ref{A2}). This shows that the operators $J_{MN}$, $%
Z_{MN},$ $Z_{M_1\cdots M_6}^{+},Q_\alpha $ which form a 12D envelop for the
M-algebra, as used in several applications of S-theory, also fit in the
two-time formalism given in this paper.
\section{Type-IIA, IIB, heterotic, type-I interpretations}
The 10D type-IIA version follows from re-classifying the 11D basis of (\ref
{D1}-\ref{D-1}) under SO$\left( 9,1\right) $ of 10D. The 32-spinor
supercharge $Q_\alpha ^{1/2}$ in 11D becomes the two opposite chirality
supercharges 16+$\overline{16}$ of type IIA. Similarly the 32-spinor of
special superconformal generator $S_\alpha ^{-1/2}$ becomes the two opposite
chirality special superconformal supercharges 16+$\overline{16}$ of type
IIA. The 11D M-algebra is rewritten trivially in 10D in the type IIA basis.
In the C/B-branch, the type-IIB version follows from re-classifying the
64-spinor of 13D as the spinor$\times $spinor of 10D$\oplus $3D, namely $Q_{%
\tilde{\alpha}}=Q_{\alpha a}\oplus S_{\dot{\alpha}a}$ where $\alpha ,\dot{%
\alpha}$ denote the real spinors 16,$\overline{16}$ of SO$\left( 9,1\right) $
and $a$ denotes the doublet spinor of SO$\left( 2,1\right) $. Both sets of
spinors $Q_{\alpha a}$, $S_{\dot{\alpha}a}$ are real, and there is no
relation between them via hermitian conjugation. The $Q_{\alpha a}$ play the
role of the two 10D supersymmetry generators of type IIB, while the two $S_{%
\dot{\alpha}a}$ play the role of the two 10D special superconformal
generators of type IIB. Similarly the vector of SO$\left( 11,2\right) $ is
decomposed by using $\tilde{M}=\bar{\mu}+\bar{m}$ with $\bar{\mu}=0,1,\cdots
,9$ and $\bar{m}=+^{\prime },-^{\prime },2^{\prime }$. The $\bar{m}=\pm
^{\prime }$ components are the same as the $\pm ^{\prime }$ components used
to reduce 13D to 11D, and the $2^{\prime }$ component is a re-naming of the
11th dimension in SO$\left( 10,1\right) $. The anti-commutators in the
superalgebra take the sketchy form
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{ Q_{\alpha a},Q_{\beta b}\right\} &=&P_{\bar{\mu}}^{\bar{m}}\oplus Z_{%
\bar{\mu}_1\cdots \bar{\mu}_5}^{\bar{m}}\oplus Z_{\bar{\mu}_1\bar{\mu}_2\bar{%
\mu}_3} \\
\left\{ S_{\dot{\alpha}a},S_{\dot{\beta}b}\right\} &=&\,K_{\bar{\mu}}^{\bar{m%
}}\oplus \tilde{Z}_{\bar{\mu}_1\cdots \bar{\mu}_5}^{\bar{m}}\oplus \tilde{Z}%
_{\bar{\mu}_1\bar{\mu}_2\bar{\mu}_3} \\
\left\{ Q_{\alpha a},S_{\dot{\beta}b}\right\} &=&D_{\bar{m}\bar{n}}\oplus J_{%
\bar{\mu}_1\bar{\mu}_2}^{\bar{m}}\oplus X_{\bar{\mu}_1\cdots \bar{\mu}_4}^{%
\bar{m}}\oplus \chi \oplus J_{\bar{\mu}_1\bar{\mu}_2}\oplus X_{\bar{\mu}%
_1\cdots \bar{\mu}_4}
\end{eqnarray}
The map between the 13D notation and the 10D+3D notation follows from $%
\tilde{M}=\bar{\mu}\oplus \bar{m}$
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_{\tilde{\alpha}} &\sim &Q_{\alpha a}\oplus S_{\dot{\alpha}a} \\
J_{\tilde{M}_1\tilde{M}_2} &\sim &J_{\bar{\mu}_1\bar{\mu}_2}\oplus \left( P_{%
\bar{\mu}}^{\bar{m}}+K_{\bar{\mu}}^{\bar{m}}\right) \oplus D_{\bar{m}_1\bar{m%
}_2} \\
J_{\tilde{M}_1\tilde{M}_2\tilde{M}_3} &\sim &\left( Z_{\bar{\mu}_1\bar{\mu}_2%
\bar{\mu}_3}-\tilde{Z}_{\bar{\mu}_1\bar{\mu}_2\bar{\mu}_3}\right) \oplus J_{%
\bar{\mu}_1\bar{\mu}_2}^{\bar{m}}\oplus \left( P_{\bar{\mu}}^{\bar{n}}-K_{%
\bar{\mu}}^{\bar{n}}\right) \varepsilon _{\bar{m}_1\bar{m}_2\bar{n}}\oplus
\chi \,\,\varepsilon _{\bar{m}_1\bar{m}_2\bar{m}_3} \\
J_{\tilde{M}_1\cdots \tilde{M}_6} &\sim &\varepsilon _{\bar{\mu}_1\cdots
\bar{\mu}_6\bar{\nu}_1\cdots \bar{\nu}_4}X^{\bar{\nu}_1\cdots \bar{\nu}%
_4}\oplus \left[ Z_{\bar{\mu}_1\cdots \bar{\mu}_5}^{\bar{m}}\oplus Z_{\bar{%
\mu}_1\cdots \bar{\mu}_5}^{\bar{m}}\right] \\
&&\oplus X_{\bar{\mu}_1\cdots \bar{\mu}_4}^{\bar{n}}\varepsilon _{\bar{m}_1%
\bar{m}_2\bar{n}}\oplus \left( Z_{\bar{\mu}_1\bar{\mu}_2\bar{\mu}_3}+\tilde{Z%
}_{\bar{\mu}_1\bar{\mu}_2\bar{\mu}_3}\right) \varepsilon _{\bar{m}_1\bar{m}_2%
\bar{m}_3}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\oplus $ is direct sum, but $\pm $ imply ordinary addition or
subtraction, $\varepsilon _{\bar{m}_1\bar{m}_2\bar{m}_3}$ is the SO$\left(
2,1\right) $ invariant Levi-Civita tensor, and $Z_{\bar{\mu}_1\cdots \bar{\mu%
}_5}^{\bar{m}}$, $\tilde{Z}_{\bar{\mu}_1\cdots \bar{\mu}_5}^{\bar{m}}$ are
self-dual and anti self-dual respectively in 10D.
The SO$\left( 9,1\right) $ generators are $J_{\bar{\mu}_1\bar{\mu}_2}$ and
the SO$\left( 2,1\right) $ generators are $D_{\bar{m}\bar{n}}$. The
operators labelled with $\bar{m}$ are triplets of SO$\left( 2,1\right) $
while the others are singlets. The singlet operator $\chi $ is written in
terms of the 13D operators as $\chi =J^{+^{\prime }-^{\prime }2^{\prime }}$.
Its commutation rules with the 64 spinors $Q_{\tilde{\alpha}}$ is $\left[
\chi ,Q_{\tilde{\alpha}}\right] \sim \left( \Gamma ^{+^{\prime }-^{\prime
}2^{\prime }}Q\right) _{\tilde{\alpha}}$. Since one may write $\Gamma
^{+^{\prime }-^{\prime }2^{\prime }}$= $\Gamma ^{01\cdots 9}$ for 64$\times $%
64 gamma matrices \cite{stheory}, the operator $\chi $ acts like the
chirality operator on the 10D spinors $Q_{\alpha a}$, $S_{\dot{\alpha}a}$.
Therefore $\chi $ provides a 5-grading for the OSp$\left( 1/64\right) \,$%
operators based on their 10D chirality
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi &=&1:\quad P_1^1\oplus Z_5^1\oplus Z_3 \label{c1} \\
\chi &=&\frac 12:\quad Q_{\alpha a} \label{c12} \\
\chi &=&0:\quad \chi \oplus D^2\oplus J_2\oplus J_2^1\oplus X_4\oplus X_4^1
\label{c0} \\
\chi &=&\frac{-1}2:S_{\dot{\alpha}a}\quad \label{c-12} \\
\chi &=&-1:\quad K_1^1\oplus \tilde{Z}_5^1\oplus \tilde{Z}_3 \label{c-1}
\end{eqnarray}
The bosonic generators $P_1^1,Z_5^1$ etc. are labelled by numbers in the
subscripts and superscripts $Z_p^q$ that correspond to $p$-forms in 10D and $%
q$-forms in 3D respectively. So the commutation rules for OSp$\left(
1/64\right) $ may be written in a graded chirality basis in the form $%
[X_{\chi _1},X_{\chi _2}\}=X_{\chi _1+\chi _2}$. If the chirality $\chi
_1+\chi _2$ does not exist the result of the commutator is zero. The $\chi
\geq 0$ operators $J_2$, $D^2$, $\chi ,$ $Q_{\alpha a},$ $P_1^1,$ $Z_5^1,$ $%
Z_3$ define the B-algebra. The chirality grading shows that $P_1^1,Z_5^1,Z_3$
commute with each other as well as with $Q_{\alpha a}$, while the SO$\left(
9,1\right) \otimes $SO$\left( 2,1\right) \otimes $U$\left( 1\right) $
subgroup, consisting of $J_2$, $D^2$, $\chi $, map the operators $Q_{\alpha
a},$ $P_1^1,$ $Z_5^1,$ $Z_3$ into themselves.
We have established that the B-algebra, that is essential for understanding
M-theory in a IIB basis, is included in OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $ as a
subalgebra without any contractions. Furthermore, since it fits into the
C-branch it is consistent with the SO$\left( 11,2\right) $ symmetry of
two-time physics and the idea that the 10D+3D basis is arrived at as a gauge
choice in two-time physics. Indeed this is true in the toy M-model discussed
later.
These C-branch 13D$=$10D+3D results intersect the B-branch 10D+3D basis as
can be seen by the following larger classification under the B-branch (\ref
{B}) that include the envelops SU$^{*}\left( 16\right) \times U\left(
1\right) $ and SO$^{*}\left( 32\right) \times U\left( 1\right) $%
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( 496,1\right) &=&\left[ \chi \oplus \left( J_2\oplus X_4\right)
\right] _{\left( 16\times \overline{16}\right) \left( 2\times 2\right)
_a}\oplus \left( Z_3\right) _{\left( 16\times 16\right) _a\left( 2\times
2\right) _a}\oplus \left( \tilde{Z}_3\right) _{\left( \overline{16}\times
\overline{16}\right) _a\left( 2\times 2\right) _a} \\
\left( 1,3\right) &=&\left( D^2\right) _{\left( 16\times \overline{16}%
\right) _s\left( 2\times 2\right) _s} \\
\left( 527,3\right) &=&\left( P_1^1\oplus Z_2^1\oplus Z_5^1\right) _{\left(
16\times 16\right) s\left( 2\times 2\right) _s}\oplus \left( K_1^1\oplus
\tilde{Z}_2^1\oplus \tilde{Z}_5^1\right) _{\left( \overline{16}\times
\overline{16}\right) _s\left( 2\times 2\right) _s} \\
&&\oplus \left( J_2^1\oplus X_4^1\right) _{\left( 16\times \overline{16}%
\right) \left( 2\times 2\right) _s} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The products of SO$\left( 9,1\right) \otimes $ SO$\left( 2,1\right) $ spinor
representations $Q=\left( 16,2\right) $ and $S=\left( \overline{16},2\right)
$ that produce the various 10D and 3D forms are indicted. The SU$^{*}\left(
16\right) \otimes U\left( 1\right) $ subgroup of SO$^{*}\left( 32\right) $
is generated by $\left( J_2\oplus X_4\right) \oplus \chi $. The forms in
independent parentheses $\left( \cdots \right) $ correspond to irreducible
representations under SU$^{*}\left( 16\right) \otimes SO\left( 2,1\right)
\otimes U\left( 1\right) $. Their collection in each line correspond to SO$%
^{*}\left( 32\right) \otimes SO\left( 2,1\right) $ representations as given
in (\ref{B2}). The $496$ is the adjoint representation of SO$^{*}\left(
32\right) $ and the $527$ is the symmetric traceless tensor of SO$^{*}\left(
32\right) $. These 2080 generators form the algebra of Sp$\left( 64\right) $.
It was shown in \cite{IIB} that the B-algebra may be written in an SL$\left(
2,Z\right) $ (U-duality) basis instead of the spacetime SO$\left( 2,1\right)
=$SL$\left( 2,R\right) $ basis given above. These two bases are related to
each other by a deformation that involves the IIB string coupling constant $%
z=a+ie^{-\phi }$ (axion and dilaton moduli), and its SL$\left( 2,Z\right) $
properties $z^{\prime }=\left( az+b\right) /\left( cz+d\right) $. The
deformed B-algebra may be used to perform certain non-perturbative
computations at any value of the string coupling constant (see \cite{IIB}).
The entire superalgebra OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $ may be rewritten in the SL$%
\left( 2,Z\right) $ basis by following the prescription in \cite{IIB}.
Therefore the observations in S-theory in a IIB basis may now be interpreted
as observations in the two-time physics version of M-theory taken in a
particular gauge.
The 10D A and B bases are obviously related to each other since they both
occur in the C-branch. The map between these two corresponds to a
rearrangement of the 64 fermions that are in the spinor representation of SO$%
\left( 11,2\right) $. This map is clearly related to T-duality as discussed
in \cite{stheory}, and in the present context of two-time physics it is
interpreted as just a gauge transformation from one fixed gauge to another
fixed gauge.
The heterotic and type-I superalgebras in 10D are then obtained as in \cite
{stheory} from the IIB sector, either by setting one of the two
16-supercharges $Q_{\alpha a}$ to zero (heterotic) or by their
identification (type I). This is possible because one can work in a OSp$%
\left( 1/64\right) $ representation space labelled by the commuting
operators $P_{\bar{\mu}}^{\bar{m}}\oplus Z_{\bar{\mu}_1\cdots \bar{\mu}_5}^{%
\bar{m}}\oplus Z_{\bar{\mu}_1\bar{\mu}_2\bar{\mu}_3}$. The heterotic or
type-I sectors may be viewed as BPS-like sectors in which some of these
charges are related to each other as discussed in the second paper in \cite
{stheory}.
\section{AdS$_n\otimes S^m$ bases}
In the C-branch, starting with SO$\left( 11,2\right) $ one can come down to
the basis labelled by the subgroups SO$\left( 3,2\right) \otimes $SO$\left(
8\right) $ or to SO$\left( 6,2\right) \otimes $SO$\left( 5\right) $ , which
are the isometries of the spaces AdS$_4\times $S$^7$ and AdS$_7\times $S$^4$
respectively. The reduction is obtained by rewriting the 13D label $\tilde{M}%
=\hat{\mu}\oplus \hat{m},$ where $\hat{\mu}$, $\hat{m}$ are labels for the
vectors of SO$\left( 3,2\right) ,$SO$\left( 8\right) $ or SO$\left( 5\right)
,$SO$\left( 6,2\right) $. Also, the 64-spinor is rewritten in 32+32 form $Q_{%
\tilde{\alpha}}=\psi _{\hat{\alpha}a}^{+}\oplus \psi _{\hat{\alpha}\dot{a}%
}^{-}.$ Each 32=4$\times $8 since $\hat{\alpha}$ denotes the 4-spinor for Sp$%
\left( 4\right) \sim SO\left( 3,2\right) $ or SO$\left( 5\right) ,$ and $a,%
\dot{a}$ denote the two spinors 8$_{\pm }$ for SO$\left( 8\right) $ or SO$%
\left( 6,2\right) $. For SO$\left( 3,2\right) \otimes $SO$\left( 8\right) $
both $\psi _{\hat{\alpha}a}^{+}$ and $\psi _{\hat{\alpha}\dot{a}}^{-}$ are
real since the corresponding spinors are real. Hence, they each have 32 real
and independent components. For SO$\left( 5\right) \otimes $SO$\left(
6,2\right) $ they are in a complex basis since the 4 and the 8$_{\pm }$ are
pseudo-real. However, the pseudo-reality condition still gives 32 real and
independent components in each of the $\psi _{\alpha a}^{+},\psi _{\alpha
\dot{a}}^{-}$. The anti-commutators in the superalgebra take the sketchy
form
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{ \psi _{\hat{\alpha}a}^{+},\psi _{\hat{\beta}b}^{+}\right\} &=&J_{%
\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}}^{+}\oplus J_{+}^{\hat{m}\hat{n}}\oplus X_{\hat{\mu}}^{+%
\hat{m}\hat{n}}\oplus X_{\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}}^{+\hat{m}_1\cdots \hat{m}_4}
\label{osp132+} \\
\left\{ \psi _{\hat{\alpha}\dot{a}}^{-},\psi _{\hat{\beta}\dot{b}%
}^{-}\right\} &=&J_{\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}}^{-}\oplus J_{-}^{\hat{m}\hat{n}%
}\oplus X_{\hat{\mu}}^{-\hat{m}\hat{n}}\oplus X_{\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}}^{-\hat{m%
}_1\cdots \hat{m}_4} \\
\left\{ \psi _{\hat{\alpha}a}^{+},\psi _{\hat{\beta}\dot{b}}^{-}\right\}
&=&Y^{\hat{m}}\oplus Y^{\hat{m}_1\hat{m}_2\hat{m}_3}\oplus Y_{\hat{\mu}}^{%
\hat{m}}\oplus Y_{\hat{\mu}}^{\hat{m}_1\hat{m}_2\hat{m}_3} \\
&&\oplus Y_{\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}}^{\hat{m}}\oplus Y_{\hat{\mu}_1\hat{\mu}_2}^{%
\hat{m}_1\hat{m}_2\hat{m}_3}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The map to the 13D operators $\tilde{J}_{2,3,6}$ can be easily established
through $\tilde{M}=\hat{\mu}\oplus \hat{m}.$ The $X_{\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}%
}^{\pm \hat{m}_1\cdots \hat{m}_4}$ are self or anti-self dual in the
8-dimensions labelled by $m$. The operators $\psi _{\hat{\alpha}a}^{\pm }$, $%
J_2^{\pm },$ $J_{\pm }^2,$ $X_1^{\pm 2},$ $X_2^{\pm 4}$ form OSp$\left(
1/32\right) _{\pm }$ sub-supergroups, but OSp$\left( 1/32\right) _{+}$ does
not commute with OSp$\left( 1/32\right) _{-}$ since $\left\{ \psi _{\hat{%
\alpha}a}^{+},\psi _{\hat{\beta}\dot{b}}^{-}\right\} $ is not zero. However,
OSp$\left( 1/64\right) \supset $ OSp$\left( 1/32\right) _{+}\otimes $Sp$%
\left( 32\right) _{-}$. The generators $J_2^{\pm }\oplus J^{\pm 2}$ form SO$%
\left( 3,2\right) _{\pm }\otimes SO\left( 8\right) _{\pm }$ or SO$\left(
5\right) _{\pm }\otimes SO\left( 6,2\right) _{\pm }$ subgroups embedded in
each of the Sp$\left( 32\right) _{\pm }$. How is OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $
superalgebra related to the familiar AdS$\times S$ supersymmetries OSp$%
\left( 8/4\right) $ or OSp$\left( 6,2/4\right) $ ? These are not
sub-supergroups of OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $. From our analysis it can be
seen that OSp$\left( 8/4\right) $ or OSp$\left( 6,2/4\right) $ , which
includes $\psi _{\hat{\alpha}a}^{+},J_2^{+},$ $J_{+}^2$, gets enlarged by
the addition of the non-Abelian operators $X_1^{+2},X_2^{+4}$ into OSp$%
\left( 1/32\right) _{+}$ (it is not possible to set these operators to zero
naively since they are non-Abelian and they cannot be simultaneously
diagonalized in a quantum theory). In turn, OSp$\left( 1/32\right) _{+}$ is
the sector of OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $ that is a singlet under Sp$\left(
32\right) _{-}$.
We speculate that if the CFT-AdS conjecture \cite{maldacena} corresponds to
a corner of M-theory then the enlargement of the superalgebra probably does
occur on the CFT side from the point of view of the N=8 Super Yang-Mills
theory in 3D. The symmetry of this theory in perturbation theory to all
orders is OSp$\left( 8/4\right) $. As shown in \cite{super2t}, by taking the
SO$\left( 3,2\right) $ indices $\hat{\mu}=$ $\mu ,\pm ^{\prime }$ and $\psi
_{\hat{\alpha}a}^{+}\sim Q_{\alpha a}^{1/2}\oplus S_{\alpha a}^{-1/2}$, the
conformal supersymmetry of the AdS$_4\times S^7$ background can be rewritten
in the compact form of Eq.(\ref{osp132+}), excluding the $X_1^{+2}$ and $%
X_2^{+4}$ $\,$generators. How can one see the enlargement to OSp$\left(
1/32\right) _{+}$? One begins with non-perturbative field configurations
that turn on the central extensions $\left\{ Q_{\alpha a}^{1/2},Q_{\beta
b}^{1/2}\right\} \sim X_{\hat{\mu}=+^{\prime }}^{+\hat{m}\hat{n}}$; then the
conformal symmetry $K_\mu $ requires all $X_{\hat{\mu}=-^{\prime }}^{+\hat{m}%
\hat{n}}$, $X_{\hat{\mu}=\mu }^{+\hat{m}\hat{n}},$ and their non-Abelian
nature generates $X_{\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}}^{+\hat{m}_1\cdots \hat{m}_4}$, thus
completing the OSp$\left( 1/32\right) _{+}$ superalgebra of Eq.(\ref{osp132+}%
). This argument shows that the inclusion of non-perturbative physics in the
AdS$_4\times $S$^7$ background could be described by the Sp$\left( 32\right)
_{-}$-singlet sector of OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $. The singlet sector can
arise as a result of a contraction that would be related to the limits \cite
{maldacena} one must take to establish the AdS-CFT correspondance.
Similarly, in the C-branch, starting with SO$\left( 11,2\right) $ we can
come down to a 12D$^{\prime }$ basis by separating the 13th spacelike
dimension $\tilde{M}=M\oplus 1^{\prime }$. This gives 64=32$_L+32_R$ where 32%
$_{L,R}$ are the two SO$^{\prime }\left( 10,2\right) $ spinors $\psi ^L$, $%
\psi ^R$ of {\it opposite} chirality (contrast 12D$^{\prime }$ to the 12D of
the A-branch which gave {\it same} chirality). Next we separate 12D$^{\prime
}$=6D+6D so that SO$^{\prime }\left( 10,2\right) \rightarrow SO\left(
6,2\right) \otimes SO\left( 6\right) $ which is the isometry group of the AdS%
$_5\times S^5$ space. Consider the 32$_L$ real components $\psi _{\alpha
a}^L $ written in the $\left( 4,4\right) $ complex spinor basis with $\alpha
$ and $a$ denoting the complex 4 spinors of SU$\left( 2,2\right) =SO\left(
4,2\right) $ and SU$\left( 4\right) =SO\left( 6\right) $ respectively. Since
the basis is complex we need to consider the hermitian conjugates $\left(
\psi _{\alpha a}^{L,R}\right) ^{\dagger }\equiv \bar{\psi}_{\dot{\alpha}\dot{%
a}}^{L,R}$ where $\dot{\alpha}$ and $\dot{a}$ denote the complex \={4}
spinors. Then the 12D$^{\prime }$ basis of OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $ is
reduced to the 6D+6D basis and it takes the following sketchy form
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{ \psi _{\alpha a}^L,\bar{\psi}_{\dot{\beta}\dot{b}}^L\right\} &\sim
&J_2^L\oplus J_L^2\oplus J_L\oplus X_2^{L2},\quad \\
\left\{ \psi _{\alpha a}^L,\psi _{\beta b}^L\right\} &\sim &Z_1^{L1}\oplus
Z_3^{L3},\,\,\quad and\,\,\,\,\,h.c. \\
\left\{ \psi _{\alpha a}^R,\bar{\psi}_{\dot{\beta}\dot{b}}^R\right\} &\sim
&J_2^R\oplus J_R^2\oplus J_R\oplus X_2^{R2},\quad \\
\left\{ \psi _{\alpha a}^R,\psi _{\beta b}^R\right\} &\sim &Z_1^{R1}\oplus
Z_3^{R3},\,\,\quad \,and\,\,\,\,h.c., \\
\left\{ \psi _{\alpha a}^L,\bar{\psi}_{\dot{\beta}\dot{b}}^R\right\} &\sim
&Y_2\oplus Y^2\oplus Y\oplus Y_2^2,\quad and\,\,\,h.c. \\
\left\{ \psi _{\alpha a}^L,\psi _{\beta b}^R\right\} &\sim &W_1^1\oplus
W_1^3\oplus W_3^1\oplus W_3^3,\,\,\quad and\,\,\,\,h.c.
\end{eqnarray}
where the generators $J_p^q,X_p^q,Y_p^q,Z_p^q,W_p^q$ are labelled with
numbers in subscripts or superscripts that are SO$\left( 4,2\right) $
p-forms or SO$\left( 6\right) $ q-forms, and $h.c.$ stand for hermitian
conjugate relations. The map to the 13D operators $\tilde{J}_{2,3,6}$ can be
easily established through the reduction $\tilde{M}=\tilde{\mu}\oplus \tilde{%
m}\oplus 1^{\prime }$ where $\tilde{\mu},\tilde{m}$ are labels for the
vectors of SO$\left( 4,2\right) ,$SO$\left( 6\right) $.
$J_2^L\oplus J_L^2$ generate SU$\left( 2,2\right) \otimes SU\left( 4\right) $
which is the isometry of AdS$_5\times S^5,$ i.e. SO$\left( 4,2\right)
\otimes SO\left( 6\right) \subset SO^{\prime }\left( 10,2\right) $. The
supersymmetry algebra in this background is $SU(2,2/4)$. What is the
relation of $OSp(1/64)$ and $SU(2,2/4)$? As before, this is not a
sub-supergroup. Again, upon the inclusion of the charges $J_L\oplus
X_2^{L2}\oplus Z_1^{L1}\oplus Z_3^{L3}$ it can be seen that $SU(2,2/4)$ is
enlarged into $OSp(1/32)_L$ as in the first two lines of the equations above
(see also \cite{craps} \cite{ferrara}). Then we see that SU$\left(
1/64\right) \supset OSp(1/32)_L\otimes Sp\left( 32\right) _R$ and the sector
that is singlet under $Sp\left( 32\right) _R$ is described by $OSp(1/32)_L$.
If one starts with the superconformal N=4 super Yang-Mills theory in 4D, the
perturbative symmetry is SU$\left( 2,2/4\right) $. By including central
extensions that correspond to non-perturbative backgrounds such as monopoles
and dyons one turns on the central charge $Z_{+^{\prime }}^{L\tilde{m}}$
which is part of $Z_1^{L1}$. Conformal symmetry requires the full $Z_1^{L1}$
and its hermitian conjugate $\left( Z_1^{L1}\right) ^{\dagger }$. Their
commutators generate all the other remaining charges to complete the OSp$%
(1/32)_L$ superalgebra. Thus the inclusion of non-perturbative physics in
the AdS$_5\times $S$^5$ background could be described by the Sp$\left(
32\right) _R$-singlet sector of OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $. The singlet sector
can arise as a result of a contraction that may be related to the limits
\cite{maldacena} one must take to establish the AdS-CFT correspondance.
\section{Toy M-Model, cousins of kappa symmetry}
Our ideas can be dynamically illustrated with a toy M-model on the worldline
with a new set of gauge symmetries. The main point is that in this model the
various dual bases described above emerge naturally by making appropriate
gauge choices within the same theory. Conversely, one can transform one
basis to another dual basis by making gauge transformations, thus imitating
duality in M-theory. Here we only outline the general structure of such a
model, leaving the details to a future paper \cite{future}. Similar
structures could be constructed for any group $G$ and a choice of subgroup $%
H $ as outlined at the end of \cite{super2t}.
Consider the supergroup $G=$OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $ with the subgroup $H=$SO%
$\left( 11,2\right) $. Let $X_i^{\tilde{M}}=(X^{\tilde{M}},P^{\tilde{M}})$
represent position / momentum SO$\left( 11,2\right) $ vectors. The $0$-brane
vectors $X_i^{\tilde{M}}\left( \tau \right) $ form an Sp$\left( 2\right) $
doublet. Sp$\left( 2\right) $ is gauged by including the gauge potentials $%
A^{ij}\left( \tau \right) $. This gauge symmetry introduces first class
constraints whose solution requires two-timelike dimensions as explained in
\cite{lifting}. In addition, consider the 65$\times 65$ matrix which is a
group element $g\left( \tau \right) \in $OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $. It is a
singlet under Sp$\left( 2\right) $. The subgroup $H=$SO$\left( 11,2\right) $
acting simultaneously on the {\it left side} of $g$ and on the vectors $X_i^{%
\tilde{M}}$ is gauged. The gauge potential is $\Omega ^{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}%
}\left( \tau \right) $. With this information we can write covariant
derivatives as in \cite{super2t}
\begin{eqnarray}
D_\tau X_i^{\tilde{M}} &=&\partial _\tau X_i^{\tilde{M}}-\varepsilon
_{ik}A^{kj}X_i^{\tilde{M}}-\Omega ^{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}X_{i\tilde{N}}\,, \\
D_\tau g &=&\partial _\tau g-\frac 14\Omega ^{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}\left(
\Gamma _{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}g\right) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Consider the part of the Cartan connection $\left( D_\tau g\right) g^{-1}$
restricted to the subgroup $H$%
\begin{equation}
\left( D_\tau gg^{-1}\right) _H=\frac 1{32}Str\left( \Gamma _{\tilde{M}%
\tilde{N}}\,D_\tau gg^{-1}\right) =\frac 1{32}Str\left( \Gamma _{\tilde{M}%
\tilde{N}}\,\partial _\tau gg^{-1}\right) -\Omega _{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}
\end{equation}
A Lagrangian that is invariant under the gauge symmetry Sp$\left( 2\right)
\times SO\left( 11,2\right) $ is given by
\begin{equation}
\pounds =\frac 12\,\varepsilon ^{ij}D_\tau X_i^{\tilde{M}}X_j^{\tilde{N}%
}\eta _{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}+\frac 12\left[ \left( D_\tau gg^{-1}\right)
_H\right] ^2+\frac 12\left( \varepsilon ^{ij}X_i^{\tilde{M}}X_j^{\tilde{N}%
}\right) ^2.
\end{equation}
This action is invariant under the {\it global} symmetry OSp$\left(
1/64\right) $ that acts {\it linearly} on the {\it right side} of $g\left(
\tau \right) $. On the left side of $g\left( \tau \right) $ the evident
symmetry is smaller $H$=SO$\left( 11,2\right) $ because of the presence of $%
\Omega $, but as we will see there is a much bigger local symmetry that is
realized non-linearly. Thus the model is realized in the C-branch OSp$\left(
1/64\right) $. As we saw above, the C-branch contains all the interesting
spacetime interpretations at its intersections with the A and B branches and
with the OSp$\left( 1/32\right) $ branch.
The group element $g\left( \tau \right) $ can be written in the form $g=ht$
where $h\in H$ and $t\in G/H$. We can use the $H=SO\left( 11,2\right) $
gauge symmetry to choose a unitary gauge by eating away $h\left( \tau
\right) $. Using the equations of motion (or doing the path integral) one
may solve for $\Omega _{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}=\tilde{\Omega}_{\tilde{M}\tilde{N%
}}+L_{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}$ , with $\tilde{\Omega}_{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}=\frac
1{32}Str\left( \Gamma _{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}\partial _\tau tt^{-1}\right) $
and substitute back into the action to find the version of the action given
in \cite{super2t}
\begin{equation}
\pounds =\,\partial _\tau X_1\cdot X_2-A^{ij}X_i\cdot X_j-\frac
1{32}Str\left( \Gamma _{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}\partial _\tau tt^{-1}\right) L^{%
\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}.
\end{equation}
where $L_{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}=\varepsilon ^{ij}X_i^{\tilde{M}}X_j^{\tilde{N}%
}=X^{\tilde{M}}P^{\tilde{N}}-X^{\tilde{N}}P^{\tilde{M}}$ is the orbital
angular momentum in 13D. A total derivative has been dropped in the first
term of $\pounds $. With this we see that the canonical formalism gives $%
X_1^M=X^M$ as the position and $X_2^{\tilde{M}}=P^{\tilde{M}}$ as the
momentum of the 13D zero-brane.
We parametrize $t\left( a\left( \tau \right) ,\Theta \left( \tau \right)
\right) $ it terms of 64 fermionic $\Theta _{\tilde{\alpha}}\left( \tau
\right) $ and 286+1716 bosonic $a_{\tilde{M}_1\tilde{M}_2\tilde{M}_3}\left(
\tau \right) ,$ $a_{\tilde{M}_1\cdots \tilde{M}_6}\left( \tau \right) $
degrees of freedom that correspond to 13D p-forms with p=3,6. As described
in \cite{super2t}, the global symmetry $g\subset $OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $
acts on the {\it right side} of $t\left( \tau \right) $ and it must be
compensated by a field dependent, gauge restoring transformation $%
h^{-1}\left( a,\Theta ;g\right) $ on the left side
\begin{equation}
t\left( a,\Theta \right) \rightarrow t\left( a^{\prime },\Theta ^{\prime
}\right) =h^{-1}t\left( a,\Theta \right) g\,\,.
\end{equation}
$h\left( \tau \right) $ acts as a field dependent SO$\left( 11,2\right) $
gauge transformation on $\tilde{\Omega}^{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}\left( a,\Theta
\right) $ and $X_i^{\tilde{M}}$. The action remains invariant because it was
built as a gauge invariant under SO$\left( 11,2\right) $ and globally
invariant under OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $.
The action in this gauge involves the following fields on the worldline $%
X_i^{\tilde{M}}\left( \tau \right) ,$ $A^{ij}\left( \tau \right) ,$ $%
a_3\left( \tau \right) ,$ $a_6\left( \tau \right) ,$ $\Theta \left( \tau
\right) $. The $X_i^{\tilde{M}}\left( \tau \right) ,\Theta ^{\tilde{\alpha}%
}\left( \tau \right) $ may be interpreted as the 13D superspace of two-time
physics as in \cite{super2t}, however the bigger dimensions in the present
case, as opposed to the 3,4,6D cases of \cite{super2t}, require the extra
bosonic degrees of freedom $a_3,a_6$. From the superalgebra point of view
these are closely associated with the $p$-brane charges $\tilde{J}_3,\tilde{J%
}_6$ of the C-branch, hence the $a_p$ may be thought of as the $\tau $%
-component of $\left( p+1\right) $-form gauge potentials $A_{p+1}$ for $%
p=3,6 $.
There is also additional local symmetry beyond SO$\left( 11,2\right) $ that
originates with transformations on the left side of $t\left( a,\Theta
\right) $ with fermionic as well as bosonic parameters $b_3(\tau ),b_6\left(
\tau \right) ,\kappa ^{\tilde{\alpha}}\left( \tau \right) $ that form a
generalization of kappa supersymmetry. The transformation is
\begin{equation}
t\left( a,\Theta \right) \rightarrow t\left( a^{^{\prime \prime }},\Theta
^{^{\prime \prime }}\right) =h^{-1}t\left( b,\kappa \right) \,t\left(
a,\Theta \right) ,
\end{equation}
where again $h\left( b,\kappa ;a,\Theta \right) $ is the induced local
Lorentz transformation. For infinitesimal $b,\kappa $ we have $%
t=1_{65}+b_3\Gamma ^3+b_6\Gamma ^6+\kappa _{\tilde{\alpha}}F^{\tilde{\alpha}%
} $ where $\Gamma ^{3,6}$ and $F^{\tilde{\alpha}}$ are 65$\times 65$
matrices that provide representations of the generators of $G/H$. Then we
find that the Lagrangian is invariant under these additional gauge
symmetries provided the parameters $\kappa ,b_3,b_6$ are constrained by the
following relations (where $\sim X_i\cdot X_j$ means proportional up to
field dependent functions with appropriate indices)
\begin{equation}
L_{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}\left( \Gamma ^{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}\kappa \right) _{%
\tilde{\alpha}}\sim L_{[\tilde{M}_1}^{\,\,\tilde{N}}b_{\tilde{M}_2\tilde{M}%
_3]\tilde{N}}\sim L_{[\tilde{M}_1}^{\,\,\tilde{N}}b_{\tilde{M}_2\cdots
\tilde{M}_6]\tilde{N}}\sim X_i\cdot X_j.
\end{equation}
The left side looks like Lorentz transformations on $\kappa ,b_3,b_6$ with a
Lorentz parameter $L_{\tilde{M}\tilde{N}}$ . Then the part proportional to $%
X_i\cdot X_j$ is cancelled by choosing $\delta A^{ij}$ so that \pounds\ is
invariant (see \cite{super2t} for an explicit example). These gauge
symmetries are more than sufficient to remove the ghosts in $\Theta ,a_3,a_6$
associated with the extra timelike dimension in 13D. We will call these
gauge symmetries ``extended kappa symmetries''.
We may now make various gauge choices for Sp$\left( 2\right) ,$ SO$\left(
11,2\right) $, and extended kappa symmetries, that are manifestly covariant
under various spacetime interpretations (one-time) as discussed in the
purely algebraic discussion in the first part of this paper. To do this we
reorganize the degrees of freedom $X_i^{\tilde{M}}\left( \tau \right) ,$ $%
a_3\left( \tau \right) ,$ $a_6\left( \tau \right) ,$ $\Theta _{\tilde{\alpha}%
}\left( \tau \right) $ according to the representations of the various
subgroups of SO$\left( 11,2\right) $ as we did for the generators of OSp$%
\left( 1/64\right) $. Some of the pieces of $X_i,a_3,a_6,\Theta $ are set to
zero or constants by gauge fixing. Then part of OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $ is
realized linearly on the remaining degrees of freedom and the remainder is
realized non-linearly. For such examples in simpler cases
without supersymmetry see \cite{lifting}
and with supersymmetry see \cite{super2t}. This discussion
makes it evident that we can choose gauges that would realize the 11D
M-algebra, the 10D type IIA, type IIB, heterotic, type-I supersymmetries, or
the superalgebras describing the $AdS_n\times S^m$ backgrounds. These gauge
choices provide different looking toy models that have the supersymmetries
of the various corners of the moduli space of M-theory \cite{future}. Since
they are all derived from the same unified 13D theory by gauge choices, they
can be transformed into each other by gauge transformations that correspond
to dualities in M-theory.
The toy M-model given here has a much richer set of possible gauge choices
along the lines of \cite{lifting} that tie together systems such as free
particles, Hydrogen atom, harmonic oscillators, curved spaces, and even
non-relativistic systems with more general potentials, etc. This suggests
that M-theory may have similar properties. It appears that M-theory could be
lifted to two-time physics with a global symmetry OSp$\left( 1/64\right) $.
We are hopeful that M-theory will be better understood by studying it
covariantly in 13D in the formalism of two-time physics in the presence of
various gauge degrees of freedom and new gauge symmetries of the type
described here.
|
\section{Introduction}
It will be one of the primary goals of a future $e^+e^-$ linear
collider (LC) or $\mu^+\mu^-$ pair collider (FMC) to measure and
determine
the properties of the top quark, whose existence has been confirmed at
the Tevatron ($M_t=173.8\pm 5$~GeV~\cite{Vancouver1}). Although the
top quark will also be object
of intense studies at the Run II at the Tevatron and at the LHC, the
measurements at a LC are important to fill the gaps left by the
measurements in the environment of the hadron colliders. One of the
most dramatic improvements attainable at a LC can be expected in
the determination of the top quark mass. At the LHC, where the mass
is extracted from the peak in the top invariant mass spectrum of the
$W$ and $b$ originating from the top decay, a final
(systematics-dominated) top mass uncertainty at the level of
2--3~GeV seems realistic.
More precision will be difficult owing to
unavoidable conceptual and practical problems and ambiguities in
disentangling the top quark invariant mass from numerous effects in
the environment of hadron colliders.
At a LC the top quark mass can be determined from a
measurement of the line-shape of the total cross section
$\sigma(e^+e^-\to Z^*,\gamma^*\to t\bar t)$ for centre-of-mass
energies around the threshold, $\sqrt{q^2}\approx 350$~GeV. The rise
of the cross section with increasing centre-of-mass energy is
directly correlated to the mass of the top quark. Because the total
cross section describes the rate of colour singlet top-antitop events,
it is theoretically and practically much better under control than the
top quark invariant mass distribution.
Because of the large top width
($\Gamma(t\to b\,W)= \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{M_t^3}{8 \pi}\approx
1.5\,\mbox{GeV}$) the top-antitop pair cannot hadronize into toponium
resonances, and the cross section represents a smooth line-shape
showing only a moderate peak-like enhancement, which is the broad
remnant of the $1S$ resonance. At the same time the top width
effectively serves as an infrared cutoff~\cite{Fadin1} and as a natural
smearing mechanism~\cite{Poggio1}, which allows us to calculate the cross
section in the threshold region to high precision using perturbative
QCD. It is therefore possible to reliably relate the cross
section line-shape to the parameters of the Standard Model, most
notably the top quark mass and the strong coupling. LC simulation
studies have demonstrated that for 50--100~$fb^{-1}$ total integrated
luminosity an experimental uncertainty of order 100--200~MeV can be
expected in the top mass determination from a line-shape scan of the
total cross section~\cite{Orange1}. Evidently, at this level of
precision an adequate control over theoretical uncertainties has to be
achieved. In particular, a precise definition of the top mass
extracted from the experiment has to be given.
For centre-of-mass energies close to the top-antitop threshold, the top
quarks are produced with non-relativistic velocities $v\ll
1$. Therefore the relevant physical scales, which govern the
top-antitop dynamics, the top mass $M_t$, the relative momentum $M_t
v$ and the top kinetic energy $M_t v^2$, are widely separated. Because
ratios of the three scales arise, the cross section close to threshold
cannot be calculated using the standard multi-loop expansion in the
strong coupling $\alpha_s$, but rather a double expansion in $\alpha_s$
and $v$. In the non-relativistic limit the most prominent indication of
this feature is known as the ``Coulomb singularity'', which originates
from the ratio $M_t/(M_t v)$. The Coulomb singularity is visible as a
singular $(\alpha_s/v)^n$
behaviour in the $n$-loop QCD correction to the amplitude $\gamma\to
t\bar t$ for $v\to 0$. The most economic and systematic way to tackle
this problem is to employ the concept of effective theories by using the
hierarchy $M_t\gg M_t v\gg M_t v^2 > \Gamma_t\gg\Lambda_{QCD}$ and by
successively integrating out higher momentum effects. At leading order
(LO) and next-to-leading order (NLO) in the non-relativistic
expansion\footnote{
We will define what is meant by LO, NLO, NNLO, etc., in the
framework of the non-relativistic expansion at the beginning of
Sec.~\ref{sectionNRQCDstable}.
},
the use of effective field theoretical methods seems not to be vital,
because, clearly, in the first approximation the top-antitop pair can
be described by a non-relativistic Schr\"odinger
equation~\cite{Fadin1,Fadin2} and
because, luckily, the relevant current operators do not have any
anomalous dimension at the one-loop level. Beyond NLO, however,
anomalous
dimensions arise when relativistic effects suppressed by $v^2$ are
included. This
makes the use of effective field theoretical methods mandatory. In
addition, the effective field theoretical approach allows for the
development of a power counting scheme, which allows for a systematic
identification of all effects contributing to a certain order of
approximation. Those power counting rules in fact confirm that at
next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) the top-antitop pair can be
completely described by a conventional
Schr\"odinger equation containing an instantaneous potential.
In general, the same conclusions cannot be drawn for non-relativistic
bottom-antibottom or charm-anticharm systems.
A large number of theoretical studies at LO and
NLO~\cite{Strassler1,Kwong1,Jezabek1,Sumino1,japaner}
have been carried out in
the past in order to study the feasibility of the threshold scan and
other measurements at the top-antitop threshold.
Recently, first NNLO QCD calculations for the total
vector-current-induced cross section $\sigma(e^+e^-\to \gamma^*\to
t\bar t)$ have
been performed in Refs.~\cite{Hoang3,Melnikov3,Yakovlev1}.
These analyses were
based on non-relativistic quantum chromodynamics
(NRQCD)~\cite{Caswell1,Bodwin1} and on the direct matching
procedure~\cite{Hoang1,Hoang2}.
In this work we extend the calculations and also determine the
NNLO QCD relativistic corrections to the top quark three-momentum
distribution. Interconnection effects caused by gluon exchange
among top-antitop decay and production processes are not considered in
this work. They are known to vanish at NLO for the total cross
section~\cite{Khoze1,Khoze2,Melnikov1}, but can lead to sizeable
corrections in the
momentum distribution~\cite{Harlander1,Sumino2}. We also include the
total cross section and
the three-momentum distribution induced by the axial-vector current.
Because the latter quantities are suppressed by $v^2$ with respect to
the vector-current-induced ones, we only determine them at leading
order in the non-relativistic expansion. It turns out that the size of
the axial-vector contributions is smaller than the theoretical
uncertainties contained in the dominant vector-current-induced cross
section. A discussion on the size of the axial-vector-current-induced
contributions can also be found in~\cite{Kuehn1}.
The three-momentum distributions presented in this work represent a
first step towards an exclusive treatment of
the top-antitop final state at NNLO close to threshold.
We analyse in detail the origin of the large NNLO corrections to the
peak position and the normalization in the total cross section already
observed in Refs.~\cite{Hoang3,Melnikov3,Yakovlev1}, and show that the
instabilities in the
peak position are a consequence of the use of the pole mass scheme.
We show that the pole mass parameter is irrelevant to the peak
position and define a new top quark mass, the $1S$ mass, which is
more suitable to parametrize the total cross section. Whereas the
$1S$ mass leads to a considerable stabilization of the peak position
it does not affect the large corrections to the normalization.
In this paper
we also propose a NNLO generalization of the energy replacement rule
``$E\to E+i \Gamma_t$'', by Fadin and Khoze, for the implementation of
the top quark
width by including electroweak corrections into the matching
conditions of NRQCD. In general this leads to
NRQCD short-distance coefficients that have an imaginary part.
The program of this paper is as follows:
in Sec.~\ref{sectionNRQCDstable} we review the conceptual framework of
the effective theories NRQCD and potential (P) NRQCD as far as it is
relevant to the NNLO calculations carried out in this work.
Section~\ref{sectionlippmannschwinger} contains a derivation of the
integral equations that have to be solved and
Sec.~\ref{sectionregularization} describes our cutoff regularization
scheme.
In Secs.~\ref{sectionNRQCDstable}, \ref{sectionlippmannschwinger} and
\ref{sectionregularization} the top quark width is neglected.
In Sec.~\ref{sectionwidth} we discuss the effects of the top quark
width from the point of view of (P)NRQCD. Some details about our
numerical methods to solve the integral equations are given in
Sec.~\ref{sectionnumerics}. A first analysis of the total cross section
and the three momentum distribution in the pole mass scheme is given in
Sec.~\ref{sectionpolescheme}. Section~\ref{sectionuncertainties}
concentrates on the origin and interpretation of the large NNLO
corrections in the pole mass scheme and introduces the $1S$
mass. The relation of the $1S$ mass to other mass definitions is
discussed. Section~\ref{sectionconclusion} contains our
conclusions. In
Appendix~\ref{appendixshortdistance}, details of the NNLO matching
calculation are given in the framework of our regularization scheme.
\vspace{1.5cm}
\section{The Conceptual Framework - NRQCD and PNRQCD}
\label{sectionNRQCDstable}
In this section we review the effective field theories NRQCD
and PNRQCD, which form the conceptual framework in which
the NNLO corrections to the top-antitop cross section close to
threshold are calculated. By N$^k$LO ($k=0,1,2,\ldots$)
for the total cross section we mean a resummation of all terms
proportional to $\alpha_s^m v^n$, with $m+n=1,\ldots,k+1$, in
perturbation
theory in $\alpha_s$ supplemented by a subsequent expansion in the
top quark velocity, i.e. in the limit $\alpha_s\ll v\ll 1$.
Thus at the NNLO level all terms proportional to
$v\sum_{n=0}^\infty(\alpha_s/v)^n [ 1; \alpha_s, v; \alpha_s^2,
\alpha_s v, v^2 ]$ have to be resummed to all orders in conventional
perturbation theory in $\alpha_s$, where the dominant terms in the
non-relativistic limit are determined by a non-relativistic
Schr\"odinger equation with a Coulomb potential $V({\mbox{\boldmath
$r$}})=- C_F \alpha_s/r$, $C_F=4/3$.
In this context one has to count the strong coupling $\alpha_s$ of
order $v$, as long as the renormalization scale is much larger than
the typical hadronization scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$. For simplicity we
postpone the effects of the top quark width until
Section~\ref{sectionwidth}.
NRQCD~\cite{Caswell1,Bodwin1} is an effective field theory of QCD
specifically
designed to handle non-relativistic heavy quark-antiquark
systems. NRQCD is based on the separation of the low momentum scales
$M_t v$ and $M_t v^2$, which govern the non-relativistic quark-antiquark
dynamics, from the high momentum scale $M_t$, which is relevant for hard
effects involved in the quark-antiquark production process and
quark-antiquark and quark-gluon interactions. The NRQCD Lagrangian for
the top-antitop system is obtained from QCD by integrating out all
hard quark and gluon momenta of order $M_t$ or larger, and the
corresponding antiparticle poles of the small components. Treating
all quarks except the top as massless, the resulting
non-renormalizable Lagrangian reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
{\cal{L}}_{\mbox{\tiny NRQCD}} \, = \,
- \frac{1}{2} \,\mbox{Tr} \, G^{\mu\nu} G_{\mu\nu}
+ \sum_{q=u,d,s,c,b} \bar q \, i \mathpalette\make@slash{D} \, q
}\nonumber\\& &
+\, \psi^\dagger\,\bigg[\,
i D_t
+ c_2\,\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}^2}{2\,M_t}
+ c_4\,\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}^4}{8\,M_t^3}
+ \ldots
\nonumber\\[2mm] & &
\hspace{8mm}
+ \frac{c_F\,g_s}{2\,M_t}\,{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}\cdot
{\mbox{\boldmath $B$}}
+ \, \frac{c_D\,g_s}{8\,M_t^2}\,(\,{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}\cdot
{\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}\cdot
{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}\,)
+ \frac{c_S\,g_s}{8\,M_t^2}\,i\,{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}\,
(\,{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}\times
{\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}\times
{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}\,)
+\ldots
\,\bigg]\,\psi
\nonumber\\[2mm] & &
+\, \chi^\dagger\,\bigg[\,
i D_t
- c_2\,\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}^2}{2\,M_t}
- c_4\,\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}^4}{8\,M_t^3}
+ \ldots
\nonumber\\[2mm] & &
\hspace{8mm}
- \frac{c_F\,g_s}{2\,M_t}\,{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}\cdot
{\mbox{\boldmath $B$}}
+ \, \frac{c_D\,g_s}{8\,M_t^2}\,(\,{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}\cdot
{\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}\cdot
{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}\,)
+ \frac{c_S\,g_s}{8\,M_t^2}\,i\,{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}\,
(\,{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}\times
{\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $E$}}\times
{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}\,)
+\ldots
\,\bigg]\,\chi
\,,
\label{NRQCDLagrangian}
\end{eqnarray}
where only those terms are displayed explicitly which are relevant to
the NNLO calculations in this work. The gluonic and light quark
degrees of freedom are described by the
conventional relativistic Lagrangian, where $G^{\mu\nu}$ is the gluon
strength field tensor, $q$ the Dirac spinor of a massless quark.
The non-relativistic top and antitop
quark are described by the Pauli spinors $\psi$ and $\chi$,
respectively. For convenience all colour indices are suppressed and
summations over colour indices are understood.
$D_t$ and {\boldmath $D$} are the time and space components of the
gauge covariant derivative $D_\mu$, and $E^i = G^{0 i}$ and $B^i =
\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{i j k} G^{j k}$ the electric and magnetic
components of the gluon field strength tensor.
The short-distance coefficients $c_2,c_4,c_F,c_D,c_S$ are normalized to one
at the Born level. The subscripts $F$, $D$ and $S$ stand for Fermi,
Darwin and spin-orbit.
We emphasize that the mass parameter $M_t$ used for the formulation of
NRQCD is the top quark pole mass. Although it is known that
this choice can lead to a bad behaviour of the perturbative
coefficients at large orders, the pole mass is still the most
convenient mass
parameter to be used at this stage, because the formulation of NRQCD is
particularly simple in this scheme.
In addition to integrating out hard quark and gluon momenta and the
small components in the QCD
Lagrangian one also has to do the same in
the vector ($j_\mu^v=\bar t\gamma_\mu t$) and
the axial-vector currents ($j_\mu^a=\bar t\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 t$),
which produce and annihilate the top-antitop pair close to
the threshold with centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{q^2}$. This means that we have
to expand the respective QCD currents
in terms of NRQCD currents carrying the proper quantum numbers. In
momentum space representation the expansion of the
QCD vector current in terms of ${}^3\!S_1$ NRQCD currents reads ($k=1,2,3$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde j_k^v(q) & = & c^v_1\,\Big({\tilde \psi}^\dagger \sigma_k
\tilde \chi\Big)(q) -
\frac{c^v_2}{6 M_t^2}\,\Big({\tilde \psi}^\dagger \sigma_k
(\mbox{$-\frac{i}{2}$}
\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}})^2
\tilde \chi\Big)(q) + \ldots
\,,
\label{vectorcurrentexpansion1}
\\
\tilde j_k^v(-q) & = & c^v_1\,\Big({\tilde \chi}^\dagger \sigma_k
\tilde \psi\Big)(-q) -
\frac{c^v_2}{6 M_t^2}\,\Big({\tilde \chi}^\dagger \sigma_k
(\mbox{$-\frac{i}{2}$}
\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}})^2
\tilde \psi\Big)(-q) + \ldots
\,,
\label{vectorcurrentexpansion2}
\end{eqnarray}
and the expansion of the QCD axial-vector current in terms of
${}^3\!P_1$ NRQCD currents
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde j_k^a(q) & = & \frac{c^a_1}{M_t}\,\Big({\tilde \psi}^\dagger
(\mbox{$-\frac{i}{2}$}
\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}\!\!
\times{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}})_k
\tilde \chi\Big)(q) + \ldots
\,,
\label{axialvectorcurrentexpansion1}
\\
\tilde j_k^a(-q) & = & \frac{c^a_1}{M_t}\,\Big({\tilde \chi}^\dagger
(\mbox{$-\frac{i}{2}$}
\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}\!\!
\times{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}})_k
\tilde \psi\Big)(-q) + \ldots
\,,
\label{axialvectorcurrentexpansion2}
\end{eqnarray}
where the constants $c^v_{1,2}$ and $c^a_1$ are the short-distance
coefficients normalized to one at the Born level.
The time components of the currents do not contribute because the
trace over the massless lepton fields that describe the
$e^+e^- $ annihilation process is proportional to
$(\delta^{ij}-e^i e^j)$, $(e^1,e^2,e^3)$ being the unit-vector
pointing into the centre-of-mass electron direction. In addition, the
zero component of the vector current vanishes. The dominant NRQCD
current in the expansion of the QCD vector current has dimension
three. Thus for a NNLO description of the cross section we have to expand
the QCD vector current in NRQCD currents up to dimension five.
The QCD axial-vector current only needs to be expanded up to dimension
four. For the NNLO calculation of the cross section only the
${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$ short-distance corrections to the coefficient
$c^v_1$ have to be calculated.
To formulate the total $t\bar t$ production cross sections in $e^+e^-$
annihilation in the non-relativistic region at NNLO
in NRQCD, we first define the vector and axial-vector-current-induced
cross sections using the optical theorem and starting from their
corresponding expressions in full QCD:
\begin{eqnarray}
R^v(q^2) & = &
\frac{4\,\pi}{q^2}\,\mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
-i\,\int\,d^4x\,e^{i\,q.x}\,
\langle\, 0\,| T\,j^v_i(x) \, j^{v\,i}(0)\, |\, 0\,\rangle\,\bigg]
\nonumber\\[2mm] & \equiv &
\frac{4\,\pi}{q^2}\,\mbox{Im}\,[\,-i\,
\langle\, 0\,| T\, \tilde j^v_i(q) \,
\tilde j^{v\,i}(-q)\, |\, 0\,\rangle\,]
\,,
\label{vectorcrosssectioncovariant}
\\[3mm]
R^a(q^2) & = &
\frac{4\,\pi}{q^2}\,\mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
-i\,\int\,d^4x\,e^{i\,q.x}\,
\langle\, 0\,| T\,j^a_i(x) \, j^{a\,i}(0)\, |\, 0\,\rangle\,\bigg]
\nonumber\\[2mm] & \equiv &
\frac{4\,\pi}{q^2}\,\mbox{Im}\,[\,-i\,
\langle\, 0\,| T\, \tilde j^a_i(q) \,
\tilde j^{a\,i}(-q)\, |\, 0\,\rangle]
\,.
\label{axialvectorcrosssectioncovariant}
\end{eqnarray}
In terms of $R^v$ and $R^a$ the total cross section
$\sigma_{tot}^{\gamma,Z}(e^+e^-\to \gamma^*, Z^*\to t\bar t)$ reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{tot}^{\gamma,Z}(q^2) & = &
\sigma_{pt}\, \bigg[\,
Q_t^2 -
2\,\frac{q^2}{q^2-M_Z^2}\,v_e\,v_t\,Q_t +
\bigg(\frac{q^2}{q^2-M_Z^2}\bigg)^2\,
\Big[ v_e^2+a_e^2 \Big]\,v_t^2
\,\bigg]\,R^v(q^2)
\nonumber \\[2mm] & &
+\,\sigma_{pt}\,\bigg(\frac{q^2}{q^2-M_Z^2}\bigg)^2\,
\Big[ v_e^2 + a_e^2 \Big]\,a_t^2\,R^a(q^2)
\,,
\label{totalcrossfullQCD}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{pt} & = & \frac{4\,\pi\,\alpha^2}{3\,q^2}
\,,
\\[3mm]
v_f & = & \frac{T_3^f - 2\,Q_f\,\sin^2\theta_W}{2\, \sin\theta_W
\,\cos\theta_W}
\,,
\\[2mm]
a_f & = & \frac{T_3^f}{2\, \sin\theta_W\, \cos\theta_W}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Here,
$\alpha$ is the fine structure constant, $Q_t=2/3$ the electric
charge of the top quark, $\theta_W$ the Weinberg angle, and $T_3^f$
refers to the third component of the weak isospin;
$Q_t^2 R^v$ is equal to the
total normalized photon-induced cross section, which is usually
referred to as the $R$-ratio.
To determine $R^v$ and $R^a$ at NNLO in NRQCD we
insert the expansions in
Eqs.~(\ref{vectorcurrentexpansion1})--(\ref{axialvectorcurrentexpansion2})
into Eqs.~(\ref{vectorcrosssectioncovariant}) and
(\ref{axialvectorcrosssectioncovariant}).
This leads to the expressions
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\mbox{\tiny NNLO}}^{v,\mbox{\tiny thr}}(q^2) & = &
\frac{4\,\pi}{q^2}\,C^v\,
\mbox{Im}\Big[\,
{\cal{A}}^v(q^2)
\,\Big]
+ \ldots
\,,
\label{vectorcrosssectionexpanded}
\\[3mm]
R_{\mbox{\tiny NNLO}}^{a,\mbox{\tiny thr}}(q^2) & = &
\frac{4\,\pi}{q^2}\,C^a\,
\mbox{Im}\Big[\,
{\cal{A}}^a(q^2)
\,\Big]
+ \ldots
\,,
\label{axialvectorcrosssectionexpanded}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal{A}}^v & = & i\,\Big\langle \, 0 \, \Big|
\, \Big({\tilde\psi}^\dagger \vec\sigma \, \tilde \chi
+ \frac{1}{6 M_t^2} {\tilde\psi}^\dagger \vec\sigma \,
(\mbox{$-\frac{i}{2}$}
\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}})^2
\tilde \chi
\Big)\,
\, \Big({\tilde\chi}^\dagger \vec\sigma \, \tilde \psi
+ \frac{1}{6 M_t^2}{\tilde\chi}^\dagger \vec\sigma \,
(\mbox{$-\frac{i}{2}$}
\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}})^2
\tilde \psi
\Big)\,
\Big| \, 0 \, \Big\rangle
\,,
\label{correlatorV}
\\[2mm]
{\cal{A}}^a & = & i\,\Big\langle \, 0 \, \Big|
\, \Big({\tilde\psi}^\dagger
(\mbox{$-\frac{i}{2}$}
\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}\!\!
\times{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}) \, \tilde \chi \Big)\,
\, \Big({\tilde\chi}^\dagger
(\mbox{$-\frac{i}{2}$}
\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}}\!\!
\times{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}) \, \tilde \psi \Big)\,
\Big| \, 0 \, \Big\rangle
\,,
\label{correlatorA}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
C^v & = & (c_1^v)^2
\,,
\label{Cvdef}
\\[2mm]
C^a & = & 1
\,.
\label{Cadef}
\end{eqnarray}
The expressions for $R^v$ and $R^a$ at NNLO in the non-relativistic
expansion
in Eqs.~(\ref{vectorcrosssectionexpanded}) and
(\ref{axialvectorcrosssectionexpanded}) represent an application of
the factorization formalism proposed by Bodwin, Braaten and
Lepage~\cite{Bodwin1}. The cross sections are written as a sum of
absorptive
parts of non-relativistic current correlators, each of which is
multiplied by a short-distance coefficient. The vector correlator
${\cal{A}}^v$ describes the top-antitop system produced in an S-wave
spin triplet state and the axial-vector correlator ${\cal{A}}^a$
describes the system in a corresponding P-wave triplet state.
The axial vector-current-induced cross section is suppressed by $v^2$
with respect to the vector-current-induced cross section. We note
that the
correlators are defined within a proper regularization scheme.
For convenience we have not expanded ${\cal{A}}^v$ into a sum of a
dimension six and a dimension eight current correlator.
The short distance coefficients $C^v$ and $C^a$ encode the effects
of quark and gluon momenta of order the top mass or larger in
top-antitop production and annihilation vertex diagrams. As the
non-relativistic correlators they are
regularization-scheme-dependent. In principle the non-relativistic
correlators ${\cal{A}}^v$
and ${\cal{A}}^a$ could be calculated from the Feynman rules derived
from the NRQCD Lagrangian~(\ref{NRQCDLagrangian}). Such a task,
however, would be quite cumbersome, because an infinite number of
diagrams would still have to be resummed. Clearly, we would like to
derive an
equation of motion for the off-shell top quark four point Green
function, which in the non-relativistic limit reduces to the well known
Schr\"odinger equation, which automatically carries out the resummation
of the relevant diagrams. A formal and systematic way to achieve that
is to also integrate out top quark and gluon modes carrying momenta
of the order the inverse Bohr radius $\sim M_t v$. The resulting
effective field theory is called ``potential NRQCD''
(PNRQCD)~\cite{Pineda1}. The basic ingredient to construct PNRQCD is to
identify the relevant physical momentum regions in the description of
heavy quark-antiquark systems in the framework of NRQCD. Those
momentum regions have been
identified in Ref.~\cite{Beneke1} by constructing an asymptotic
expansion of
Feynman diagrams describing heavy quark-antiquark production or
annihilation close to threshold in terms of the heavy quark
centre-of-mass velocity. Because NRQCD is not Lorentz-covariant, the
time and the spatial components of the momenta have to be treated
independently. There are momentum regions where time and spatial
components are of a different order in the velocity counting. The
relevant momentum regions are ``soft'' ($k^0\sim
M_t v$, $\vec k\sim M_t v$), ``potential'' ($k^0\sim M_t v^2$, $\vec
k\sim M_t v$) and ``ultrasoft'' ($k^0\sim M_t v^2$, $\vec k\sim M_t
v^2$). It can be shown that heavy quarks and gluons can have soft and
potential momenta, but only gluons can have ultrasoft momenta.
A momentum region with $k^0\sim M_t v$, $\vec k\sim M_t v^2$
does not exist. It is in principle not excluded that there are
momentum regions scaling like $M_t v^n$ with $n > 2$, but even if such
regions existed they would be irrelevant to top quark production
because they would represent modes below the hadronization scale.
To construct PNRQCD one integrates out ``soft'' heavy
quarks and gluons ($k^0\sim M_t v$, $\vec k\sim M_t v$) and
``potential'' gluons ($k^0\sim M_t v^2$, $\vec k\sim M_t
v$), supplemented by an expansion in momentum components of
order $M_t v^2$. Heavy quarks carrying potential momenta
and gluons with ultrasoft momenta are kept as dynamical
fields. This leads to spatially non-local four (heavy) quark
operators which represent a coupling of a quark-antiquark pair
separated by distances of order of the Bohr radius $\sim 1/M_t v$. For a
quark-antiquark pair in a colour singlet state this
non-local interaction is nothing else than the instantaneous potential
of a quark-antiquark separated by a distance of order the inverse Bohr
radius. Generically the PNRQCD Lagrangian has the form
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal{L}}_{\mbox{\tiny PNRQCD}} & = &
\tilde{\cal{ L}}_{\mbox{\tiny NRQCD}} \, + \,
\int d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $r$} \Big(\psi^\dagger \psi\Big)
(\mbox{\boldmath $r$})\,V(\mbox{\boldmath $r$})\,
\Big(\chi^\dagger \chi\Big)(0)
\,,
\label{PNRQCDLagrangian}
\end{eqnarray}
where the tilde above ${\cal{ L}}_{\mbox{\tiny NRQCD}}$ on the RHS of
Eq.~(\ref{PNRQCDLagrangian}) indicates that the corresponding
operators only describe potential quark and ultrasoft gluonic
degrees of freedom. In addition, an expansion in momentum components
$\sim M_t v^2$ is understood. $V$ is the heavy quark-antiquark
potential and is given below. Using the velocity counting rules for
potential heavy quarks mentioned above we see that the LO contribution
to $V$, the Coulomb potential $-C_F\alpha_s/|\mbox{\boldmath $r$}|$,
counts as $v^2$, i.e. it is of the same order as the kinetic energy.
Thus, as is well known, in the non-relativistic limit, the Coulombic
interaction between the heavy
quark pair has to be treated exactly rather than perturbatively.
We note that the expansion of the heavy quark currents in
terms of NRQCD currents (Eqs.~(\ref{vectorcurrentexpansion1}
)--(\ref{axialvectorcurrentexpansion2}))
is in general also affected by going from
NRQCD to PNRQCD, because also in the NRQCD currents soft and
potential gluonic degrees of freedom have to be integrated
out. However, at NNLO this does not affect the results displayed in
Eqs.~(\ref{vectorcurrentexpansion1}) and
(\ref{axialvectorcurrentexpansion2}). The only (and fortunate)
practical consequence is that we can neglect the gluonic contribution
in the covariant derivatives.
Collecting all terms from the PNRQCD Lagrangian which contribute at NNLO,
i.e. count as $v^2$, $v^3$ or $v^4$, one can derive the following
equation of motion in momentum space representation for the Green
function of the time-independent
Schr\"odinger equation, valid at NNLO in the non-relativistic expansion:
\begin{equation}
\bigg[\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t} -
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^4}{4M_t^3}
\,-\,\bigg(\,
\frac{p_0^2}{M_t} - \frac{p_0^4}{4 M_t^3}
\,\bigg)
\,\bigg]\,
\tilde G(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime;q^2) \,+\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\,\pi)^3}\,
\tilde V(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
\tilde G(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime,\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime;q^2)
\, = \,
(2\,\pi)^3\,\delta^{(3)}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime)
\,,
\label{NNLOSchroedinger}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde V(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime) & = &
\tilde V_c(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime) +
\tilde V_{\mbox{\tiny BF}}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},
\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime) +
\tilde V_{\mbox{\tiny NA}}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}-
\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime)
\,,
\label{NNLOpotential}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
p_0^2 & = & \frac{q^2}{4} - M_t^2
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The parameter
$p_0$ is equal to the centre-of-mass three-momentum of the top quarks.
We have chosen this rather unusual representation for the energy
parameter since it greatly simplifies, because of its symmetric form
in Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}), the analytic matching calculations we
carry out in App.~\ref{appendixshortdistance}. The same trick has
already been used in~\cite{Hoang2} and later in
\cite{Hoang3,Melnikov3,Yakovlev1}. It is a non-trivial
fact that the PNRQCD operators, which describe
interactions of the heavy quarks with ultrasoft gluons, do not
contribute at NNLO, and that a conventional two-body Schr\"odinger
equation with an instantaneous potential is fully capable of resumming all
terms $\propto\alpha_s^m v^n$ that belong to NNLO. We come back to
this issue at the end of this section.
The individual potentials in momentum space representation read
($a_s\equiv\alpha_s(\mu)$, $C_A=3$, $C_F=4/3$,
$T=1/2$,
$\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}\equiv\mbox{\boldmath $k$}-\mbox{\boldmath
$k$}^\prime$):
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde V_c(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & = &
-\,\frac{4\,\pi\,C_F\,a_s}{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}\,
\bigg\{\, 1 +
\Big(\frac{a_s}{4\,\pi}\Big)\,\Big[\,
-\beta_0\,\ln\Big(\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{\mu^2}\Big) + a_1
\,\Big]
\nonumber\\[2mm] & & \quad
+ \Big(\frac{a_s}{4\,\pi}\Big)^2\,\Big[\,
\beta_0^2\,\ln^2\Big(\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{\mu^2}\Big)
- \Big(2\,\beta_0\,a_1 +
\beta_1\Big)\,\ln\Big(\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{\mu^2}\Big)
+ a_2
\,\Big]
\,\bigg\}
\,,
\label{NNLOCoulomb}
\\[3mm]
\tilde V_{\mbox{\tiny BF}}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},
\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime) & = &
\frac{\pi\,C_F\,a_s}{M_t^2} +
\frac{4\,\pi\,C_F\,a_s}{M_t^2}\,
\bigg[\,
\mbox{\boldmath $S_t$}\mbox{\boldmath $S_{\bar t}$} -
\frac{(\mbox{\boldmath $Q$\boldmath $S_t$})
(\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}\mbox{\boldmath $S_{\bar t}$})}
{\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}^2}
\,\bigg]
\nonumber \\[2mm] & &
-\,\frac{\pi\,C_F\,a_s}{M_t^2}\,
\bigg[\,
\frac{(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}+\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime)^2}
{\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}^2} -
\frac{(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2-{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime}^2)^2}
{\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}^4}
\,\bigg]
\nonumber\\[2mm] & &
+\,6\,i\,\frac{\pi\,C_F\,a_s}{M_t^2}\,
\frac{(\mbox{\boldmath $S_t$}+\mbox{\boldmath $S_{\bar t}$})
(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}\times\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime)}{\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}^2}
\label{NNLOBF}
\,,\\[3mm]
\tilde V_{\mbox{\tiny NA}}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & = &
-\,\frac{\pi^2\,C_A\,C_F\,a_s^2}{M_t\,|\mbox{\boldmath $k$}|}
\,,
\label{NNLONA}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\mbox{\boldmath $S_t$}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $S_{\bar t}$}$
are the top and antitop spin operators and ($n_l=5$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_0 & = & \frac{11}{3}\,C_A - \frac{4}{3}\,T\,n_l
\,,
\nonumber\\[2mm]
\beta_1 & = & \frac{34}{3}\,C_A^2
-\frac{20}{3}C_A\,T\,n_l
- 4\,C_F\,T\,n_l
\,,
\nonumber\\[2mm]
a_1 & = & \frac{31}{9}\,C_A - \frac{20}{9}\,T\,n_l
\,,
\nonumber\\[2mm]
a_2 & = &
\bigg(\,\frac{4343}{162}+4\,\pi^2-\frac{\pi^4}{4}
+\frac{22}{3}\,\zeta_3\,\bigg)\,C_A^2
-\bigg(\,\frac{1798}{81}+\frac{56}{3}\,\zeta_3\,\bigg)\,C_A\,T\,n_l
\nonumber\\[2mm] & &
-\bigg(\,\frac{55}{3}-16\,\zeta_3\,\bigg)\,C_F\,T\,n_l
+\bigg(\,\frac{20}{9}\,T\,n_l\,\bigg)^2
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The constants $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ are the one- and two-loop
coefficients of the QCD beta function and $\gamma=0.577216\ldots\,$
is the
Euler constant; $V_c$ is the Coulomb (static) potential. Its
${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s)$ and ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections, which
come from loops carrying soft momenta, have
been determined in~\cite{Fischler1,Billoire1} and
\cite{Schroeder1,Peter1},
respectively.\footnote{
The constant $a_2$ was first calculated in Ref.~\cite{Peter1}.
In Ref.~\cite{Schroeder1} an error in the coefficient of the term
$\propto \pi^2 C_A^2$ was corrected.
}
$V_{\mbox{\tiny BF}}$ is the Breit-Fermi potential known from
positronium. It describes the Darwin and the spin-orbit interactions
mediated by longitudinal gluons and the hyperfine
interactions mediated by transverse gluons in the potential momentum
region. Then, $V_{\mbox{\tiny NA}}$ is a purely non-Abelian potential
generated (in Coulomb gauge) through a non-analytic term in a soft
momentum one-loop vertex correction to the Coulomb potential involving
the triple gluon vertex~\cite{Gupta1,Gupta2} (see also
Ref.~\cite{Kummer1}).
We have already noted that it is a non-trivial fact that ultrasoft
gluons do not contribute at NNLO, which means that a common
two-body Schr\"odinger equation, i.e. a wave equation containing an
instantaneous interaction potential, is indeed capable of resumming all
the terms that we count as NNLO.
Although this is a well accepted fact for positronium and the
hydrogen atom in QED~\cite{Bethe1}, it is not at all trivial to
understand, even in the QED
case, if one has to rely on arguments that are not in the framework of
(P)NRQCD. In QED the corrections caused by ultrasoft photons are known
as retardation effects. The Lamb shift in hydrogen is the most famous
example.
Based on the identification of the various momentum regions for
quarks and gluons mentioned above, however, one has transparent
power counting rules at hand; these show that the non-instantaneous
exchange of gluons among the top quarks does not lead to any effects
at NNLO. For the validity of the argument it is important that the
scale $M_t v^2$ is much larger than the typical
hadronization scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$.\footnote{
Even for energies very close to threshold, the scale $M_t v^2$ cannot
become smaller than $\Gamma_t$ since the dominant effect of the top
width is to effectively shift the energy into the positive complex
plane by an amount $\Gamma_t$ (see Section~\ref{sectionwidth}).
}
To see that retardation effects are suppressed by at least three powers
of $v$ with respect to the non-relativistic limit (LO), we recall that
the only source of non-instantaneous interactions in PNRQCD are
the ultrasoft gluons, for which all momentum components are of order
$M_t v^2$. In addition, only transversely polarized gluons need to be
considered as ultrasoft, since we can work in the Coulomb gauge
where the time component of the longitudinal gluons vanishes. Thus, an
exchange of an ultrasoft gluon among the heavy quark-antiquark pair is
already suppressed by $v^2$ with respect to LO from the coupling of
transverse gluons to the heavy quarks. To see that an additional power
of $v$ arises from the loop integration over the ultrasoft gluon
momentum, we compare the $v$-counting of the integration measure and
the gluon propagator for ultrasoft and potential momenta. In the
ultrasoft case, the product of the integration measure $d^4 k$ and the
gluon propagator $1/k^2$ counts as $v^8\times v^{-4}=v^4$, whereas in the
potential case the result reads $v^5\times v^{-2}=v^3$. Because the
potential momenta contribute at LO we find that the ultrasoft gluons
can indeed only lead to effects beyond NNLO. Even if the gluon self
coupling is taken into account, this conclusion remains true, because
it also leads to additional powers of $v$ if ultrasoft momenta are
involved. We note that in arbitrary gauge the conclusions are true
only after all gauge cancellations have been taken into account.
The relation $M_t v^2 \gg \Lambda_{QCD}$ is needed for the
above argumentation: otherwise, the coupling of ultrasoft gluons
to the heavy quarks or among themselves, $\alpha_s(M_t v^2)$, could be
of order $1$. Therefore our conclusion that retardation effects
do not contribute at NNLO would not be valid for the bottom
quark\footnote{
For the case of bottom-antibottom quark sum rules the conclusions
can, however, still be correct if the effective smearing range is
chosen larger than $\Lambda_{QCD}$.~\cite{Hoang5}
}
or even the charm quark case.
\vspace{1.5cm}
\section{Lippmann-Schwinger Equation}
\label{sectionlippmannschwinger}
The non-relativistic current correlators in the NRQCD factorization
formulae for the total top-antitop cross section close to threshold,
Eqs.~(\ref{vectorcrosssectionexpanded}) and
(\ref{axialvectorcrosssectionexpanded}), are directly related to the
Green function $\tilde G({\mbox{\boldmath $k$}},{\mbox{\boldmath
$k$}^\prime};q^2)$ of the Schr\"odinger
equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}), which describes off-shell elastic
scattering of a top-antitop pair with centre-of-mass three momentum
$\pm{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}$ into a top-antitop pair with three
momentum $\pm{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime}$. We emphasize that the
Green function does not describe the scattering of on-shell top quarks
because the common three-dimensional formulation in the form of the
Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}) already contains an implicit
integration over the zero-components of the momenta in the heavy quark
propagators. Because the heavy quark potential is energy-independent
this integration is trivial by residues. In the
first part of this section we give the relations of the current
correlators to the Green function in the three-dimensional
formulation.
In the second part, we present the generalization to four dimensions
for those results that are essential for a proper treatment
of the $W^+W^-b\bar b$ phase space once the top quark width is taken
into account. For this section we still assume that the top quark is
stable.
Taking into account the
partial wave decomposition of the Green function of the Schr\"odinger
equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger})
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde G({\mbox{\boldmath $k$}},{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime}) & = &
\sum_{l=0}^\infty
\tilde G^l({\mbox{\boldmath $k$}},{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime})
\,,
\label{Greenfunctiondecomposition}
\end{eqnarray}
where $l$ is the total angular momentum quantum number, we find the
following relation between the NRQCD non-relativistic current
correlators~(\ref{correlatorV}) and (\ref{correlatorA}) and the $S$
and $P$ wave contributions to $\tilde G$:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal{A}}^v(q^2) & = & N_c\,\mbox{Tr}
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\,
\bigg(1+\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{6 M_t^2}\bigg)
\tilde G^0({\mbox{\boldmath $k$}},{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime})\,
\bigg(1+\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime}^2}{6 M_t^2}\bigg)\,
\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}
\nonumber\\[2mm] & = &
6\,N_c\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\bigg(1+\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{6 M_t^2}\bigg)
\tilde G^0({\mbox{\boldmath $k$}},{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime})\,
\bigg(1+\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime}^2}{6 M_t^2}\bigg)\,
\,,
\nonumber
\label{correlatorGreenV}
\\[4mm]
{\cal{A}}^a(q^2) & = & N_c\,\mbox{Tr}
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}\times \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}{M_t}
\tilde G^1({\mbox{\boldmath $k$}},{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime})
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime\times \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}{M_t}
\nonumber\\[2mm] & = & 4\,N_c\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime}{M_t^2}\,
\tilde G^1({\mbox{\boldmath $k$}},{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime})
\,,
\label{correlatorGreenA}
\end{eqnarray}
where a proper UV regularization is understood.
For simplicity we have
dropped the energy argument of the Green function $\tilde G$.
In this work we use the Lippmann-Schwinger equation, the Fourier
transform of Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}) with respect to
$\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigg[\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t} -
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^4}{4M_t^3}
\,-\,\bigg(\,
\frac{p_0^2}{M_t} - \frac{p_0^4}{4 M_t^3}
\,\bigg)
\,\bigg]\,
G(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $x$})
\, = \,
\exp(i\,\mbox{\boldmath $k$}\mbox{\boldmath $x$})
\,-\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\,\pi)^3}\,
\tilde V(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
G(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime,\mbox{\boldmath $x$})
\,,
\label{LippmannSchwinger}
\end{eqnarray}
to derive integral equations for
$\tilde G^0$ and $\tilde G^1$, which are then solved numerically.
Using the partial
wave decomposition of $\exp(i\,\mbox{\boldmath $k$}\mbox{\boldmath
$x$})$
($k\equiv|\mbox{\boldmath $k$}|$, $x\equiv|\mbox{\boldmath $x$}|$):
\begin{equation}
\exp(i \,\mbox{\boldmath $k$}\mbox{\boldmath $x$}) \, = \,
\exp(i\, k\,x\,\cos\theta) \, = \,
\sum_{l=0}^\infty i^l\,(2\,l+1)\,j_l(k\,x)\,P_l(\cos\theta)
\,,
\end{equation}
where $j_l$ are the spherical Bessel functions
$j_l(x)=(-x)^l(\frac{1}{x} \frac{d}{d x})^l [\frac{\sin x}{x}]$ and
$P_l$ the Legendre polynomials, one arrives at the following equations
for $G^0$ and $G^1$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigg[\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t} -
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^4}{4M_t^3}
\,-\,\bigg(\,
\frac{p_0^2}{M_t} - \frac{p_0^4}{4 M_t^3}
\,\bigg)
\,\bigg]\,
G^0(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $x$}) & = &
\frac{\sin(k \,x)}{k \,x} \, - \,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\tilde V(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
G^0(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime,\mbox{\boldmath $x$})
\,,
\label{inteqG0}
\\[4mm]
\bigg[\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t}
\,-\,
\frac{p_0^2}{M_t}
\,\bigg]\,
G^1(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $x$}) & = &
3\, i\,\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}{k^2 \,x^2}\,
\bigg(\,\frac{\sin(k \,x)}{k \,x}-\cos(k \,x)\,\bigg)
\nonumber
\\[2mm] & & - \,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\tilde V(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
G^1(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime,\mbox{\boldmath $x$})
\,.
\label{inteqG1}
\end{eqnarray}
Because in Eq.~(\ref{inteqG0}) only S-wave states are considered, one
can, instead of the complicated form of $\tilde V_{\mbox{\tiny BF}}$,
use the angular average with respect to the
angle between $\mbox{\boldmath $p^\prime$}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $k$}$
of the $1/\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}^4$ term on the RHS of
Eq.~(\ref{NNLOBF}). Evaluating also the spin matrices for the
S-wave state, the Breit-Fermi potential simplifies to
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde V^s_{\mbox{\tiny BF}}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},
\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime) & = &
\frac{1}{4\pi}\,\int d\Omega\,
\tilde V_{\mbox{\tiny BF}}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},
\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime)
\nonumber
\\[2mm] & = &
\frac{11}{3}\,\frac{\pi\,C_F\,a_s}{M_t^2}\,
-2\,\frac{\pi\,C_F\,a_s}{M_t^2}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2+{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime}^2}
{\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}^2}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In Eq.~(\ref{inteqG1}), on the other hand,
we will just use the LO Coulomb potential because the axial-vector
contribution to the total cross section is already suppressed by
$v^2$. For the same reason we do not include any kinematic
relativistic corrections in Eq.~(\ref{inteqG1}).
Defining the S-wave and the P-wave vertex Green function as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Svertex}
S(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & = &
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\,\pi)^3}\,
\tilde G^0(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
\bigg(\,1+\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}^2}{6 M_t^2}\,\bigg)
\,,
\\[3mm]
\label{Pvertex}
P(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & = &
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\,\pi)^3}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}\,
\tilde G^1(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
we finally arrive at the integral equations for
$S(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ and $P(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$,
\begin{eqnarray}
S(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & = &
G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})\,
\bigg(\,1+\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}}{6 M_t^2}\,\bigg)
\,-\,
G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\tilde V(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
S(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)
\,,
\label{Sintegral}
\\[3mm]
P(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & = & G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})
\,-\,
G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$} \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}\,
\tilde V_c^{\tiny \mbox{LO}}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},
\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
P(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)
\,,
\label{Pintegral}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & = &
\frac{M_t}{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2-p_0^2-i\epsilon}\,\bigg[\,
1 + \frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2+p_0^2}{4\,M_t^2}
\,\bigg]
\label{Gfree}
\end{eqnarray}
is the free vertex function. We note that
$(2\pi)^3\,\delta^{(3)}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}-
\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime)\,G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ is the
Green function of Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}) for $\tilde V=0$.
The vertex functions $S(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ and $P(\mbox{\boldmath
$k$})$ only depend on the spatial momentum $\mbox{\boldmath
$k$}$. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, their dependence
on the time component $k^0$ has been eliminated by a trivial
integration by residues. For a proper integration over the phase space
of the top-antitop decay products, which is carried out in
Sec.~\ref{sectionwidth},
we also need the full dependence of the vertex functions on
$k^0$. It can be recovered by comparing $G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ to
the product of a free PNRQCD top and antitop propagator at NNLO
carrying momenta
$k_{t}=(k^0+(\frac{p_0^2}{2M_t}-\frac{p_0^4}{8 M_t^3}),
\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ and
$k_{\bar t}=(k^0-(\frac{p_0^2}{2M_t}-\frac{p_0^4}{8 M_t^3}),
\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$, respectively\footnote{
This choice corresponds to a situation in top-antitop ladder diagrams
where half of the centre-of-mass energy is flowing through the top and
half through the antitop line, see Fig.~\ref{figroutingladder}.
}:
\begin{eqnarray}
G^f(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & \equiv &
\frac{i}{k^0+(\frac{p_0^2}{2M_t}-\frac{p_0^4}{8 M_t^3}) -
(\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2M_t}-
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^4}{8 M_t^3}) + i\epsilon }\,
\frac{i}{k^0-(\frac{p_0^2}{2M_t}-\frac{p_0^4}{8 M_t^3}) +
(\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2M_t}-
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^4}{8 M_t^3}) - i\epsilon }
\nonumber
\\[2mm] & = &
\frac{-1}{{k^0}^2-
\Big(\frac{p_0^2}{2M_t}-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2M_t}
+i\epsilon\Big)^2} +
\frac{
\Big(\frac{p_0^2}{2M_t}-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2M_t}\Big)^2
\Big(\frac{p_0^2}{2M_t^2}+\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2M_t^2}\Big)
}{\Big[{k^0}^2-
\Big(\frac{p_0^2}{2M_t}-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2M_t}
+i\epsilon\Big)^2\Big]^2}
\,.
\label{Gfreecov}
\end{eqnarray}
We emphasize that an expansion of the NNLO
relativistic effects is understood.
The relation between $G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ and
$G^f(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ reads
\begin{eqnarray}
G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & = &
-i\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{d k^0}{2\pi}\,
G^f(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})
\,.
\label{GthreetoGfourrelation}
\end{eqnarray}
Recalling that the potentials as well as the production and
annihilation vertex corrections do not depend on the zero-components
of the momenta, the integral equations for the generalized vertex
functions read
\begin{eqnarray}
S(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & = &
G^f(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})\,
\bigg(\,1+\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}}{6 M_t^2}\,\bigg)
\,+\,i\,
G^f(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{d {p^\prime}^0}{2\pi}\,
\tilde V(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
S({p^\prime}^0,\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)
\,,
\label{Sintegralcov}
\\[3mm]
P(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & = &
G^f(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})
\,+\,i\,
G^f(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{d {p^\prime}^0}{2\pi}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$} \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{k^2}\,
\tilde V_c^{\tiny \mbox{LO}}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},
\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
P({p^\prime}^0,\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)
\,.
\label{Pintegralcov}
\end{eqnarray}
The three- and four-dimensional versions of the vertex functions $S$
and $P$ are related by an equation similar to
Eq.~(\ref{GthreetoGfourrelation}). We note that, by construction, the
relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{X(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}{G^f(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}
& = &
\frac{X(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}{G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}
\,,
\qquad
(X\, = \, S, P)
\,,
\label{amputatedrelation}
\end{eqnarray}
holds for the amputated vertex functions.
It is straightforward to formulate the optical theorem, which relates
the imaginary part of the correlators ${\cal{A}}^v$ and ${\cal{A}}^a$
to explicit phase space integrals over the modulus squared of the
vertex functions $S$ and $P$. The relations read
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{Im}\Big[\,{\cal{A}}^v(q^2)\,\Big]
& = & 12\,\pi^2\,N_c\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{d k^0}{2\pi}\,
\bigg|\,
\frac{S(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}{G^f(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}
\,\bigg|^2\,
\delta\bigg(\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2 M_t}-
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^4}{8 M_t^3}-
\Big(\frac{p_0^2}{2 M_t}-\frac{p_0^4}{8 M_t^3}\Big) + k^0
\bigg)
\nonumber\\ & &
\hspace{2cm}
\times\,
\delta\bigg(\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2 M_t}-
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^4}{8 M_t^3}-
\Big(\frac{p_0^2}{2 M_t}-\frac{p_0^4}{8 M_t^3}\Big) - k^0
\bigg)
\nonumber\\[2mm] & = &
6\,\pi\,N_c\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\bigg|\,
\frac{S(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}{G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}
\,\bigg|^2\,
\delta\bigg(\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t}-
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^4}{4 M_t^3}-
\Big(\frac{p_0^2}{M_t}-\frac{p_0^4}{4 M_t^3}\Big)
\bigg)
\,,
\label{Sopticalstable}
\\[4mm]
\mbox{Im}\Big[\,{\cal{A}}^a(q^2)\,\Big]
& = & 8\,\pi^2\,N_c\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{d k^0}{2\pi}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t^2}\,
\bigg|\,
\frac{P(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}{G^f(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}
\,\bigg|^2\,
\delta\bigg(\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2 M_t}
-
\frac{p_0^2}{2 M_t}
+ k^0
\bigg)
\nonumber\\ & &
\hspace{2cm}
\times\,
\delta\bigg(\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2 M_t}
-
\frac{p_0^2}{2 M_t}
- k^0
\bigg)
\nonumber\\[2mm] & = &
4\,\pi\,N_c\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t^2}\,
\bigg|\,
\frac{P(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}{G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}
\,\bigg|^2\,
\delta\bigg(\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t}
-
\frac{p_0^2}{M_t}
\bigg)
\,.
\label{Popticalstable}
\end{eqnarray}
\vspace{1.5cm}
\section{Regularization Scheme and Short-Distance Coefficients}
\label{sectionregularization}
All equations derived previously have to be considered in the
framework of a proper UV regularization scheme. In fact, UV
linear and logarithmic divergences arise in Eq.~(\ref{Sintegral}) from
the NNLO non-Coulombic potentials and from the kinetic energy and
vertex corrections. However, we emphasize that even in the case when
no UV divergences arise,
all integrals have to be consistently regularized, because only in a
consistent regularization scheme can the short-distance coefficients
be defined properly. In principle, the regularization scheme ``of
choice'' would be an analytic scheme like $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ as it
is usually used in modern perturbative QCD calculations. The
preference for the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme arises from the fact
that it naturally preserves gauge invariance, Ward identities and,
particularly important in the framework of effective field theories,
power counting rules. Unfortunately an analytic solution of
Eqs.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}), (\ref{Sintegral}) and (\ref{Pintegral})
is not even known for four dimensions. Thus, the only sensible way to
use the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme is to start from the
known Coulomb solution of the non-relativistic Schr\"odinger equation
and include NLO and NNLO corrections via time-independent perturbation
theory, and then explicitly construct the spectral representation of
the Green function at the NNLO level. While this program
might still be feasible for the determination of the total cross
section, it is rather cumbersome for the calculations of distributions
at NNLO.
In this work we use a momentum cutoff regularization scheme by simply
excluding momenta that have a spatial component larger than the
cutoff $\Lambda$. This is in fact the most natural regularization
scheme for a numerical solution of Eqs.~(\ref{Sintegral}) and
(\ref{Pintegral}). However, a cutoff scheme contains a number of
subtleties, which shall be briefly discussed in the following. As
indicated before, a cutoff scheme leads to violations of gauge
invariance and Ward identities in the (P)NRQCD calculation. These effects,
however, are generated at the cutoff and are therefore cancelled by
corresponding terms with a different sign in the short-distance
coefficients. Thus the cross section, which contains the proper
combination of non-relativistic correlators and short-distance
coefficients, is gauge-invariant and satisfies all Ward identities up
to terms beyond the order at which the matching calculation has been
carried out. Another subtlety of a cutoff prescription is that it is
only well defined if a specific routing convention for the momenta in
loops is adopted. For the calculations of the top-antitop cross
section at NNLO, it is straightforward and easy to find such a routing
convention, because only ladder-type diagrams are involved. It is
natural to choose the routing used in the integral
equations~(\ref{Sintegral}) and (\ref{Pintegral}), which we have, for
clarity, depicted graphically in Fig~\ref{figroutingladder}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=6cm
\leavevmode
\epsffile[240 420 440 460]{routing.ps}
\vskip 2.8cm
\caption{\label{figroutingladder}
Routing convention for loop momenta in ladder diagrams.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is important to use exactly the same routing for the (P)NRQCD diagrams
calculated in the matching procedure to obtain consistent results for
the NNLO short-distance coefficients. Finally, it has to be mentioned
that a cutoff scheme inevitably leads to power counting
breaking effects. This means in our case that a term in
the Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}), which is NNLO
according to the velocity counting, can in principle
lead to lower order contributions in the non-relativistic
current correlator. Like the terms that violate gauge invariance and
Ward identities, the power counting breaking terms are also generated
at the cutoff; they are therefore cancelled
in the combination of the correlators and the corresponding
short-distance coefficients. However, all this happens only if the cutoff
is chosen of the order of $M_t$. To illustrate this issue let us first
consider the LO two-loop NRQCD vector current correlator, which
contains the exchange of a Coulomb gluon as shown in
Fig.~\ref{figcorrelatorCoulomb}a.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=2.5cm
\leavevmode
\epsffile[240 420 440 460]{corrCoul.ps}
\hspace{4cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=2.5cm
\leavevmode
\epsffile[240 420 440 460]{corrCoulb.ps}
\vskip 2.2cm
\caption{\label{figcorrelatorCoulomb}
The two-loop NRQCD vector current correlator with the exchange of one
Coulomb gluon without relativistic corrections (a) and with the
kinetic energy corrections (b).
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is straightforward to calculate
the absorptive part of the diagram as an expansion in $p_0$ (see
App.~\ref{appendixshortdistance}):
\begin{eqnarray}
I_1^{(1)} & = &
\frac{C_F\,\alpha_s\,M_t^2}{4\, \pi^2}\,\bigg[\,
\frac{\pi^2}{2}-\frac{4\,p_0}{\Lambda} +
{\cal{O}}(p_0^3)
\,\bigg]
\,.
\label{2loopCoulomb}
\end{eqnarray}
The first term in the brackets on the RHS of Eq.~(\ref{2loopCoulomb})
is the well
known Coulomb singularity, which leads to a finite cross section at
order $\alpha_s$. The second term is cutoff-dependent and leads to a
short-distance correction $\propto
\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\frac{M_t}{\Lambda}$. (In
App.~\ref{appendixshortdistance} the reader can convince her/himself
that the scale of $\alpha_s$ in this term is indeed of order $M_t$.)
Obviously, to avoid a breakdown in the separation of long- and
short-distance contributions\footnote{
In this context ``long-distance'' effects are not understood as
``non-perturbative'' effects, which come from scales of order
$\Lambda_{QCD}$ , but rather as effects governed by scales of order
$M_t v$ or $M_t v^2$.
},
$\Lambda$ has to be chosen of order $M_t$. (Choosing $\Lambda$ of order
$M_t v$ would be absurd anyway, because this would cut off a large part
of the dynamics. In this respect the cutoff $\Lambda$ acts in a way
completely different from the
``cutoff'' scale in the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme, which
would naturally be chosen of order $M_t v$.)
Let us now consider the kinetic energy corrections in the same
two-loop NRQCD diagram, as shown in
Fig.~\ref{figcorrelatorCoulomb}b. Using the result obtained in
App.~\ref{appendixshortdistance} the expression for the diagram
including combinatorial factors reads
\begin{eqnarray}
I_3^{(1)} & = &
\frac{C_F\,\alpha_s\,M_t^2}{4\, \pi^2}\,\bigg[\,
\frac{\Lambda\,p_0}{M_t^2} +
\frac{p_0^2\,\pi^2}{2\,M_t^2} +
{\cal{O}}( p_0^3 )
\,\bigg]
\,.
\label{2loopCoulombkinetic}
\end{eqnarray}
As expected from power counting arguments, the kinetic energy
correction leads to a contribution suppressed by $p_0^2/M_t^2$ with
respect to the pure Coulomb exchange diagram in
Eq.~(\ref{2loopCoulomb}). However, there is also a term proportional
to $p_0/M_t$ because $\Lambda$ is of order $M_t$. This is an example
for a power counting breaking term. In the short-distance coefficient
$C^v$ this term leads to a NNLO contribution
$\propto\alpha_s\frac{\Lambda}{M_t}$.
Because this term only
arises if NNLO relativistic effects are taken into account, we have to
count it as NNLO.
Similar terms are caused by the
Breit-Fermi potential $V_{\mbox{\tiny BF}}$, the non-Abelian potential
$V_{\mbox{\tiny NA}}$ and the dimension-5 NRQCD vector current. We
emphasize again that, as is the case for the terms that violate gauge
invariance and Ward identities, all power counting breaking terms are
automatically cancelled in the combination with the short-distance
coefficients up to terms beyond the order at which one carries out the
matching procedure. In our case, where the matching is carried out at
order $\alpha_s^2$, power counting breaking terms of order $\alpha_s^3$
remain uncancelled, but they are beyond NNLO accuracy.
Taking into account the issues discussed above, it is straightforward
to determine the matching coefficient $C^v$. Details of
this calculation are given in App.~\ref{appendixshortdistance}.
The result reads ($a_s\equiv\alpha_s(\mu)$)
\begin{eqnarray}
C^v & = & 1 +
\bigg\{\,
\frac{4\,C_F\,a_s}{\pi}\,
\bigg[\,
-1 + \frac{M_t}{\Lambda}
\,\bigg]
\,\bigg\}^{\mbox{\tiny NLO}}
\nonumber
\\[3mm] & &
+ \,\bigg\{\,
\frac{4\,C_F\,a_s\,\Lambda}{3\,\pi\,M_t}
+
\frac{C_F^2\,a_s^2}{\pi^2}\,\bigg[\,
\frac{\beta_0}{C_F}\,\bigg(\,
- \frac{\Lambda^2 + 12\,M_t^2}{6\,\Lambda\,M_t}
+ \frac{\Lambda^2 - 12\,M_t^2}
{6\,\Lambda\,M_t}\,\ln\Big(\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\Big)
+ 2\,\ln\Big(\frac{M_t}{\mu}\Big)
\,\bigg)
\nonumber
\\[2mm] & &
- \frac{a_1}{C_F}\,\frac{\Lambda^2 - 12\,M_t^2}{12\,\Lambda\,M_t}
+ \pi^2\,\bigg(\,\frac{2}{3}+\frac{C_A}{C_F}\,\bigg)\,
\ln\Big(\frac{2\,M_t}{\Lambda}\,\Big)
+ \frac{\pi^2\,\kappa}{C_F^2}
\nonumber
\\[2mm] & &
+ \frac{16\,\Lambda^2}{9\,M_t^2}
- \frac{16\,\Lambda}{3\,M_t}
- \frac{16\,M_t}{\Lambda}
+ \frac{M_t^2\,(20 + \pi^2)}{2\,\Lambda^2}
- \frac{53\,\pi^2}{24} - \frac{C_A\,\pi^2}{C_F} + \frac{25}{6} +
\frac{7}{3}\zeta_3
\,\bigg]
\,\bigg\}^{\mbox{\tiny NNLO}}
\,.
\label{CVshortdistance}
\end{eqnarray}
As explained in App.~\ref{appendixshortdistance} we have displayed the
NLO and NNLO contributions to $C^v$ separately.
Appendix~\ref{appendixshortdistance} also contains a discussion on
the convergence of the perturbative series in $C^v$ in our
cutoff scheme compared to the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$
scheme~\cite{Melnikov4,Beneke2}.
\vspace{1.5cm}
\section{Top Quark Width}
\label{sectionwidth}
Up to now we have treated the top quark as a stable particle. For top
quark production close to threshold this is not appropriate because
the kinetic energy of the top quark $\sim M_t v^2\sim M_t
\alpha_s^2\sim$~2--3~GeV
is of the same order as its decay width. It has been shown by Fadin and
Khoze~\cite{Fadin1} that in the non-relativistic limit the top width
can be consistently implemented by calculating the cross section for
stable
top quarks supplemented by the replacement $E\to E+i \Gamma_t$, where
$E$ is the centre-of-mass energy measured with respect to the
two-particle threshold. For the total cross section, this prescription
remains valid even at NLO because, in this case, order $\alpha_s$ QCD
radiative corrections in form of a gluon that connects top quark
production and decay vanish~\cite{Melnikov1}. A consistent
implementation of the top width at NNLO has been missing so far.
In the framework of NRQCD, and if one is not interested in any
differential information on the top decay products, the top width can
be understood as a modification of the NRQCD matching conditions
caused by electroweak corrections. Because the particles involved in
these corrections can be lighter than the top quark (i.e. if the top
quark can decay weakly) they can lead to non-zero imaginary parts in
the matching conditions and, likewise, in the short-distance
coefficients of the NRQCD Lagrangian and the NRQCD currents. This is a
well known concept in quantum mechanics of inelastic processes where
particle decay and absorption processes are represented by potentials
and couplings carrying complex coefficients, if one is not
interested in the details of the decay and absorption process. In this
context the effects of the top quark decay are only a small (but
nevertheless the
most important) part of a whole array of electroweak corrections
relevant to top-antitop quark pair production close to threshold. In
this work we only consider the effects from the on-shell top decay
into a $W$ boson and a bottom quark, assuming that the $W$ and the $b$
are themselves stable. Thus the results presented here are, by
definition, gauge-invariant. The consistent treatment of all
electroweak effects, including a proper handling of the off-shell decays
of the top quark, interconnection effects and of
gauge-invariance-violating contributions,
is beyond the scope of this paper. Such a treatment is carried out
in~\cite{BenekeHoang}.
Before we determine the modifications of the NRQCD
Lagrangian, Eq.~(\ref{NRQCDLagrangian}), through the top decay, some
remarks about the velocity counting of the top quark width are in
order. Comparing the numerical size of the top width
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_t \, \approx \, \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{M_t^3}{8 \pi}
\sim \, 1.5~\mbox{GeV}
\end{equation}
with the binding energy of a fictitious toponium $1S$ bound state
in the pole mass scheme ($\alpha_s\sim 0.15$)
\begin{equation}
E_{1S} \approx \frac{M_t (C_F \alpha_s)^2}{4} \, \sim \,
1.75~\mbox{GeV}
\,,
\end{equation}
we find that we have to count $\Gamma_t/M_t$ as order $v^2$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Gamma_t}{M_t} \, \sim \,
\alpha_s^2 \, \sim \, v^2
\,.
\label{gammavcounting}
\end{equation}
Recalling the velocity counting of the operators of the NRQCD
Lagrangian, this means that at NNLO and to first order in
$\Gamma_t/M_t$ we have to determine the coefficients of the NRQCD
operators $\psi^\dagger i \Gamma_t \psi$,
$\psi^\dagger i\frac{\Gamma_t}{M_t} D_t \psi$,
$\psi^\dagger i \Gamma_t \frac{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}^2}{M_t^2} \psi$ and
those operators, where the top quark Pauli spinors are replaced by the
antitop ones. As we show later in this section there are also
contributions proportional to $i\Gamma_t$ to the
photon and Z boson wave function renormalization constants,
which have to be included to account for
a proper treatment of the top quark decay phase space. We note that
the velocity counting~(\ref{gammavcounting}) implies that
$g\sim\alpha_s\sim v$, where $g$ is the SU(2) gauge coupling. Thus in
a complete calculation of all electroweak effects one
also has to determine ${\cal{O}}(g^4)$ electroweak contributions and
${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$ QCD corrections to the top decay width. In the
framework of the Standard Model those corrections are
known~\cite{Jezabek2,Czarnecki1,Denner1}. For our purposes, however,
it is sufficient to
consider the top quark width as an independent parameter, which we
treat only to first order and which is not subject to higher-order
corrections.
The matching coefficients of the bilinear top spinor
operators given above can be obtained by sandwiching the absorptive
part of the top quark self energy $\Sigma_t$ (in the full electroweak
theory) between
top quark Dirac spinors and expanding the result around the complex
pole position. Keeping only the terms proportional to $\Gamma_t$, the
result for the bilinear top Pauli spinor terms reads
($k=(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar u(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})\,\bigg[\,
\mbox{Im} \Sigma_t(k)
\,\bigg]\, u(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & \Rightarrow &
\bar u(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})\,i \frac{\Gamma_t}{2}\,
u(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})
\nonumber\\ & = &
\tilde \psi^\dagger\,\bigg[\,
i\,\frac{\Gamma_t}{2}\,\frac{M_t}{E_k}
\,\bigg]\,\tilde\psi \, = \,
\tilde \psi^\dagger\,\bigg[\,
i\,\frac{\Gamma_t}{2}\,\bigg(\,
1 - \frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2\,M_t^2}
\,\bigg)\,\bigg]\,\tilde\psi
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The
corresponding result for the bilinear antitop Pauli spinor terms reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar v(-\mbox{\boldmath $k$})\,\bigg[\,
\mbox{Im} \Sigma_t(k)
\,\bigg]\, v(-\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & \Rightarrow &
\bar v(-\mbox{\boldmath $k$})\,i \frac{\Gamma_t}{2}\,
v(-\mbox{\boldmath $k$})
\nonumber\\ & = &
-\,\tilde \chi^\dagger\,\bigg[\,
i\,\frac{\Gamma_t}{2}\,\frac{M_t}{E_k}
\,\bigg]\,\tilde\chi \, = \,
-\,\tilde \chi^\dagger\,\bigg[\,
i\,\frac{\Gamma_t}{2}\,\bigg(\,
1 - \frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2\,M_t^2}
\,\bigg)\,\bigg]
\,\tilde\chi
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $E_k\equiv(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2+M_t^2)^{1/2}$ and
\begin{equation}
u(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) \, = \,
\sqrt{\frac{E_k+M_t}{2 E_k}}\,
\left(\begin{array}{cc} \tilde\psi \\
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{E_k+M_t}\,
\tilde\psi
\end{array}
\right)\,,
\hspace{1cm}
v(-\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) \, = \,
\sqrt{\frac{E_k+M_t}{2 E_k}}\,
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{E_k+M_t}\,
\tilde\chi\\
\tilde\chi
\end{array}
\right)\,,
\end{equation}
using the usual non-relativistic normalization for Dirac spinors.
Thus in the presence of top decay we have to modify the NRQCD
Lagrangian by adding the terms
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta {\cal{L}}_{\mbox{\tiny NRQCD}} & = &
\psi^\dagger\,i\,\frac{\Gamma_t}{2}\,\bigg[\,1 +
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}^2}{2\,M_t^2}
\,\bigg]\,\psi -
\chi^\dagger\,i\,\frac{\Gamma_t}{2}\,\bigg[\,1 +
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}^2}{2\,M_t^2}
\,\bigg]\,\chi
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Physically, the dimension-5 operators multiplying the top width
correspond to the time dilatation correction.
This leads to the following modified versions of the Schr\"odinger
equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}) in momentum space representation
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
\bigg[\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t} -
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^4}{4M_t^3}
\,-\,\bigg(\,
\frac{p_0^2}{M_t} - \frac{p_0^4}{4 M_t^3}
\,\bigg)
\,-\,i\,\Gamma_t\,\bigg(\,
1 - \frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2\,M_t^2}
\,\bigg)\,
\,\bigg]\,
\tilde G(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime;q^2)
}
\nonumber
\\[3mm] & &
+
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\,\pi)^3}\,
\tilde V(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
\tilde G(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime,\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime;q^2)
\, = \,
(2\,\pi)^3\,\delta^{(3)}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}-\mbox{\boldmath
$k$}^\prime)
\,,
\label{NNLOSchroedingergamma}
\end{eqnarray}
and the free vertex functions $G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ and
$G^f(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ in the integral
equations~(\ref{Sintegral}), (\ref{Pintegral}), (\ref{Sintegralcov})
and (\ref{Pintegralcov}):
\begin{eqnarray}
G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & = &
\frac{M_t}{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2-p_0^2-\frac{\Gamma_t^2}{4}-
i\,M_t\,\Gamma_t}\,\bigg[\,
1 + \frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2+p_0^2}{4\,M_t^2}-
i\,\frac{\Gamma_t}{4\,M_t}
\,\bigg]
\,,
\label{Gfreegamma}
\\
G^f(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & = &
\frac{-1}{{k^0}^2-
\Big(\frac{1}{2M_t}(p_0^2+\frac{\Gamma_t^2}{4})-
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2M_t}
+i\frac{\Gamma_t}{2}\Big)^2} +
\frac{
\Big(\frac{p_0^2}{2M_t}-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2M_t}
+i\frac{\Gamma_t}{2}\Big)^2
\Big(\frac{p_0^2}{2M_t^2}+\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2M_t^2}
-i\frac{\Gamma_t}{2M_t}\Big)
}{\Big[{k^0}^2-
\Big(\frac{1}{2M_t}(p_0^2+\frac{\Gamma_t^2}{4})-
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2M_t}
+i\frac{\Gamma_t}{2}\Big)^2
\Big]^2}
\,.
\nonumber\\
\label{Gfreecovgamma}
\end{eqnarray}
We note that it is not coercive to keep the term
$-\frac{\Gamma_t^2}{4}$ in the LO propagator, because it is of NNLO
according to the power counting. We have adopted this convention
because this choice leads to a
simplification of the analytic form for the rest of the NNLO
corrections in Eqs.~(\ref{Gfreegamma}) and (\ref{Gfreecovgamma}).
From the modified version of the Schr\"odinger
equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedingergamma}) we can immediately see that the
Fadin-Khoze replacement rule is valid at LO and NLO in the non-relativistic
expansion, but it is inappropriate at NNLO. In fact it is not possible at
all to consistently implement the top quark width at NNLO simply by
shifting the centre-of-mass energy in a calculation for
stable quarks.
The resulting form of the optical theorem
relations reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{Im}\Big[\,{\cal{A}}^v(q^2)\,\Big]
& = & 3\,N_c\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{d k^0}{2\pi}\,
|S(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})|^2\,
\Gamma_t^2\,\bigg(1 - \frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t^2}
\,\bigg)
\nonumber\\[2mm] & = &
6\,N_c\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
|S(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})|^2\,
\Gamma_t\,\bigg(1 - \frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{2\,M_t^2}
\,\bigg)
\,,
\label{Sopticalunstable}
\\[4mm]
\mbox{Im}\Big[\,{\cal{A}}^a(q^2)\,\Big]
& = & 2\,N_c\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{d k^0}{2\pi}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t^2}\,
|P(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})|^2\,\Gamma_t^2
\nonumber\\[2mm] & = &
4\,N_c\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t^2}\,
|P(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})|^2\,\Gamma_t
\,.
\label{Popticalunstable}
\end{eqnarray}
The first equality in
Eqs.~(\ref{Sopticalunstable}) and (\ref{Popticalunstable}) is an
explicit integration over the phase space of the top decay products
for off-shell top decay keeping only the term proportional to the top
and antitop width for the top decay sub phase space.
We emphasize again that in Eqs.~(\ref{Sopticalunstable}) and
(\ref{Popticalunstable}) no physical phase space boundaries for the
integration over the top-antitop four momentum are implemented.
All integrations are defined in the
framework of the regularization scheme.
The reader might ask whether the inclusion of the top quark width
into the top quark propagators
leads to non-trivial modifications of the NRQCD short-distance
coefficient $C^v$.\footnote{
One could equally well ask whether there is a need to introduce the
operators $\frac{\Gamma_t}{M_t} \psi^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath
$\sigma$}\chi$ and $\frac{\Gamma_t}{M_t} \chi^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath
$\sigma$}\psi$ in the non-relativistic expansion of the currents,
which produce and annihilate the top-antitop pair.
At this point we prefer the language used in the text.
}
Because $\frac{\Gamma_t}{M_t}\sim
v^2\sim\alpha_s^2$, it is not
inconceivable that there could be terms $\propto\frac{\Gamma_t}{M_t}$
in $C^v$ at NNLO. To show that this is not the case we recall that
$C^v$ is the modulus squared of the short-distance coefficient $c_1^v$
of the non-relativistic current
$\psi^\dagger\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\chi$ in
Eq.~(\ref{vectorcurrentexpansion1}). As mentioned in
App.~\ref{appendixshortdistance},
the short-distance coefficient $c_1^v$
is the sum of amputated vertex diagrams in the full theory where the
three momenta in the loop integrations are larger than the cutoff
$\Lambda\sim M_t$ for $\sqrt{s}=2 M_t$. Thus, there is no integration
over the top-antitop pole located at three momenta $\sim
p_0\sim M_t v$, and we can conclude that the short-distance
coefficient does not contain non-analytic terms involving the top
quark width. Therefore $c_1^v$
can be expanded in $i\Gamma_t$. For the same reason, the
coefficients of an expansion in $i\Gamma_t$ do not contain a
top-antitop cut and are real numbers.
Because $C^v$ is the modulus squared of $c_1^v$, the first
non-vanishing term of an expansion of $C^v$ is proportional to
$(\Gamma_t/M_t)^2\sim\alpha_s^4$, which is indeed beyond
NNLO. However, we
emphasize that, in a complete calculation of all electroweak effects,
$C^v$ will receive corrections $\propto g^2, {g^\prime}^2\sim G_F
M_W^2$, $g^\prime$ being the U(1) gauge coupling, which are formally
of order $\Gamma_t/M_t$. These corrections do not come from the width
contained in the top and antitop propagators but for instance from
electroweak corrections to the vertices $\gamma, Z\to t\bar
t$~\cite{Guth1}. These corrections exist even in the case when the top
quark is treated as a stable particle.
If the top quark width is included in the NRQCD framework there is
only one additional source of a linear dependence on $\Gamma_t$ which
comes from the phase space integration in
Eqs.~(\ref{Sopticalunstable}) and (\ref{Popticalunstable}). In
contrast to the case of a stable top quark, where the phase space is
restricted to those top quark four momenta allowed by the centre-of-mass
energy, the physical boundaries of the phase space integration
$\int\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}$ in the case of
unstable top quarks
are determined by the allowed invariant masses of the top quark decay
products. Assuming that the bottom quark is massless and that bottom
quark and $W$ boson are stable, and taking into account our routing
convention (see Fig.~\ref{figroutingladder}), the boundaries of the
physical four-dimensional phase space
integrations read ($k^2\equiv|\mbox{\boldmath $k$}|^2$)
\begin{equation}
\int\limits_{\tiny\mbox{phase space}}\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4} \, = \,
\int\limits_0^{\sqrt{\frac{q^2}{4}-M_W^2}}\,
\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}
\int\limits_{-(\frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{2}-\sqrt{k^2+M_W^2})}^{
(\frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{2}-\sqrt{k^2+M_W^2})}\,\frac{d k^0}{2\pi}
\,.
\label{phasespacephysical}
\end{equation}
It is obvious that the physical
limits of integration are not equivalent to the actual limits of
integration on the RHS of Eqs.~(\ref{Sopticalunstable}) and
(\ref{Popticalunstable}) as defined through our cutoff regularization
scheme:
\begin{equation}
\int\limits_{\tiny\mbox{cutoff scheme}}\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4} \, = \,
\int\limits_0^{|\mbox{\boldmath $k$}|<\Lambda}\,
\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,\,
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\,\frac{d k^0}{2\pi}
\,.
\label{phasespaceactual}
\end{equation}
For the total cross section on the LHS of
Eqs.~(\ref{Sopticalunstable}) and (\ref{Popticalunstable}), the
difference between using the phase space
integrations~(\ref{phasespaceactual}) or
(\ref{phasespacephysical}) can be expanded in $p_0^2$ and $\Gamma_t$,
and
can be accounted for by introducing additional photon and Z boson
wave function renormalization constants into the NRQCD Lagrangian,
which are proportional to $i\Gamma_t$.
The calculation of these counter-terms is straightforward.
This leads to the following form of the
optical theorem relations for the vector- and
axial-vector-current-induced correlators,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
{\cal{A}}^v +
i \frac{3\,N_c\,M_t\,\Gamma_t}{2\,\pi^2}\,\Big[\,
2\frac{M_t}{\Lambda}-(1+\sqrt{3})
\,\Big]
\,\bigg]
& = &
3\,N_c\,
\int\limits_{\tiny\mbox{phase space}}\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\,
|S(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})|^2\,
\Gamma_t^2\,\bigg(1 - \frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t^2}
\,\bigg)
\,,
\label{Sopticalunstableproper}
\\[5mm]
\mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
{\cal{A}}^a +
i \frac{N_c\,M_t\,\Gamma_t}{\pi^2}\,\Big[\,
-2\frac{\Lambda}{M_t}+2\,(\sqrt{3}-1)
\,\Big]
\,\bigg] & = &
2\,N_c\,
\int\limits_{\tiny\mbox{phase space}}\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t^2}\,
|P(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})|^2\,\Gamma_t^2
\,,
\label{Popticalunstableproper}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have displayed the counter-terms for the phase space, each
at the Born level, to first order in $\Gamma_t$ and first order in the
non-relativistic expansion. For simplicity we have set the bottom quark
and the W boson masses to zero. As far as the velocity
counting of the width is concerned, we in principle should have
included also the ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s)$ contributions for the
counter-term in Eq.~(\ref{Sopticalunstableproper}), because we
formally have to count the vector-current-induced total cross section
as order $v$. However, the counter-term contributions are only at the
per cent level and not (yet) important phenomenologically, compared
with the
much larger uncertainties in the normalization of the total cross
section from QCD, which are discussed in
Sec.~\ref{subsectionnormalization}. We also note that the phase space
counter-terms can be calculated entirely within the
non-relativistic effective theory, and that there is no need to match
to the full theory. This is because within the physical phase space
boundaries the non-relativistic expansion of the phase space
integration should be convergent.\footnote{
This statement is a conjecture. In this context
``convergence'' for the phase space counter-terms is not
meant to be associated with an expansion in $\Gamma_t$ or $p_0$, but to
the convergence in the coefficient multiplying the term linear in
$\Gamma_t$. All higher-order terms in the non-relativistic expansion
under the phase space integral can contribute to the term linear in
$\Gamma_t$.
} We also note that the calculation of
the phase space counter-term for the S-P-wave interference,
contributing e.g. in the top quark angular distribution, is in complete
analogy to the calculation of the counter-terms in
Eqs.~(\ref{Sopticalunstableproper}) and (\ref{Popticalunstableproper}).
We emphasize that the non-relativistic current correlators
${\cal{A}}^v$, ${\cal{A}}^a$ and the vertex functions $S$ and $P$ in
relations~(\ref{Sopticalunstableproper}) and
(\ref{Popticalunstableproper}) are still calculated in our cutoff
scheme presented in Sec.~\ref{sectionregularization}.
The expressions
for the vector-current- and axial-vector-current-induced total cross
sections valid at NNLO in the non-relativistic
expansion, and properly including all effects of the top width at the
Born level and leading order in the non-relativistic expansion, read
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\mbox{\tiny NNLO}}^{v,\mbox{\tiny thr}}(q^2) & = &
\frac{4\,\pi}{q^2}\,C^v\,
\mbox{Im}\Big[\,
{\cal{A}}^v(q^2)
\,\Big]
+ \frac{3\,N_c\,\Gamma_t}{2\,\pi\,M_t}\,\Big[\,
2\frac{M_t}{\Lambda}-(1+\sqrt{3})
\,\Big]
\,\bigg]
\,,
\label{vectorcrosssectionexpandedgamma}
\\[3mm]
R_{\mbox{\tiny NNLO}}^{a,\mbox{\tiny thr}}(q^2) & = &
\frac{4\,\pi}{q^2}\,C^a\,
\mbox{Im}\Big[\,
{\cal{A}}^a(q^2)
\,\Big] + \frac{N_c\,\Gamma_t}{\pi\,M_t}\,\Big[\,
-2\frac{\Lambda}{M_t}+2\,(\sqrt{3}-1)
\,\Big]
\,\bigg]
\,.
\label{axialvectorcrosssectionexpandedgamma}
\end{eqnarray}
From Eqs.~(\ref{Sopticalunstableproper}) and
(\ref{Popticalunstableproper}) we can derive the
centre-of-mass three-momentum distributions of the top quarks
($k\equiv|\mbox{\boldmath $k$}|$),
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d R_{\mbox{\tiny NNLO}}^{v,\mbox{\tiny thr}}(q^2)}
{d |\mbox{\boldmath$k$}|}
& = &
C^v\,
\frac{6\,N_c}{\pi\,q^2}\,
\Gamma_t^2\,\bigg(1 - \frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t^2}
\,\bigg)\,
\mbox{\boldmath$k$}^2
\int\limits_{-(\frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{2}-\sqrt{k^2+M_W^2})}^{
(\frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{2}-\sqrt{k^2+M_W^2})}\,\frac{d k^0}{2\pi}\,
|S(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})|^2
\,,
\label{Sopticalunstablepropergamma}
\\[5mm]
\frac{d R_{\mbox{\tiny NNLO}}^{a,\mbox{\tiny thr}}(q^2)}
{d |\mbox{\boldmath$k$}|}
& = &
C^a\,
\frac{4\,N_c}{\pi\,q^2}\,
\Gamma_t^2\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^4}{M_t^2}\,
\int\limits_{-(\frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{2}-\sqrt{k^2+M_W^2})}^{
(\frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{2}-\sqrt{k^2+M_W^2})}\,\frac{d k^0}{2\pi}\,
|P(k^0,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})|^2
\,.
\label{Popticalunstablepropergamma}
\end{eqnarray}
Unless $|\mbox{\boldmath $k$}|$ is chosen close to the endpoint
$(q^2/4-M_W^2)^{1/2}$ the numerical difference obtained by replacing the
physical limits of the $k^0$ integrations by $\pm\infty$ is
negligible.
We note that the three-momentum distributions shown in
Eqs.~(\ref{Sopticalunstablepropergamma}) and
(\ref{Popticalunstablepropergamma})
are not equal to the physical observable three-momentum distributions,
because the exchange of gluons between the top decay and production
processes leads to additional non-negligible corrections at
NLO~\cite{Harlander1,Sumino2} and NNLO. These ``interconnection''
effects belong
to the electroweak corrections, which are not treated in this work.
The NNLO corrections to the three-momentum
distribution calculated here are only a first step towards a
complete NNLO treatment of the three-momentum distribution. We also
want to mention that the three momentum distribution is strictly
speaking an ambiguous quantity since the three (as well as the four)
momentum of a coloured particle is an ambiguous concept. This is
in contrast to the total cross section, which describes the rate of
colour singlet top-antitop events.
We conclude this section with some remarks on the inconsistencies that
can arise if the Fadin-Khoze replacement rule ``$E\to E+i \Gamma_t$''
is employed at NNLO for the calculation of the top-antitop cross
section close to threshold. We emphasize that there is nothing wrong,
in principle, in calculating the current correlators for stable top
quarks via the Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}),
supplemented afterwards by the replacement $\sqrt{q^2}-2 M_t\to
\sqrt{q^2}-2 M_t + i \Gamma_t$. This corresponds essentially to the
modification
\begin{equation}
\sum_n\hspace{-5mm}\int\,
\frac{|n\rangle\langle n|}{E_n-E-i \epsilon} \, \to \,
\sum_n\hspace{-5mm}\int\,
\frac{|n\rangle\langle n|}{E_n-E-i \Gamma_t}
\end{equation}
in the spectral representation of the Green function of
Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}) and is equivalent to keeping only the terms
$\psi^\dagger i\Gamma_t \psi$ and $\chi^\dagger i\Gamma_t \chi$ in the
modified version of the NRQCD Lagrangian. In this approach, also the
optical theorem remains valid in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{Im}\Big[\,{\cal{A}}^v(q^2)\,\Big]
& = &
6\,N_c\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
|S(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})|^2\,
\Gamma_t
\,,
\label{Sopticalunstableconsistent}
\end{eqnarray}
for the vector current correlator, as an example.
(For simplicity, we neglect the subtleties of the phase space effects,
because they are irrelevant to this discussion.)
However, there is a caveat, since it is possible, for the case of zero
width, to simplify the form of Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}) in a way
that for the stable top quark case the results remain correct, whereas
inconsistencies arise if the results undergo the replacement rule
``$E\to E+i \Gamma_t$''. Such simplifications, based on the assumption
that certain singular terms, which arise during the simplification, can
be neglected, have in fact been carried out in
Refs.~\cite{Hoang2,Hoang3,Melnikov3,Yakovlev1}. In
Refs.~\cite{Hoang2,Melnikov3,Hoang5} it was shown that the NNLO kinetic
energy corrections
and the Breit-Fermi potential in Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}), if they
are treated as a perturbation to first order, can be rewritten in
terms of an energy dependent Coulomb potential $\propto
C_F\alpha_s/\mbox{\boldmath$Q$}^2 \times (p_0^2/M_t^2)$, a Darwin-like
constant potential, and a potential $\propto
\alpha_s^2/|\mbox{\boldmath$Q$}|$.
Neglecting all NNLO corrections except the energy-dependent
corrections to the Coulomb potential, the simplified version of
the NNLO Schr\"odinger equation has
the form\footnote{
We emphasize that the neglect of the rest of the NNLO corrections does
not affect the validity of the following arguments, because they are
independent of the top quark width after the replacement rule ``$E\to
E+i \Gamma_t$'' has been applied.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigg[\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{M_t} -
\frac{p_0^2}{M_t}
\,\bigg]\,
\tilde G(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime) \,+\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\,\pi)^3}\,
\tilde V^{sim}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
\tilde G(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime,\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime)
\, = \,
(2\,\pi)^3\,\delta^{(3)}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime)
\,,
\label{NNLOSchroedingersimplified}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\tilde V^{sim}(\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}) \, = \,
-\,\frac{C_F\,4\,\pi\,\alpha_s}
{\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}^2}\,
\bigg(\,
1+\frac{3\,p_0^2}{2\,M_t^2}
\,\bigg)
\,.
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedingersimplified})
is much easier to solve than the original Schr\"odinger
equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}). For real energies, and if the
corrections from the NNLO terms in Eqs.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}) and
(\ref{NNLOSchroedingersimplified}) are treated as a perturbation to
first order only, the result obtained from
Eqs.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}) and (\ref{NNLOSchroedingersimplified})
are indeed equivalent, after a proper renormalization has been carried
out. This was in fact the case for which the form of
Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedingersimplified}) has been derived in
Refs.~\cite{Hoang2,Melnikov3,Hoang5}.
However, Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedingersimplified}) leads to
inconsistencies for
complex energies. This can be seen from the fact that for the total
cross section calculated from Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedingersimplified}),
after applying the replacement rule $\frac{p_0^2}{M_t}\to
\frac{p_0^2}{M_t}+i \Gamma_t$, the actual
form of the optical theorem relation reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{Im} {\cal{A}}^v & = &
6\,N_c\,\mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\tilde G({\mbox{\boldmath $k$}},{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime})
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\[3mm] & = &
6\,N_c\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
|S(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})|^2\,
\Gamma_t
\, - \,
6\,N_c\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
S^*(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})\,
\mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
\tilde V^{sim}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime)
\,\bigg]\,
S(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^\prime)
\,,
\label{Sopticalunstableinconsistent}
\end{eqnarray}
rather than Eq.~(\ref{Sopticalunstableconsistent}).
The additional term on the RHS of
Eq.~(\ref{Sopticalunstableinconsistent}) originates from the energy
dependent Coulomb-type potential in
Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedingersimplified}). However, the additional term
does not correspond
to any physical final state, because it corresponds to an absorption
process in the potential. In other words, it is impossible to
recover the total cross section from the momentum distribution, if one
defines it as the integral over the physical final states
represented by the first term on the RHS of
Eq.~(\ref{Sopticalunstableinconsistent}).
Including also the rest of the
NNLO corrections not displayed in
Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedingersimplified}), we have checked, with the
numerical methods described in the next section, that the size of the
second term on the RHS of
Eq.~(\ref{Sopticalunstableinconsistent}) is between about $5\%$ (for
$\sqrt{q^2}-2M_t\sim 5$~GeV) and $20\%$ (for $\sqrt{q^2}-2M_t\sim
-5$~GeV) for the choices of parameters employed in the analysis of
Sec.~\ref{sectionpolescheme}. (Similar results can already be obtained
by analysing the known analytic solutions of the non-relativistic
Coulomb problem~\cite{Wichmann1,Hostler1,Schwinger1} for a Coulomb
potential with a complex coupling.)
Thus for the determination of the total top-antitop cross section
close to threshold, there is an unacceptable discrepancy between the
integrated momentum distribution over physical final states and the
absorptive part of the non-relativistic current correlator. We believe
that the size of the second term on the RHS of
Eq.~(\ref{Sopticalunstableinconsistent})
should in principle be taken as an estimate for the inherent
uncertainties of using the simplified NNLO Schr\"odinger
equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedingersimplified}) supplemented by the
replacement rule of Fadin and Khoze. We have checked, however,
that the LHS
of Eq.~(\ref{Sopticalunstableinconsistent}) is much closer to the
correct result, obtained from the original Schr\"odinger
equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedingergamma}), than the integrated momentum
distribution. From this
point of view the use of the simplified Schr\"odinger
equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedingersimplified}) might be justified for the
total cross section, but is questionable for the momentum
distribution.
\vspace{1.5cm}
\section{Numerical Implementation}
\label{sectionnumerics}
In this work we use numerical methods described in
Refs.~\cite{Jezabek1,Teubnerdip,Harlanderdip} to determine the vertex
functions $S$ and $P$, which are the building blocks for the
calculation of the total top-antitop production cross section and the
three momentum distribution. Because the three- and four-dimensional
versions of the vertex functions are related through
Eq.~(\ref{amputatedrelation}), it is sufficient to determine the
amputated vertex functions $S/G^f$ and $P/G^f$ from the
three-dimensional integral
equations~(\ref{Sintegral}) and (\ref{Pintegral}).
The amputated vertex function are spherically symmetric and depend
only on the modulus of
the three momentum $\mbox{\boldmath $k$}$. It is therefore possible to
reduce Eqs.~(\ref{Sintegral}) and (\ref{Pintegral}) to one-dimensional
integral equations.
Obviously, when solving Eqs.~(\ref{Sintegral}) and (\ref{Pintegral}), the
singular behaviour of the potentials
$\tilde V(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)$
and $\tilde V_c^{\tiny\mbox{LO}}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},
\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)$ for $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime \to
\mbox{\boldmath $k$}$ requires special treatment. To avoid numerical
problems we rewrite the integral equations for the amputated
vertex functions as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}^v(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & \equiv &
\frac{S(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}{G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}
\nonumber\\[2mm]
& = &
1+\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}}{6 M_t^2}
\,-\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\tilde V(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
{\cal K}^v(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = & 1+\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}}{6 M_t^2}
\,-\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\tilde V(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
\Big({\cal K}^v(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime) -
{\cal K}^v(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) \Big) -
{\cal B}^v(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) \, {\cal K}^v(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})
\,,
\label{Samputatednew}
\\[4mm]
{\cal K}^a(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & \equiv &
\frac{P(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}{G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})}
\nonumber\\[2mm]
& = &
1\,-\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$} \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{k^2}\,
\tilde V_c^{\tiny \mbox{LO}}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},
\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
{\cal K}^a(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = & 1\,-\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\tilde V_c^{\tiny \mbox{LO}}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},
\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
\left(\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$} \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{k^2}\,
{\cal K}^a(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime) -
{\cal K}^a(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) \right) -
{\cal B}^a(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) \, {\cal K}^a(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})
\,,
\label{Pamputatednew}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal B}^v$ and ${\cal B}^a$ are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal B}^v(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & \equiv &
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\tilde V(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,,
\label{Bvintegral}
\\[2mm]
{\cal B}^a(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}) & \equiv &
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\tilde V_c^{\tiny \mbox{LO}}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},
\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,
G^f(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime)\,.
\label{Baintegral}
\end{eqnarray}
As mentioned above, both ${\cal K}^v$ and ${\cal K}^a$ depend only on the
modulus of the three momentum. The angular dependence of the
integrand in
Eqs.~(\ref{Samputatednew}) and (\ref{Pamputatednew}) (including ${\cal
B}^v$ and ${\cal B}^a$) is only coming from the potentials and the dot
product $\mbox{\boldmath $k$} \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime$.
The angular integration can be carried out analytically. The
remaining one-dimensional integral equations are then solved
numerically by discretization: the integrals $\int d p^\prime$
($p^\prime\equiv |\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^\prime|$) are
transformed into sums $\sum_i$ over a fixed set of momenta ${p^\prime}^i$, and
the integral equations for ${\cal K}^v(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ and
${\cal K}^a(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ are
each reduced to a system of linear equations, where the same
set of momenta has to be used for the $k^i$.\footnote{At
this point
the subtraction
carried out in Eqs.~(\ref{Samputatednew}) and (\ref{Pamputatednew})
becomes crucial. Without it the singularities in the potentials for
$p^\prime \to k$ would be manifest for ${p^i}^\prime = k^i$, even in
the case of integrable singularities.}
The resulting (complex) matrices are then inverted numerically to give the
amputated vertex functions ${\cal K}^v$ and ${\cal K}^a$ for the momenta
$k^i$.
In practice it turned out that the use of the Gaussian quadrature
formulae is very efficient for the discretization. A surprisingly
small number of points (of the order of 100) already leads to a high
numerical accuracy. In addition, integrals were split into two (or
more) parts and a suitable transformation of integration variables was
applied wherever needed. It should also be noted that the finite
width of the top quark is essential for the numerical stability of the
method. It makes potentially dangerous denominators in
the integrands of Eqs.~(\ref{Samputatednew}) and (\ref{Pamputatednew}),
which originate from the free Green function, well behaved (compare
Eqs.~(\ref{Gfree}) and (\ref{Gfreegamma})). Clearly, the UV regularization
by a momentum cutoff as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sectionregularization}
is most naturally implemented in our
numerical approach. It is sufficient to choose the momenta of the
(Gauss-Legendre) grid to be limited by the value of the cutoff. Such a
cutoff is, in principle, not needed in the case of pure Coulomb
potentials. There the solution of the integral equations is possible
without any cutoff and would correspond to a different
regularization scheme with different short-distance
coefficients. However, the potentials $\tilde
V_{\mbox{\tiny BF}}$, $\tilde V_{\mbox{\tiny NA}}$ and the kinematic
corrections introduced at NNLO require a UV regularization already
for purely numerical reasons, which can be seen from naive power counting
in Eq.~(\ref{Samputatednew}).
\vspace{1.5cm}
\section{A First Analysis in the Pole Mass Scheme}
\label{sectionpolescheme}
In this section we carry out a first brief analysis of the total cross
sections $Q_t^2 R^v$ and $R^a$ and their three-momentum
distributions in the pole mass scheme. We
do this even though it is known that in the pole mass scheme
there are uncomfortably large NNLO corrections in the location of
the $1S$ peak position as well as in the normalization of the total
vector-current-induced cross
section $R^v$~\cite{Hoang3,Melnikov3,Yakovlev1}. We will show in
Sec.~\ref{sectionuncertainties}
that these large corrections are a consequence of the pole mass
scheme, and that the pole mass definition has to be
abandoned as far as a precise extraction of a top quark mass from
experimental data is concerned. Nevertheless, the pole mass is a well
defined quantity in the framework of perturbation
theory~\cite{Kronfeld1,Tarrach1},
and, despite all its problems at larger orders of perturbation theory,
remains a very convenient mass parameter to use for the formulation of
(P)NRQCD and for calculations of the cross section. Thus a brief analysis
in the pole mass scheme serves as a reference point with which
results obtained with different approaches can be compared and from
which we can visualize in which way alternative top quark mass
definitions can improve the situation and in which way they cannot.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig3a.ps}
\hspace{4.cm}
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\leavevmode
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig3b.ps}\\[3cm]
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig3c.ps}
\vskip 2.7cm
\caption{\label{figtotpole}
The total vector-current-induced cross section $Q_t^2 R^v$ for
centre-of-mass energies $344\,\mbox{GeV}< \sqrt{q^2}< 352$~GeV in the
pole mass scheme.
The dependence on the renormalization scale $\mu$ (a),
on the cutoff $\Lambda$ (b) and on $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ (c) is displayed.
More details and the choice of parameters are given in the text.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig4a.ps}
\hspace{4.2cm}
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\leavevmode
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig4b.ps}\\[3cm]
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig4c.ps}
\vskip 2.7cm
\caption{\label{figtotpoleax}
The total axial-vector-current induced cross section $R^a$ for
centre-of-mass energies $344\,\mbox{GeV}< \sqrt{q^2}< 352$~GeV in the
pole mass scheme.
The dependence on the renormalization scale $\mu$ (a),
on the cutoff $\Lambda$ (b) and on $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ (c) is
displayed. More details and the choice of parameters are given in
the text.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig5a.ps}
\hspace{4.4cm}
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\leavevmode
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig5b.ps}\\[3cm]
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig5c.ps}
\vskip 2.7cm
\caption{\label{figdistpole}
The three-momentum distribution of the vector-current-induced cross
section
$Q_t^2 R^v$ for centre-of-mass energies $\sqrt{q^2}=M_{peak}$ and
$M_{peak}+5$~GeV in the pole mass scheme.
The dependence on the renormalization scale $\mu$ (a),
on the cutoff $\Lambda$ (b) and on $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ (c) is displayed.
More details and the choice of parameters are given in the text.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig6a.ps}
\hspace{4.4cm}
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\leavevmode
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig6b.ps}\\[3cm]
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig6c.ps}
\vskip 2.7cm
\caption{\label{figdistpoleax}
The three-momentum distribution of the axial-vector-current-induced
cross section $R^a$ for centre-of-mass energies
$\sqrt{q^2}=M_{peak}$ and $M_{peak}+5$~GeV
in the pole mass scheme.
The dependence on the renormalization scale $\mu$ (a),
on the cutoff $\Lambda$ (b) and on $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ (c) is displayed.
More details and the choice of parameters are given in the text.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Figs.~\ref{figtotpole} the total vector-current-induced cross
section $Q_t^2 R^v$ is displayed for
$344\,\mbox{GeV}<\sqrt{q^2}<352\,\mbox{GeV}$
at LO (dotted lines), NLO (dashed lines) and NNLO (solid lines).
The LO curves are determined from
Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedingergamma}), excluding all relativistic
corrections and taking into account only the ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s)$
contribution to the Coulomb potential and setting $C^v=1$. In addition,
the NLO curves also include the NLO corrections to $C^v$ and
the ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$ contributions of the Coulomb potential.
At NNLO all contributions mentioned in this paper are included.
Only at NNLO have we taken into account the phase space counter-terms
displayed in Eqs.~(\ref{vectorcrosssectionexpandedgamma}) and
(\ref{axialvectorcrosssectionexpandedgamma}).
In all figures shown in this section the top quark width is chosen as
$\Gamma_t=1.43$~GeV and the top quark pole mass as $M_t=175$~GeV.
Figure~\ref{figtotpole}a displays the dependence on the renormalization
scale for $\mu=15$, $30$ and $60$~GeV for
$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118$, $\Lambda=175$~GeV. For $\sqrt{q^2}\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
347$~GeV, $\mu=15$, $30$ and $60$~GeV corresponds to the upper, middle
and lower curves, respectively.
We note that in Refs.~\cite{Hoang3,Melnikov3,Yakovlev1} the
renormalization scale governing
the strong coupling of the potentials in the Schr\"odinger
equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}) has been chosen between $50$ and
$100$~GeV. Regarding the fact that the inverse Bohr radius $\sim
M_t\alpha_s$ is the scale that governs the cross section at NNLO,
the natural renormalization scale is of order $30$~GeV. This causes
logarithms of the ratio $\Lambda/\mu\sim 1/\alpha_s$ in the vector
current correlator (see App.~\ref{appendixshortdistance}), which,
however, are connected only to the running of the strong coupling.
As has already been demonstrated in previous publications on the NNLO
corrections~\cite{Hoang3,Melnikov3,Yakovlev1},
the position of the $1S$ peak varies considerably at the different
orders of approximation and for the different choices of the
renormalization scale $\mu$. (For explicit numbers see
Table~\ref{tabpeakpositionpole}.)
It is also evident that the normalization
of the total cross section is subject to large corrections. We see
that, in general, the NNLO corrections to the normalization are of
order $20\%$ and as large as the NLO ones. Further, the dependence on
the renormalization
scale is even larger at NNLO than at NLO. In Fig.~\ref{figtotpole}b
the dependence of $Q_t^2 R^v$ on the choice of the cutoff $\Lambda$ is
shown for $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118$, $\mu=30$~GeV and $\Lambda=90$, $175$
and $350$~GeV. For LO and NNLO $\Lambda=90$, $175$ and $350$~GeV
correspond to the lower, middle and upper curves, respectively. For
NLO $\Lambda=90$, $175$ and $350$~GeV
correspond to the lower, upper and middle curve, respectively.
Whereas the dependence of the LO cross section on the choice of
$\Lambda$ is quite dramatic, because at LO there is no short-distance
correction
that could compensate for a variation in $\Lambda$, the variations at
NLO and NNLO are significantly smaller (or order 5--10\%). However,
there is again no reduction of the variation from NLO to NNLO.
The variation of the cross section with respect to $\Lambda$ is
small compared with the variation with respect to the renormalization
scale $\mu$ for centre-of-mass energies closer and below the
peak. Figure~\ref{figtotpole}c displays the dependence of $Q_t^2
R^v$ on the choice of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ for $\alpha_s(M_z)=0.113, 0.118$
and $0.123$ and $\Lambda=175$~GeV, $\mu=30$~GeV. As for the variations
in the renormalization scale we see that the position of the peak depends
considerably on the choice of $\alpha_s$. We observe a strong positive
correlation between the choice of $M_t$ and $\alpha_s(M_Z)$.
Because the peak in the
total cross section is the most pronounced feature of the total cross
section, its behaviour directly reflects the quality of a top mass
extraction from experimental data. Thus, if one would like to fit the
pole mass to data for the cross section line-shape from a threshold
scan, one finds a strong positive correlation between the pole
mass and the strong coupling~\cite{Orange1} and a strong dependence of
$M_t$ on the choice of the renormalization scale leading to quite
large theoretical uncertainties in the pole mass measurements.
In Figs.~\ref{figtotpoleax}a,b,c the total
axial-vector-current-induced cross
section $R^a$ is displayed for the same input parameters as in
Figs.~\ref{figtotpole}. Figure~\ref{figtotpoleax}a shows the dependence
on the renormalization scale for $\mu=15$ (solid line), $30$ (dashed
line) and $60$~GeV (dotted line).
Figure~\ref{figtotpoleax}b exhibits the dependence of the
cutoff for $\Lambda=90$ (solid line), $175$ (dashed line) and
$350$~GeV (dotted line). Figure~\ref{figtotpoleax}c shows $R^a$ for
$\alpha_s(M_z)=0.113$ (solid line), $0.118$ (dashed line) and $0.123$
(dotted line). We observe that due to the $v$ suppression of the
axial-vector currents no peak-line enhancement as in the vector
current case is visible.
The variations of $R^a$ with respect to the
renormalization scale and the cutoff are quite large, because $R^a$
has only been determined at leading order, and the
short-distance coefficient $C^a$ does not contain any corrections
that could compensate for the variations. We note that the NLO
corrections to $R^a$ can be implemented in the same way as for
$R^v$. They are, however, beyond NNLO and have therefore not been
included into our analysis. From the phenomenological point of view
the next-to-leading order corrections are irrelevant if one takes into
account the small normalization of $R^a$ compared to $R^v$.
In Figs.~\ref{figdistpole}a,b and c the LO (dotted lines), NLO (dashed
line) and NNLO (solid lines) top-antitop
vector-current-induced three momentum distribution
$Q_t^2 d R^v/d |\mbox{\boldmath$k$}_t|$ is shown for
$0 < |\mbox{\boldmath$k$}_t| < 60$~GeV and both for centre-of-mass
energies exactly on top of the visible peak, $\sqrt{q^2}=M_{peak}$, and
for $\sqrt{q^2}=M_{peak}+5$~GeV. The input parameters have been chosen
as in Figs.~\ref{figtotpole}. Figure~\ref{figdistpole}a shows
the distributions for $\mu=15$ and $60$~GeV. At LO and NNLO
$\mu=15$~GeV corresponds to the upper curves below the peak and
$\mu=60$~GeV to the lower curves. At NLO $\mu=60$~GeV corresponds to
the higher peak and $\mu=15$~GeV to the lower.
Figure~\ref{figdistpole}b displays the dependence of the distributions
on the cutoff for $\Lambda=90$ (lower curves) and $350$~GeV (upper
curves), and Fig.~\ref{figdistpole}c exhibits the dependence of the
distributions on the strong coupling for $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.113$ and
$0.123$. Below the peak, the larger value of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$
always corresponds to the upper curve.
As for the total cross
section, we observe a strong dependence of the normalization of the
distributions on the renormalization scale and the cutoff. For
$\sqrt{q^2}=M_{peak}+5$~GeV, the dependence of the peak
position on the renormalization scale is particularly
strong.\footnote{
The peak position is always located approximately at
$|\mbox{\boldmath$k$}_t|\approx (p_0^4+M_t^2\Gamma_t^2)^{1/4}$, which
can be regarded as the effective three momentum of the top quarks.
}
Finally, in Figs.~\ref{figdistpoleax}a,b and c the
top-antitop axial-vector-current-induced three momentum distribution
$d R^a/d |\mbox{\boldmath$k$}_t|$ is shown for
$0 < |\mbox{\boldmath$k$}_t| < 60$~GeV and for centre-of-mass
energies exactly on top of the visible peak, $\sqrt{q^2}=M_{peak}$, and
for $\sqrt{q^2}=M_{peak}+5$~GeV. The input parameters have been chosen
as before. Figure~\ref{figdistpoleax}a shows
the distributions for $\mu=15$ (solid curves), $30$ (dashed curves)
and $60$~GeV (dotted curves).
Figure~\ref{figdistpoleax}b displays the dependence of the distributions
on the cutoff for $\Lambda=90$ (solid curves) $175$ (dashed curves)
and $350$~GeV (dotted curves), and Fig.~\ref{figdistpoleax}c exhibits
the dependence of the distributions on the strong coupling for
$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.113$ (solid curves), $0.118$ (dashed curves) and
$0.123$ (dotted curves).
As expected, the momentum distribution is strongly suppressed for
smaller centre-of-mass energies. The variations of the normalization
of the distributions are comparable to the variations of the
normalization of the total cross sections.
\vspace{1.5cm}
\section{Theoretical Uncertainties}
\label{sectionuncertainties}
In the previous section we have seen that the location of the
peak position and the normalization of the vector-current-induced
total cross section, as well as of its three-momentum distribution,
receive large NNLO corrections in the
pole mass scheme. In the following two subsections we discuss the
origin of the large corrections in the vector-current-induced total
cross section. For the peak position of the total cross section we
propose a solution, which allows for a considerable stabilization.
\vspace{1cm}
\subsection{The $1S$ Top Quark Mass and the Peak Position}
\label{subsectionmass}
From past experience in the theoretical description of $B$-meson
decays~\cite{Beneke3,Bigi1}, it is well known that the pole mass,
defined
as the pole of the perturbative quark propagator, although
infrared-finite to all orders in perturbation
theory~\cite{Kronfeld1,Tarrach1}, is a concept that is
ambiguous to an amount of order $\Lambda_{QCD}$. This might be a
reflection of the fact that the perturbative quark pole does not exist
in reality because of confinement. Within the framework of perturbation
theory this ambiguity is caused by an $n$-factorial increase of the
coefficients in the perturbative relation between the pole mass and a
short-distance mass such as $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$. The large corrections
are caused by an increasing infrared sensitivity of the perturbative
coefficients for large orders. It has also been shown that the large
top width does not lead to a suppression of these large
corrections~\cite{Willenbrock1}. From this point of
view the unstable behaviour of the peak position in the total cross
section is not unexpected and it would be quite appealing
conceptually to conclude that the use of a short-distance mass instead
of the pole definition would cure the problem.
In fact, it has been demonstrated in Refs.~\cite{Hoang6,Beneke4} that
the dominant
source of infrared sensitivity in the Green function of the
Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}) comes from the terms
in the static
energy $2 M_t + V(\mbox{\boldmath $r$})$. Whereas the rest (pole) mass
energy $2 M_t$ and
the potential energy $V$ (which has traditionally been calculated in
the pole mass scheme~\cite{Fischler1,Billoire1,Schroeder1,Peter1}) are
individually ambiguous to an amount
of order $\Lambda_{QCD}$~\cite{Beneke3,Bigi1,Aglietti1}, the sum of
both is not~\cite{Hoang6,Beneke4}. This shows that quantities such as
spectra or the total
cross section calculated from Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}) are much
less sensitive to infrared momenta than the pole mass itself,
rendering it an irrelevant mass parameter. Thus, any
sensible mass definition used to parametrize the top-antitop cross
section close to threshold should have no ambiguity of order
$\Lambda_{QCD}$, i.e. it should be a short-distance mass.
However, we emphasize that, in practice, large corrections at lower
orders in perturbation theory in the pole scheme do not necessarily
come from the ambiguity in the pole mass. This is because the
cancellations of infrared sensitive contributions in static and rest
mass energy is a phenomenon that is relevant in large orders where
the corresponding series are dominated by the most infrared sensitive
contributions in the loop integrals. Thus, large corrections in
perturbation theory at low orders could very well come from scales
which are
not infrared. To get a clearer picture for the case of the peak
position in the total cross section, let us have a look at the size of
the individual corrections to the peak position. In
Table~\ref{tabpeakpositionpole} we have displayed the LO, NLO and NNLO
contributions to the peak position with respect to the pole rest mass
energy
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{peak} & = &
2M_t \, - \,
\delta M_{peak}^{LO} \, - \,
\delta M_{peak}^{NLO} \, - \,
\delta M_{peak}^{NNLO,\beta_0} \, - \,
\delta M_{peak}^{NNLO,rest}
\nonumber
\\[3mm] & = &
2M_t \, - \,
\delta M_{peak}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
for $M_t=175$~GeV, $\Gamma_t=1.43$~GeV, $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.113, 0.118$
and $0.123$, and $\mu=15, 30$ and $60$~GeV.
\begin{table}[t]
\vskip 7mm
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c||c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
$\mu [\mbox{GeV}]$ & $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ & $\delta M_{peak}^{LO} $
& $\delta M_{peak}^{NLO} $
& $\delta M_{peak}^{NNLO,\beta_0} $
& $\delta M_{peak}^{NNLO,rest} $
& $\delta M_{peak} $ \\
\hline\hline
$15$ & $0.113$ & $1.60$ & $0.28$ & $0.20$ & $0.32$ & $2.40$
\\\hline
$30$ & & $1.02$ & $0.70$ & $0.27$ & $0.24$ & $2.23$
\\\hline
$60$ & & $0.35$ & $1.18$ & $0.36$ & $0.18$ & $2.07$
\\ \hline\hline
$15$ & $0.118$ & $1.89$ & $0.31$ & $0.24$ & $0.37$ & $2.80$
\\\hline
$30$ & & $1.26$ & $0.75$ & $0.31$ & $0.27$ & $2.58$
\\\hline
$60$ & & $0.69$ & $1.09$ & $0.40$ & $0.20$ & $2.39$
\\\hline\hline
$15$ & $0.123$ & $2.17$ & $0.33$ & $0.29$ & $0.43$ & $3.23$
\\\hline
$30$ & & $1.49$ & $0.81$ & $0.36$ & $0.31$ & $2.96$
\\\hline
$60$ & & $0.92$ & $1.12$ & $0.45$ & $0.23$ & $2.72$
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tabpeakpositionpole}
LO, NLO and NNLO contributions to the peak position of the total
vector current induced cross section $R^v$ in GeV in the pole mass scheme
for $M_t=175$~GeV, $\Gamma_t=1.43$~GeV, $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.113,
0.118$ and $0.123$, and $\mu=15, 30$ and $60$~GeV,
respectively. For the strong coupling two-loop running has been
employed. The results are insensitive to the choice of the cutoff
scale $\Lambda\sim M_t$.
}
\end{center}
\vskip 3mm
\end{table}
At NNLO we have separated from the rest the contributions with the
highest power of
$\beta_0$, which represent the contributions most sensitive to
infrared momenta\footnote{
These contributions are determined by using the replacement rule
$n_f\to -\frac{3}{2}\beta_0$ for the terms with the highest power of
$n_f$,
where $n_f$ is the number of light quark species. This method is
called ``naive non-Abelianization'' and accounts for the most infrared
sensitive contributions in perturbative series relating the pole mass
to a short-distance mass~\cite{Beneke5}. The result of this replacement is
referred to as the ``large-$\beta_0$'' limit.
}.
All the large-$\beta_0$ terms originate from the Coulomb
potential $V_c$, Eq.~(\ref{NNLOCoulomb}).
From the numbers presented in Table~\ref{tabpeakpositionpole} we see
that depending on the choice of the renormalization scale the
large-$\beta_0$ contributions at NNLO contribute between about $30$ and
$60\%$ to the total NNLO corrections to the peak position. Thus at NNLO
the large shift in the peak position consists to approximately equal
parts of corrections very sensitive to infrared momenta and
corrections coming from subleading infrared terms and relativistic
corrections. From this we can conclude that using some unspecified
short-distance
mass definition instead of the pole mass does not necessarily
lead to smaller NNLO corrections to the peak position because the
most infrared sensitive terms are not yet dominating at NNLO.
For the same reason, we cannot conclude that some unspecified
short-distance mass
definition necessarily leads to a significantly reduced
renormalization scale dependence of the NNLO peak position or to a
smaller correlation between the peak position and the strong coupling.
Thus, the question of which mass definition one should use is not only a
conceptual issue, but also a practical one.
We formulate two requirements for a proper top mass definition for the
total cross section close to threshold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[A)] it must be a short-distance mass, and
\item[B)] it must lead to a considerable stabilization
of the peak location with respect to the order of approximation used
and also to variations of parameters such as the strong coupling or the
renormalization scale.
\end{itemize}
Requirement A reflects the necessity that, if a top mass determination
at the linear collider with uncertainties of $200$~MeV or even
better is intended, the corresponding mass parameter must be free of
intrinsic ambiguities of order $\Lambda_{QCD}$. In addition, only a
short-distance mass can be reliably related to the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ top quark mass, which is the preferred mass
parameter used in calculations at high energies and for top quark
corrections to electroweak precision observables.
Requirement B ensures that the mass parameter can be extracted from
experimental data with small systematic uncertainties.
The mass that seems to be most appropriate to us to fulfil this
task, because it is closely related to the peak position in the
vector-current-induced cross section, is what we call the $1S$ mass,
$M_{1S}$. The $1S$ mass is defined as
half the perturbative mass of the fictitious toponium $1\,{}^3\!S_1$
ground state, where the top quark is assumed to be stable.
Expressed in terms of the pole mass, the $1S$ mass reads
($a_s=\alpha_s(\mu)$)~\cite{Melnikov5,Pineda2}:
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{1S} & = &
M_t \, - \, \epsilon
\frac{M_t\,C_F^2\,a_s^2}{8}
\nonumber
\\ & &
- \,\epsilon^2 \,
\frac{M_t\,C_F^2\,a_s^2}{8}\,
\Big(\frac{a_s}{\pi}\Big)\,\bigg[\,
\beta_0\,\bigg( L + 1 \,\bigg) + \frac{a_1}{2}
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\ & &
- \,\epsilon^3
\frac{M_t\,C_F^2\,a_s^2}{8}\, \Big(\frac{a_s}{\pi}\Big)^2\,
\bigg[\,
\beta_0^2\,\bigg(\, \frac{3}{4} L^2 + L +
\frac{\zeta_3}{2} + \frac{\pi^2}{24} +
\frac{1}{4}
\,\bigg) +
\beta_0\,\frac{a_1}{2}\,\bigg(\, \frac{3}{2}\,L + 1
\,\bigg)
\nonumber\\[3mm]
& & \hspace{1.5cm} +
\frac{\beta_1}{4}\,\bigg(\, L + 1
\,\bigg) +
\frac{a_1^2}{16} + \frac{a_2}{8} +
\bigg(\, C_A - \frac{C_F}{48} \,\bigg)\, C_F \pi^2
\,\bigg]
\,,
\label{1Sdef}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
L & \equiv & \ln\Big(\frac{\mu}{C_F\,a_s\,M_t}\Big)
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and the contributions at LO, NLO and NNLO are labelled by the powers
$\epsilon$, $\epsilon^2$ and $\epsilon^3$, respectively, of
the auxiliary parameter $\epsilon=1$.
In general, the electroweak corrections not calculated in this work
can lead to further corrections in Eq.~(\ref{1Sdef}).
We note that $2 M_{1S}$ is not equal
to the actual peak position visible in the vector-current-induced
total cross section because the top quark width leads to an additional
shift of the peak by about $+200$~MeV.\footnote{
The difference between $2 M_{1S}$ and the peak location of the
vector-current-induced total cross section is proportional to
$\Gamma_t$ times a function of $\Gamma_t/(M_t \alpha_s^2)$. For
$\Gamma_t\ll M_t \alpha_s^2$ the difference
$ M_{peak}-2 M_{1S}$ is proportional to $\Gamma_t^4/(M_t C_F^2
\alpha_s^2)^3$. The size of the difference between $2 M_{1S}$ and the
peak location of about $+200$~MeV can be seen in Figs.~\ref{figtotm1S}.
}
In principle it would also be possible to define a mass that would be
equal to half the actual visible peak position. Except for additional
corrections coming from the top quark width, this would also require
the inclusion of an additional shift coming from the
axial-vector-induced cross section. Such a
definition would, however, not necessarily be more useful,
since the experimentally measurable line-shape of the total cross
section at a future $e^+e^-$ or $\mu^+\mu^-$ collider will
be distorted by initial state radiation and beamstrahlung. In the
case of a muon collider these effects lead to an additional
shift and in the
case of the $e^+e^-$ linear collider even to the disappearance of the
peak~\cite{Orange1}. Thus one has to consider the $1S$ mass, like the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ mass, as a fictitious mass
parameter, which to NNLO is defined
through the perturbative series given in
Eq.~(\ref{1Sdef}). Nevertheless, twice the $1S$ mass is
quite close to the peak location and, by construction, leads to a
considerable reduction of the variation of the peak position with
respect to the order of approximation, the strong coupling and the
renormalization scale.
To show that $M_{1S}$ is indeed a short-distance mass we recall that
the static energy $2M_t + V_c(\mbox{\boldmath r})$
represents the dominant infrared sensitive contribution in the
Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}). The difference
between $M_{1S}$ and the pole mass is\footnote{
Strictly speaking, the simple form of Eq.~(\ref{1Spolefull}) is
true only up to NNLO because
of retardation effects, which set in at N$^3$LO. Thus, in general,
there would also be a non-trivial integration over time components.
The form of our proof also depends on the assumption that the static
potential is an infrared finite quantity. That this is most probably
not the case was already pointed out some time ago in
Ref.~\cite{Appelquist1}, because the perturbative
static potential might become sensitive to scales below the inverse
Bohr radius at ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^4)$. Some contributions at
${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^4)$ have recently been calculated in
Ref.~\cite{Pineda3}. Up to ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^3)$,
i.e. NNLO in the non-relativistic expansion, the perturbative potential
has been proven to be finite by complete
calculations~\cite{Schroeder1,Peter1}.
Because $M_{1S}$ is defined as a physical quantity this would
not affect the final conclusion that it is a short-distance mass,
but it would change the form of the proof considerably.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{1S}-M_t & = & \frac{1}{2}\,
\int\frac{d^3\mbox{\boldmath $p$}}{(2\pi)^3}
\frac{d^3\mbox{\boldmath $q$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\tilde\Phi_{1S}^*(\mbox{\boldmath $p$})\,
{\cal{H}}(\mbox{\boldmath $p$},\mbox{\boldmath $q$})\,
\tilde\Phi_{1S}(\mbox{\boldmath $q$})
\,,
\label{1Spolefull}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal{H}}$ is the Hamiltonian of Eq.~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger})
and $\tilde\Phi_{1S}$ the normalized wave function of the $1S$ state
in momentum
space representation. The dominant infrared sensitive contribution in
relation~(\ref{1Spolefull}) reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\Big(\,M_{1S}-M_t\,\Big)^{IR} & \sim & \frac{1}{2}\,
\int\frac{d^3\mbox{\boldmath $p$}}{(2\pi)^3}
\frac{d^3\mbox{\boldmath $q$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\tilde\Phi_{1S}^*(\mbox{\boldmath $p$})\,
\tilde V_c(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}-\mbox{\boldmath $q$})\,
\tilde\Phi_{1S}(\mbox{\boldmath $q$})
\,.
\label{1SpoleIR1}
\end{eqnarray}
Because the infrared region in Eq.~(\ref{1SpoleIR1}) is given by
$|\mbox{\boldmath $p$}-\mbox{\boldmath $q$}|<\mu_f$, where $\mu_f$ is
much smaller than the inverse Bohr radius $\sim M_t\alpha_s$, the
characteristic scale governing the dynamics described by the wave
function, we can simplify relation~(\ref{1SpoleIR1}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\Big(\,M_{1S}-M_t\,\Big)^{IR} & \sim & \frac{1}{2}\,
\int\limits^{|\mbox{\boldmath $p$}-\mbox{\boldmath $q$}|<\mu_f}
\frac{d^3\mbox{\boldmath $p$}}{(2\pi)^3}
\frac{d^3\mbox{\boldmath $q$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
|\tilde\Phi_{1S}(\mbox{\boldmath $p$})|^2\,
\tilde V_c(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}-\mbox{\boldmath $q$})
\nonumber \\ & \sim &
\frac{1}{2}\,\int\limits^{|\mbox{\boldmath $q$}|<\mu_f}\,
\frac{d^3\mbox{\boldmath $q$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\tilde V_c(\mbox{\boldmath $q$})
\,.
\label{1SpoleIR2}
\end{eqnarray}
It has been shown in Refs.~\cite{Beneke4,Bigi1} that the RHS of
Eq.~(\ref{1SpoleIR2}) is equivalent to the dominant infrared contributions
of the difference between the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ and pole
mass. Therefore the relation between $M_{1S}$ and the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ mass $\bar m_t$ only contains subleading
infrared
contributions, which are suppressed by at least one power of
$1/M_t$. In other words the ambiguity in the relation between $M_{1S}$
and $\bar m_t$ is parametrically of order $\Lambda_{QCD}^2/M_t$. This
proves that $M_{1S}$ is a short-distance mass.
We also see from Eq.~(\ref{1SpoleIR2}) that, if the pole mass is
expressed in terms of the $1S$ mass and if the resulting mass
difference $2(M_t-M_{1S})$ is absorbed into
the potential, the rest mass and the potential
energy term contained in the total static energy are individually free
of ambiguities of order $\Lambda_{QCD}$. The RHS of Eq.~(\ref{1SpoleIR2})
just subtracts the low momentum (i.e. dominant infrared sensitive)
contribution from the Coulomb potential $V_c(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$.
We note that in order to implement the $1S$ mass definition into our
numerical codes, which solve the integral equations~(\ref{Sintegral}) and
(\ref{Pintegral}), we have to invert relation~(\ref{1Sdef}). It has
been shown in Refs.~\cite{Hoang7,Hoang8} that a consistent way to
achieve this task is to carry out the inversion with respect to the
auxiliary parameter $\epsilon$. For the reason that this modified
perturbative expansion has been applied for the first time to express
inclusive $B$ decays in terms of the $\Upsilon(1S)$ mass, it has
been called the ``Upsilon expansion''.~\cite{Hoang7,Hoang8} If the
$1S$ mass is expressed in terms of the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ mass,
which is related to the pole
mass by a series of the form $\bar m_t-M_t = M_t \sum_{n=1}^\infty
a_n\alpha_s^n$,
one has to consider a term $\propto \alpha_s^n$ in this relation of
order $\epsilon^n$ in the Upsilon expansion. In other words, if one
relates the $1S$ mass to a mass which is different from the pole
mass, one must combine terms of different order in
$\alpha_s$. As an example, this means that in order to relate the
N$^k$LO $1S$ mass to the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ mass one needs to know
its relation to the pole mass to ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^{k+1})$.
This is necessary because this is the only way in which the high order
large perturbative corrections coming from infrared-sensitive terms
are cancelled.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig7a.ps}
\hspace{4.2cm}
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\leavevmode
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig7b.ps}\\[3cm]
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig7c.ps}
\vskip 2.7cm
\caption{\label{figtotm1S}
The total vector-current-induced cross section $Q_t^2 R^v$ for
centre-of-mass energies $346\,\mbox{GeV}< \sqrt{q^2}< 354$~GeV in the
$1S$ mass scheme.
The dependence on the renormalization scale $\mu$ (a),
on the cutoff $\Lambda$ (b) and on $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ (c) is displayed.
More details and the choice of parameters are given in the text.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig8a.ps}
\hspace{4.2cm}
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\leavevmode
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig8b.ps}\\[3cm]
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig8c.ps}
\vskip 2.7cm
\caption{\label{figtotm1Sax}
The total axial-vector-current-induced cross section $R^a$ for
centre-of-mass energies $346\,\mbox{GeV}< \sqrt{q^2}< 354$~GeV in the
$1S$ mass scheme.
The dependence on the renormalization scale $\mu$ (a),
on the cutoff $\Lambda$ (b) and on $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ (c) is
displayed. More details and the choice of parameters are given in
the text.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig9a.ps}
\hspace{4.4cm}
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\leavevmode
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig9b.ps}\\[3cm]
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig9c.ps}
\vskip 2.7cm
\caption{\label{figdistm1S}
The three-momentum distribution of the vector-current-induced cross
section $Q_t^2 R^v$ for centre-of-mass energies $\sqrt{q^2}=M_{peak}$
and $M_{peak}+5$~GeV in the $1S$ mass scheme.
The dependence on the renormalization scale $\mu$ (a),
on the cutoff $\Lambda$ (b) and on $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ (c) is displayed.
More details and the choice of parameters are given in the text.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig10a.ps}
\hspace{4.4cm}
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\leavevmode
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig10b.ps}\\[3cm]
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig10c.ps}
\vskip 2.7cm
\caption{\label{figaxdistm1S}
The three-momentum distribution of the axial-vector-current-induced
cross section $R^a$ for centre-of-mass energies
$\sqrt{q^2}=M_{peak}$ and $M_{peak}+5$~GeV in the $1S$ mass scheme.
The dependence on the renormalization scale $\mu$ (a),
on the cutoff $\Lambda$ (b) and on $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ (c) is displayed.
More details and the choice of parameters are given in the text.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Figs.~\ref{figtotm1S} the total vector-current-induced cross
section $Q_t^2 R^v$ is displayed in the $1S$ scheme for
$346\,\mbox{GeV}<\sqrt{q^2}<354\,\mbox{GeV}$
at LO (dotted lines), NLO (dashed lines) and NNLO (solid lines).
In all figures shown in this section the top quark width is chosen as
$\Gamma_t=1.43$~GeV and the top quark $1S$ mass as $M_{1S}=175$~GeV.
Figure~\ref{figtotm1S}a displays the dependence on the renormalization
scale for $\mu=15$, $30$ and $60$~GeV for
$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118$ and $\Lambda=175$~GeV.
At LO and NNLO the choices $\mu=15$, $30$ and $60$~GeV correspond to
the upper, middle and lower curves. At NLO the choices $\mu=15$, $30$
and $60$~GeV correspond to the lower, middle and upper curves for
centre-of-mass energies below the peak position.
In Fig.~\ref{figtotm1S}b the dependence of $Q_t^2 R^v$ on the choice of
the cutoff $\Lambda$ is shown for $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118$, $\mu=30$~GeV
and $\Lambda=90$ (lower curves), $175$ (middle curves) and $350$~GeV
(upper curves). Figure~\ref{figtotm1S}c displays the dependence of $Q_t^2
R^v$ on the choice of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ for $\alpha_s(M_z)=0.113$ (lower
curves), $0.118$ (middle curves) and $0.123$ (upper curves) and
$\Lambda=175$~GeV, $\mu=30$~GeV.
Comparing the result with the curves displayed in
Figs.~\ref{figtotpole}, the improvement of the stability of the peak
position is evident. The strong dependence on the renormalization
scale and the strong correlation with $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ have vanished.
However, we also observe that the large
corrections in the normalization of the curves are essentially not
affected at all.
In Figs.~\ref{figtotm1Sax}a,b,c the total axial-vector-current-induced cross
section $R^a$ is displayed in the $1S$ mass scheme for the same input
parameters as in Figs.~\ref{figtotm1S}. Figure~\ref{figtotm1Sax}a shows
the dependence on the renormalization scale for $\mu=15$ (solid line),
$30$ (dashed line) and $60$~GeV (dotted
line), respectively. Figure~\ref{figtotm1Sax}b exhibits the dependence
of the cutoff for $\Lambda=90$ (solid line), $175$ (dashed line) and
$350$~GeV (dotted line). Figure~\ref{figtotpoleax}c shows $R^a$ for
$\alpha_s(M_z)=0.113$ (solid line), $0.118$ (dashed line) and $0.123$
(dotted line). Compared to the plots in the pole mass scheme, we find a
slightly smaller variation in the normalization with respect to the
renormalization scale and the choice of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$.
Clearly the effects of using the $1S$ scheme instead of the pole one
are much smaller in the axial-vector case because no peak is
visible there.
In Figs.~\ref{figdistm1S}a,b and c the LO (dotted lines), NLO (dashed
lines) and NNLO (solid lines) top-antitop
vector-current-induced three-momentum distribution
$Q_t^2 d R^v/d |\mbox{\boldmath$k$}_t|$ is shown for
$0 < |\mbox{\boldmath$k$}_t| < 60$~GeV in the $1S$ mass scheme for
centre-of-mass energies exactly on top of the visible peak,
$\sqrt{q^2}=M_{peak}$ and
for $\sqrt{q^2}=M_{peak}+5$~GeV. The input parameters have been chosen
as in Figs.~\ref{figtotm1S}. Figure~\ref{figdistm1S}a shows
the distributions for $\mu=15$ and $60$~GeV. At LO and NNLO
$\mu=15$~GeV corresponds to the upper curves and
$\mu=60$~GeV to the lower curves for centre-of-mass energies below the
peak. At NLO $\mu=60$~GeV corresponds to
the higher peak and $\mu=15$~GeV to the lower.
Figure~\ref{figdistm1S}b displays the dependence of the distributions
on the cutoff for $\Lambda=90$ (lower curves) and $350$~GeV (upper
curves), and Fig.~\ref{figdistm1S}c exhibits the dependence of the
distributions on the strong coupling for $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.113$ and
$0.123$. Below the peak the larger value of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$
always corresponds to the upper curve.
In Figs.~\ref{figaxdistm1S}a,b and c the
top-antitop axial-vector-current-induced three-momentum distribution
$d R^a/d |\mbox{\boldmath$k$}_t|$ is shown in the $1S$ scheme for
$0 < |\mbox{\boldmath$k$}_t| < 60$~GeV and both for centre-of-mass
energies exactly on top of the visible peak, $\sqrt{q^2}=M_{peak}$, and
for $\sqrt{q^2}=M_{peak}+5$~GeV. The input parameters have been chosen
as before. Figure~\ref{figaxdistm1S}a shows
the distribution for $\mu=15$ (solid curves), $30$ (dashed curves)
and $60$~GeV (dotted curves). Figure~\ref{figaxdistm1S}b displays the
dependence of the distribution on the cutoff for $\Lambda=90$ (solid
curves), $175$ (dashed curves) and $350$~GeV (dotted curves), and
Fig.~\ref{figaxdistm1S}c exhibits the dependence of the distribution
on the strong coupling for $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.113$ (solid curves)
$0.118$ (dashed curves) and $0.123$ (dotted curves).
The curves shown in Figs.~\ref{figaxdistm1S} are somewhat higher than
in Figs.~\ref{figdistpoleax}, because the choice of $175$~GeV for the
top quark mass corresponds to a higher value for $M_{peak}$ in the
$1S$ scheme. From
Figs.~\ref{figdistm1S} and \ref{figaxdistm1S} it is evident that the
$1S$ scheme does not essentially affect at all the three-momentum
distributions. Compared to the results in the pole mass scheme the
variations of the peak position remain unchanged.
This can be understood from the fact that a mass redefinition
corresponds to a shift in the centre-of-mass energy, but leaves the
definition of the off-shell top quark three-momentum unchanged.
In Table~\ref{tabpeakposition1S} we have displayed the LO, NLO and NNLO
corrections to the peak position with respect to $2 M_{1S}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{peak} & = &
2M_{1S} \, + \,
\delta M_{peak,1S}^{LO} \, + \,
\delta M_{peak,1S}^{NLO} \, + \,
\delta M_{peak,1S}^{NNLO}
\nonumber
\\[3mm] & = &
2M_{1S} \, + \,
\delta M_{peak,1S}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
in the
$1S$ mass scheme for $M_{1S}=175$~GeV, $\Gamma_t=1.43$~GeV,
$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.113, 0.118$ and $0.123$, and $\mu=15, 30$ and
$60$~GeV for
various choices of the renormalization scale $\mu$ and the strong
coupling $\alpha_s(M_Z)$.
\begin{table}[t]
\vskip 7mm
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c||c|c|c|c|} \hline
$\mu [\mbox{GeV}]$ & $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ & $\delta M_{peak,1S}^{LO} $
& $\delta M_{peak,1S}^{NLO} $
& $\delta M_{peak,1S}^{NNLO} $
& $\delta M_{peak,1S} $ \\
\hline\hline
$15$ & $0.113$ & $0.21$ & $0.03$ & $-0.03$ & $0.20$
\\\hline
$30$ & & $0.38$ & $-0.11$ & $-0.09$ & $0.17$
\\\hline
$60$ & & $0.78$ & $-0.50$ & $-0.11$ & $0.17$
\\ \hline\hline
$15$ & $0.118$ & $0.16$ & $0.02$ & $-0.00$ & $0.17$
\\\hline
$30$ & & $0.30$ & $-0.09$ & $-0.08$ & $0.12$
\\\hline
$60$ & & $0.54$ & $-0.32$ & $-0.10$ & $0.11$
\\\hline\hline
$15$ & $0.123$ & $0.12$ & $-0.00$ & $0.04$ & $0.16$
\\\hline
$30$ & & $0.23$ & $-0.07$ & $-0.08$ & $0.08$
\\\hline
$60$ & & $0.42$ & $-0.26$ & $-0.10$ & $0.07$
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tabpeakposition1S}
LO, NLO and NNLO contributions to the peak position of the total
vector-current-induced cross section $R^v$ in GeV in the $1S$ mass
scheme for $M_{1S}=175$~GeV, $\Gamma_t=1.43$~GeV,
$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.113, 0.118$ and $0.123$, and
$\mu=15, 30$ and $60$~GeV, respectively. For the strong coupling
two-loop running has
been employed. The results are insensitive to the choice of the cutoff
scale $\Lambda\sim 175$~GeV.
}
\end{center}
\vskip 3mm
\end{table}
Taking the size of the NLO and NNLO corrections as a measure for the
present theoretical uncertainty in the peak position, and assuming that
the latter can be used to estimate the theoretical uncertainty in
the determination of $M_{1S}$, we find that this uncertainty is
approximately $200$~MeV.
If the effects of beamstrahlung and initial state radiation
at a future $e^+e^-$ or muon pair collider do not spoil a precise
determination of the $1S$ mass with an uncertainty of $200$~MeV
one has to ask the question how $M_{1S}$ is related to the top mass
parameters usually used for calculations of physical observables
that are not related to the threshold regime. In principle, one could
use $M_{1S}$ as a new top mass parameter in its own right. This would,
of course, require that all formulae be expressed in
terms of $M_{1S}$, using the Upsilon expansion discussed after
Eq.~(\ref{1SpoleIR2}). A more economical way is to relate
the $1S$ mass to the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ top quark mass, which is
a common mass parameter for perturbative calculations involving heavy
quarks and which, in a number of cases, even leads to improved
convergence properties of the perturbative series.\footnote{
Prominent cases are the top quark QCD corrections to the
$\rho$-parameter~\cite{Chetyrkin1} and the massive quark pair production cross
section at large energies~\cite{HoangKT1}.
}
Because the $1S$ mass is a short-distance mass, its perturbative
relation to the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ mass is much better behaved at
large orders than the corresponding relation of the pole mass. The
relation between $M_{1S}$ and
$\bar m_t(\bar m_t)$ can be derived from Eq.~(\ref{1Sdef}) and the
relation between pole mass and $\bar m_t(\bar m_t)$ using the Upsilon
expansion discussed above. We emphasize that the
three-loop relation between the pole and the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$
mass is needed
to relate $M_{1S}$ and $\bar m_t(\bar m_t)$ at NNLO accuracy. Assuming
that those 3-loop corrections can be approximated by the known
corrections in the large-$\beta_0$ limit~\cite{Beneke5}, we find the
following numerical value for $\bar m_t(\bar m_t)$ for
$M_{1S}=175\pm 0.2$~GeV and $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118\pm x\,0.001$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar m_t(\bar m_t) & = &
\bigg[\,
175 - 7.58\, \epsilon (\mbox{LO}) -
0.96\, \epsilon^2 (\mbox{NLO}) -
0.23\, \epsilon^3 (\mbox{NNLO})
\nonumber
\\[3mm] & & \hspace{3cm}
\pm 0.2 (\delta M_{1S})
\pm x\,0.07 (\delta \alpha_s)
\,\bigg]~\mbox{GeV}
\,.
\label{MSmassestimate}
\end{eqnarray}
For the numbers given in Eq.~(\ref{MSmassestimate}) we have assumed an
uncertainty in the value of the strong coupling at $M_Z$ of $x \,0.001$
in order to demonstrate the importance of $\alpha_s$ for the
determination of $\bar m_t(\bar m_t)$. This uncertainty is independent
of the order to which the relation between the pole and the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ mass is known because it comes from the LO
term. We note that this fact shows that the strong correlation of the
peak position
to the strong coupling, which was visible in the pole mass scheme,
is not necessarily eliminated by adopting the $1S$ scheme. This
correlation might come back whenever the $1S$ mass is related to
another short-distance mass or is used as a parameter in other
quantities. However, the use of the $1S$ mass has the advantage to
free the process of the mass extraction from the total cross section
close to threshold also from strong dependences on other parameters
such as the renormalization scale or the order of approximation
used. Therefore systematic uncertainties are expected to be
smaller if the $1S$ scheme is used for the threshold calculations.
Equation~(\ref{MSmassestimate}) shows that the knowledge of the
3-loop corrections in the relation of pole and $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$
mass and a small uncertainty in $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ are crucial for a
determination of $\bar m_t(\bar m_t)$ with
uncertainties comparable to $\delta M_{1S}$.
In recent literature there have been two other proposals for
alternative short-distance mass definitions, which can also be used for
a measurement of the top quark mass from the total cross section. In
Refs.~\cite{Voloshin1,Bigi2} the ``low scale running mass'' was
proposed to subtract
the infrared behaviour from the heavy quark self energy. The ``low
scale running mass'' was devised in order to improve the convergence
of the perturbative series describing the contributions leading in
$1/M_b$ in inclusive $B$-meson decays. Due to the
universality of the dominant infrared sensitive contribution, the low
scale running mass can also serve as a top mass definition, which leads
to an improved stability of the peak position in the total cross
section. The low scale running mass depends on the cutoff $\mu_{LS}$,
which limits the momenta that are subtracted from the self energy. At
order $\alpha_s$ (i.e. at LO) its relation to the pole mass
reads~\cite{Voloshin1,Bigi2}
\begin{eqnarray}
m_t^{LS}(\mu_{LS}) - M_t & = &
-\,\frac{16}{9}\,\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\,\mu_{LS}\,
\bigg[\,
1 + {\cal{O}}(\alpha_s) + {\cal{O}}\Big(\frac{\mu_{LS}}{M_t}\Big)
\,\bigg]
\,.
\label{lowscalepole}
\end{eqnarray}
By adjusting the scale $\mu_{LS}$ in such a way that the RHS of
Eq.~(\ref{lowscalepole}) is comparable in size to the RHS
of Eq.~(\ref{1Sdef}) the position of the peak in the total cross
section can be stabilized. In Ref.~\cite{Beneke4} the
``potential-subtracted'' mass was proposed. It subtracts the dominant
infrared-sensitive contribution
in the Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}), which is
contained in the static potential $V_c$. The subtraction is in fact
equal to the RHS of Eq.~(\ref{1SpoleIR2}). Like the low scale running
mass, the potential-subtracted mass depends on a cutoff, $\mu_{PS}$. At
order $\alpha_s$ (LO) the relation to the pole mass reads~\cite{Beneke4}
\begin{eqnarray}
m_t^{PS}(\mu_{PS}) - M_t & = &
-\,\frac{4}{3}\,\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\,\mu_{PS}\,
\bigg[\,
1 + {\cal{O}}(\alpha_s)
\,\bigg]
\,.
\label{polesubtractedpole}
\end{eqnarray}
As for the low scale running mass, the scale $\mu_{PS}$ can be
adjusted in such a way that the RHS of Eq.~(\ref{polesubtractedpole})
is comparable in size to the RHS of Eq.~(\ref{1Sdef}). To achieve this,
$\mu_{PS}$ has to be chosen of the order of the inverse Bohr radius
$\sim M_t\alpha_s$, which is much larger than the scale $\mu_f\ll
M_t\alpha_s$ introduced in
Eq.~(\ref{1SpoleIR2}). For $\mu_{PS}=\frac{4}{3}\mu_{LS}$ the low
scale running and the potential-subtracted mass lead to approximately
equivalent results. However, the stabilization of the peak position can
be expected to be slightly worse than for the $1S$ mass if $\mu_{PS}$
or $\frac{4}{3}\mu_{LS}$ are not fine-tuned. In addition, the results
that could finally be obtained for the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ top
mass can depend on the value that is chosen for the cutoff scale
$\mu_{LS}$ and $\mu_{PS}$.
\vspace{1cm}
\subsection{Normalization of the Total Cross Section}
\label{subsectionnormalization}
In the previous subsection we have demonstrated that a proper
redefinition of the top quark mass leads to a considerable improvement
in the stability of the peak position in the vector-current-induced
total cross section $R^v$. However, there have been only marginal
changes in the size of
the NNLO corrections to the overall normalization of the
line-shape. Compared to the NLO normalization of the total
vector-current-induced cross section,
the NNLO corrections are between $15$ and $25\%$, which is rather
large if one recalls that the NNLO corrections
are parametrically of order $v^2\sim\alpha_s^2$. In this
section we try to find some answers to the question, whether the large
NNLO corrections to the normalization of the total
vector-current-induced cross section have
to be interpreted as a sign that the non-relativistic expansion for the
top-antitop cross section close to threshold breaks down. Clearly,
this question can only be answered reliably after the complete
N${^3}$LO corrections have been determined, which are, unfortunately,
beyond the capabilities of present technology. We therefore analyse the
NNLO corrections to the normalization of the total cross section with
respect to their sensitivity to infrared momenta and carry out a
comparison to the one- and two-loop cross section for energies far
above the
top-antitop threshold, where conventional perturbation theory in
$\alpha_s$ is believed to be reliable. We provide arguments that the
large NNLO corrections to the normalization are genuine
${\cal{O}}(v^2,\alpha_s^2)$ relativistic corrections, which cannot be
removed by changing the definition of $\alpha_s$ or the top quark
mass, and that their size does not necessarily indicate a breakdown of
the non-relativistic expansion used in this work.
As far as a redefinition of the top quark mass is concerned, it is
quite obvious that it cannot significantly affect the normalization
of the total cross section because the dominant effect in a mass shift
is an energy shift of the entire line-shape. Nevertheless, it is quite
interesting that the normalization is at all insensitive to the
dominant infrared-sensitive terms in the Schr\"odinger
equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger})\footnote{
In our case the two issues are in fact connected to each
other. But it is important to conceptually separate the issue of a
simple energy shift from the more fundamental question of infrared
sensitivity.
},
which, in the pole mass scheme, would cause the corrections to the
peak position to grow factorially at large orders of perturbation
theory. To
show this let us recall that the total vector-current-induced cross
section is proportional
to the absorptive part of the Green function, with both arguments
evaluated at the origin in configuration space representation:
\begin{eqnarray}
R^v & \sim & \mbox{Im}\,\sum\hspace{-5mm}\int\limits_n\hspace{2mm}\,
\frac{|\Phi_n(0)|^2}{E_n-E-i\,\Gamma_t}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the sum extends over discrete and continuum states with
$S$ wave quantum numbers. Thus, for fixed energy the normalization
only depends on the wave function. Repeating the steps following
Eq.~(\ref{1Spolefull}) we find that the correction to the wave
function coming from the dominant infrared-sensitive
terms in the Schr\"odinger equation reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigg[\,\delta \Phi_n(0)\,\bigg]^{IR} & = &
\bigg[\,
\int\frac{d^3\mbox{\boldmath $p$}}{(2\pi)^3}
\int\frac{d^3\mbox{\boldmath $q$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\sum\hspace{-6.5mm}\int\limits_{m\neq n}\,
\frac{\Phi_m(0)\,\tilde\Phi_m^*(\mbox{\boldmath $p$})}{E_m-E-i\Gamma_t}
\,\delta {\cal{H}}(\mbox{\boldmath $p$},\mbox{\boldmath $q$})\,
\tilde\Phi_{n}(\mbox{\boldmath $q$})
\,\bigg]^{IR}
\nonumber\\ & \sim &
\int\frac{d^3\mbox{\boldmath $p$}}{(2\pi)^3}
\int\limits^{|\mbox{\boldmath $q$}|<\mu_f}
\frac{d^3\mbox{\boldmath $q$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\sum\hspace{-6.5mm}\int\limits_{m\neq n}\,
\frac{\Phi_m(0)\,\tilde\Phi_m^*(\mbox{\boldmath $p$})}{E_m-E-i\Gamma_t}\,
\tilde\Phi_{n}(\mbox{\boldmath $p$})
\,\delta\tilde V_c(\mbox{\boldmath $q$})
\nonumber \\[3mm] & = &
0
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
i.e. it vanishes because of the orthogonality of the wave
functions. Therefore the large corrections in the normalization of the
total cross section are not related to an infrared sensitivity of the
corrections, in particular at large orders. To demonstrate that this
is also the case for the NNLO corrections
calculated in this work, we have displayed in
Fig.~\ref{figcompareinfrared} the total vector-current-induced
cross section $Q_t^2 R^v$ close to threshold for $M_{1S}=\Lambda=175$~GeV,
$\mu=30$~GeV, $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118$ and $\Gamma_t=1.43$~GeV
successively including various NNLO corrections.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=4.5cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig11.ps}
\vskip 2.7cm
\caption{\label{figcompareinfrared}
The total vector-current-induced
cross section $Q_t^2 R^v$ close to threshold for $M_{1S}=\Lambda=175$~GeV,
$\mu=30$~GeV, $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118$ and $\Gamma_t=1.43$~GeV at NLO
(dotted curve) and NNLO (solid curve). The dash-dotted curve is NLO
including also the NNLO corrections to the Coulomb potential $V_c$,
and the dashed line contains, in addition, all Abelian NNLO
corrections. The differences between the curves indicates the size of
individual NNLO relativistic corrections.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The dotted line represents the NLO cross section and the solid line
the NNLO one. The dash-dotted line is the NLO cross section
including also the NNLO corrections to the Coulomb potential $V_c$;
the dashed line contains, in addition, all Abelian NNLO
corrections, i.e. those that do not involve the SU(3) group
theoretical factor $C_A$. The separation of the NNLO corrections into
those coming from the Coulomb potential and from Abelian and non-Abelian
relativistic corrections is gauge-invariant. The difference between
the dashed and the solid curve represents the corrections of the
non-Abelian NNLO effects originating from the potential $V_{\mbox{\tiny
NA}}$ and those ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$ contributions to the
short-distance coefficient $C^v$ that are proportional to $C_A$. From
the rather small difference between the dotted and the dash-dotted
curves (2--4\%) we see that the large NNLO corrections to the
normalization are not related to the corrections in the Coulomb
potential. Because a redefinition of the strong coupling would mainly
affect the size of the higher-order corrections in the Coulomb
potential, we can conclude that using a different
scheme for the strong coupling (such as the
$V$-scheme~\cite{Brodsky1,Brodsky2}) will not
significantly affect the size of the NNLO corrections. The curves
plotted in Fig.~\ref{figcompareinfrared} demonstrate that the
${\cal{O}}(20\%)$ NNLO correction to the normalization is a sum of
corrections, each of which positive and individually either smaller
than or approximately equal to ${\cal{O}}(10\%)$. Although this
observation, of
course, cannot be taken as a proof that the still unknown N$^3$LO
corrections are smaller than the NNLO ones, it indicates that the size
of the latter does not necessarily have to be taken as an argument
for the non-relativistic expansion to break down for the normalization
of the total cross section.
An interesting insight into the question of how to interpret the large
normalization corrections can also be obtained by comparing the total
cross section line-shape, which we have calculated in the threshold
regime, with earlier calculations of the total cross section for higher
energies, where a resummation of Coulomb singular terms is not yet
necessary and perturbation theory in $\alpha_s$ is believed to be
reliable.~\cite{Chetyrkin2} We would like to note that it is the large
mass of
the top quark that allows us to draw conclusions from a
comparison of the threshold cross section with the one calculated for
higher energies. To illustrate this we recall that our calculation of
the threshold cross section is valid if the hierarchy $\alpha_s, v\ll
1$ is satisfied, where the scale of the strong coupling is of the
order of
the inverse Bohr radius, the kinetic energy, or the top width. This
means that the threshold cross section represents a simultaneous
expansion in $\alpha_s$ and $v$, where powers of $(\alpha_s/v)$ are
resummed to all orders in $\alpha_s$. The high energy cross section, on
the other hand, is valid if $\alpha_s\ll v, 1$, where the scale in the
strong coupling if of order the top-antitop relative momentum or the
centre-of-mass energy. Thus a comparison of the threshold results with
the high energy perturbative ones
is only sensible if there exists a kinematic regime where both
hierarchies are satisfied at the same time, i.e. if $\alpha_s\ll v\ll
1$. In this regime the effects of the resummation of powers of
$(\alpha_s/v)$ not contained in the high energy cross section should
be small as well as the effects of velocity corrections beyond NNLO,
which are not contained in the threshold cross section. Obviously this
relation is difficult or impossible to satisfy for bottom or charm
quarks, but it is possible for the top quark case. For
$\alpha_s(M_t\alpha_s)\sim 0.13$ we can argue that a meaningful
comparison between threshold and high energy cross section should be
possible for $v\approx$~0.3--0.4, which corresponds to $\sqrt{s}\approx
365$~GeV.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=5cm
\epsffile[220 360 400 550]{matching.ps}
\vskip 3.4cm
\caption{\label{figthreshhigh}
The vector-current-induced total cross section in the non-relativistic
expansion at NLO (lower bunch of threshold curves), NNLO (upper bunch)
and in conventional perturbation theory at ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s)$
(lower bunch of high energy curves) and ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$
(upper bunch). The pole mass scheme has been used.
The curves have been plotted for $\alpha_s(M_z)=0.118$,
$\Gamma_t=1.43$~GeV, $M_t=\Lambda=175$~GeV and $\mu=25$~GeV (dotted
lines), $2 (p_0^4+M_t^2\,\Gamma_t^2)^{1/4}$ (solid lines), $175$~GeV
(dashed lines) and $\sqrt{q^2}$ (dash-dotted lines).
The formulae for the ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$ high energy cross section
have been taken from Ref.~\cite{Chetyrkin2}.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{figthreshhigh} we have plotted the threshold and the high
energy cross sections at NLO/NNLO and
${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s)$/${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$, respectively, for the
renormalization scales $\mu=25$~GeV (dotted lines),
$2 (p_0^4+M_t^2\,\Gamma_t^2)^{1/4}$ (solid lines),
$175$~GeV (dashed lines) and
$\sqrt{q^2}$ (dash-dotted lines) for
$M_t=\Lambda=175$~GeV, $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118$ and $\Gamma_t=1.43$.
The lower bunch of threshold curves (characterized by the peak at
around $\sqrt{q^2}=348$~GeV) is NLO and the upper bunch NNLO.
Likewise, the lower bunch of high energy curves is
${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s)$ and the upper bunch ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$.
We note that we have not plotted the threshold curves for
$\mu=\sqrt{q^2}$ and the high energy curves not for $\mu=25$~GeV,
which seems to be a rather unnatural choice for each.
The formulae for the ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$ high energy cross section
have been taken from Ref.~\cite{Chetyrkin2}.
For convenience we have plotted the curves in Fig.~\ref{figthreshhigh}
in the pole mass scheme. Because the choice of the mass definition
does not alter the behaviour of the cross section normalization for
energies above the peak position, this choice does not affect the
conclusions drawn below.
For the threshold (high energy) cross section, we observe that the NNLO
(${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$) corrections decrease for energies further
away from the threshold region. However, the ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$
corrections to the high energy cross sections are much larger than the
NNLO corrections to the threshold cross section at the same
centre-of-mass energy. For $\sqrt{s}=\,$360--370~GeV the
${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections to the high energy cross section
are, for equal choices of renormalization scales, between 10 and 20\%
compared to only around $5\%$ for the NNLO corrections
to the threshold cross section. We also see a much weaker
renormalization scale dependence of the threshold cross sections. The
curves show that the resummation of Coulomb singular terms contained
in the threshold calculation leads to a considerable stabilization of
the cross section determined in conventional perturbation theory in
$\alpha_s$ for energies below $\sqrt{s}=365$~GeV. If we
believe that conventional perturbation theory is reliable down to
energies around $\sqrt{s}=360$~GeV, the results displayed in
Fig.~\ref{figthreshhigh} indicate that the non-relativistic
expansion does certainly not break down.
However, the curves of Fig.~\ref{figthreshhigh} also make it evident that
the small renormalization scale dependence of the NLO threshold cross
section does certainly not reflect the true size of the remaining
theoretical uncertainties at NLO.
We believe that $10\%$ should be a fair estimate of the remaining
theoretical uncertainties contained in the normalization of the NNLO
total cross section close to threshold. As far as the top mass
determination at a future electron-positron linear or muon pair
collider is concerned, this rather large normalization uncertainty
might in fact lead to uncertainties in the determination of the
$1S$ mass that are larger than indicated in the previous subsection.
This is due to the effects
of beamstrahlung and initial state radiation that lead to a smearing
of the effective centre-of-mass energy of about
1--2~GeV~\cite{Orange1}. Beamstrahlung and initial state radiation
render the visible peak in the total cross section either smaller
(at the muon pair collider) or completely invisible (at the linear
collider), which makes it possible that the uncertainty in the
normalization feeds into larger uncertainties in the determination of
$M_{1S}$. It is the task of realistic simulation studies to
determine how large this effect is for the various collider and
detector designs and to devise optimized strategies to minimize it.
If the effects of beamstrahlung and initial state radiation on the top
quark mass determination are small, the uncertainty in the
normalization will mainly affect the measurement of the strong
coupling (see Figs.~\ref{figtotm1S}c and \ref{figalltotalm1S}b).
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig13a.ps}
\hspace{4.4cm}
\epsfxsize=3.8cm
\leavevmode
\epsffile[200 400 400 530]{fig13b.ps}
\vskip 2.7cm
\caption{\label{figalltotalm1S}
The total cross section
$\sigma_{tot}^{\gamma,Z}$, Eq.~(\ref{totalcrossfullQCD}), is plotted in
the $1S$ scheme at NNLO for $M_{1S}=\Lambda=175$~GeV,
$\Gamma_t=1.43$~GeV and $\alpha=1/125.7$. (a) shows the
renormalization scale dependence for $\mu=15$ (solid line), $30$
(dashed line) and $60$~GeV (dotted line), and $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118$;
(b) shows
the dependence on the strong coupling for
$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.113$ (solid line), $0.118$ (dashed line) and $0.123$
(dotted line), and for $\mu=30$~GeV.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Figs.~\ref{figalltotalm1S} the total cross section
$\sigma_{tot}^{\gamma,Z}(e^+e^-\to \gamma^*, Z^*\to t\bar
t)$, Eq.~(\ref{totalcrossfullQCD}), is plotted at NNLO in the $1S$
scheme for $M_{1S}=\Lambda=175$~GeV, $\Gamma_t=1.43$~GeV and
$\alpha=1/125.7$.
Figure~\ref{figalltotalm1S}a shows the renormalization scale dependence
for $\mu=15$ (solid line), $30$ (dashed line) and $60$~GeV (dotted
line), and $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118$. Figure~\ref{figalltotalm1S}b
displays the dependence on the strong coupling for
$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.113$ (solid line), $0.118$ (dashed line) and $0.123$
(dotted line), and for $\mu=30$~GeV.
\vspace{1.5cm}
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{sectionconclusion}
Within the framework of the non-relativistic effective field theories
NRQCD and PNRQCD, we have calculated the vector-current-induced total
cross section of top-antitop pair production in electron-positron
annihilation close to threshold at NNLO in the non-relativistic
expansion. The corresponding
NNLO QCD relativistic corrections have also been determined for the
vector-current-induced top three-momentum distribution.
In addition, the axial-vector-current-induced total cross section and
the three-momentum distribution have been calculated to fully account
for the $Z$-boson contributions in electron-positron
annihilation. For the
total cross section and the three-momentum distribution, the
axial-vector-current-induced contributions are suppressed by $v^2$
with respect to the vector current contributions; they have therefore
been determined in leading
order in the non-relativistic expansion. The size of the
axial-vector-current-induced contributions is smaller than the
remaining theoretical uncertainties in the vector-current-induced
cross section (for unpolarized electrons and positrons).
In contrast with previous literature on the same subject, we have
implemented the top quark width
by including electroweak corrections into the (P)NRQCD matching
conditions of the Lagrangian and the currents. This allows for a
straightforward generalization of the Fadin-Khoze prescription ``$E\to
E+i \Gamma_t$'' to implement the top quark width at NNLO in the
non-relativistic expansion, where $\Gamma_t/M_t$ is counted as order
$v^2$.
We have shown that at NNLO this cannot be achieved by a
simple shift of the centre-of-mass energy to complex values. Our
calculations have been carried out using numerical techniques to
solve the corresponding integral equations within a cutoff
regularization scheme and using analytic methods for the matching
procedure. We have addressed the question of large NNLO
corrections to the peak position and the normalization of the total
vector-current-induced cross section.
The position of the peak, which is observable in the
total vector-current-induced cross section, can be stabilized if the
cross section is
expressed in terms of the $1S$ mass, instead of the pole mass.
The $1S$ mass, $M_{1S}$, is defined as half the mass of a fictitious
${}^3\!S_1$ toponium ground state for a stable top quark. The $1S$
mass is a short-distance mass and, by construction, reduces to a large
extent the dependence of the peak position on theoretical parameters
such as the
renormalization scale of the strong coupling. We have also shown that
the large NNLO corrections to the normalization of the total cross
section, of order $20\%$, are genuine NNLO corrections, which cannot be
removed by a redefinition of the top quark mass or the strong
coupling. The large size of the corrections to the normalization
originates from the fact that NNLO relativistic corrections from
several sources have the same sign. We believe that the remaining
theoretical uncertainties in the normalization are of order $10\%$. If
the effects of beamstrahlung and initial state radiation at the
$e^+e^-$ linear collider do not lead
to a significant cross feed of the uncertainties in the normalization
into $M_{1S}$, we expect that an uncertainty in the determination of
$M_{1S}$ of less than $200$~MeV will
be possible at the linear collider with an integrated luminosity of
50--100~$fb^{-1}$. In order to determine the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$
top quark
mass from the $1S$ mass with the same precision, the knowledge
of the full three-loop relation between the pole and the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ mass, and a small uncertainty in
$\alpha_s(M_Z)$ are crucial.
After completion of this work, we received
Refs.~\cite{Beneke6,Sumino3,Penin1}. In
Ref.~\cite{Beneke6} the total vector-current-induced cross section has
been calculated analytically, using the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$
regularization scheme
based on the Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedinger}).
The NLO and NNLO corrections have been treated perturbatively,
supplemented by a resummation of the energy denominators for the $n=1$
and $n=2$ states in the spectral representation of the
Green function. The renormalization scale dependence
of the cross section line-shape is considerably larger in
Ref.~\cite{Beneke6} than in our work.
This might be a consequence of the perturbative
treatment of the NLO and NNLO corrections. In addition, a
next-to-leading logarithmic resummation
of logarithms of the ratio $M_t/\mu$ in the short-distance coefficient
$C^v_{\tiny \overline{\mbox{MS}}}$ has been carried out, taking the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ cutoff scale $\mu$ of order $M_t v$. The
effect of this resummation is around $5\%$ for the normalization of
the total cross section.
In our cutoff scheme, where
the regularization scale is of order $M_t$, the corresponding
logarithm is contained in the non-relativistic current correlators.
In Ref.~\cite{Sumino3} the
vector-current-induced cross total section and the three-momentum
distribution have been calculated at NNLO, based on the simplified
Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedingersimplified}), which we
have discussed critically at the end of Sec.~\ref{sectionwidth}. For
the three-momentum distribution the authors of Ref.~\cite{Sumino3}
have included further corrections to account for the difference with
the results of the correct Schr\"odinger
equation~(\ref{NNLOSchroedingergamma}).
In Refs.~\cite{Beneke6,Sumino3} the ``potential-subtracted'' mass has
been tested in different ways as an alternative mass parameter for
the total cross section. As far as the uncertainties in the top mass
determination at a future linear collider are concerned,
Ref.~\cite{Beneke6} arrives at conclusions similar to ours.
In Ref.~\cite{Penin1} the techniques used in
Refs.~\cite{Hoang2,Hoang3} have been
employed to calculate the total cross section, the angular
distribution and the top quark polarization for top quark pair
production close to threshold in $e^+e^-$ and $\gamma\gamma$
collisions. The corrections originating from the higher-order
contributions in the Coulomb potential have been calculated analytically.
In Refs.~\cite{Beneke6,Sumino3,Penin1}
the top quark width has been implemented
by the replacement rule ``$E\to E+i\Gamma_t$'', where $E$ is the
centre-of-mass energy with respect to two times the top mass.
\vspace{1.5cm}
\section*{Acknowledgement}
We thank M.~Beneke for discussions and
M.~Beneke, Z.~Ligeti and A.~V.~Manohar for reading the manuscript. The
work of A.~H.~H. is in part supported by the EU Fourth Framework Program
``Training and Mobility of Researchers'', Network ``Quantum
Chromodynamics and Deep Structure of Elementary Particles'', contract
FMRX-CT98-0194 (DG12-MIHT).
\vspace{2cm}
\begin{appendix}
\section{Calculation of the Short-Distance Coefficient $C^v$}
\label{appendixshortdistance}
In this appendix we present details of the calculation of the
short-distance coefficient $C^v$ to order $\alpha_s^2$,
assuming that the top quarks are stable ($\Gamma_t=0$). We recall that
$C^v$ is the square of the short-distance coefficient $c_1^v$ of the
${}^3\!S_1$ NRQCD current ${\tilde \psi}^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath
$\sigma$} \tilde \chi$
(see Eq.~(\ref{vectorcurrentexpansion1})); $c_1^v$ contains those
contributions in the vector-current-induced top-antitop production
diagrams, which come from loop momenta $p=(p^0,\vec{p})$ with
$|\vec{p}|>\Lambda$ for $\sqrt{q^2}=2 M_t$. As explained in
Sec.~\ref{sectionregularization}, we have to determine $C^v$ by
employing the specific routing convention shown in
Fig.~\ref{figroutingladder}. In principle, it would be possible to
determine $C^v$ by calculating the diagrams for the
vector-current-induced cross section in full QCD restricting the loop
momenta such
that the spatial components would be larger than $\Lambda$. However,
in a cutoff scheme it is more economical to first calculate the
vector-current-induced cross section in NRQCD up to order $\alpha_s^2$
and
NNLO in the velocity expansion and then to adjust the coefficients of
$C^v$ such that the cross section in NRQCD is equal to the cross
section in full QCD, likewise calculated to order $\alpha_s^2$ and
NNLO in the velocity expansion.
The expression of the total vector-current-induced cross section in
full QCD at order $\alpha_s^2$ and NNLO in the velocity expansion
reads ($a\equiv C_F\alpha_s(\mu)$):
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
R_{\mbox{\tiny 2loop QCD}}^{v,\mbox{\tiny NNLO}} \, = \,
N_c\,\bigg\{\,\bigg[\,
\frac{3}{2}\,\frac{p_0}{M_t}-\frac{5}{4}\,\frac{p_0^3}{M_t^3}
\,\bigg] +
\frac{a}{\pi}\,\bigg[\,
\frac{3\,\pi^2}{4}-6\,\frac{p_0}{M_t}+
\frac{\pi^2}{2}\,\frac{p_0^2}{M_t^2}
\,\bigg]
}
\nonumber\\[2mm] & &
+\, a^2\,\bigg[\,
\frac{\pi^2\,M_t}{8\,p_0}
- \frac{3}{2}\,\bigg(\,
2
+ \frac{1}{8\,C_F} \,\Big(\,
\beta_0\,\ln\frac{4\,p_0^2}{\mu_{\rm hard}^2} - a_1
\,\Big)
\,\bigg)
\nonumber\\[2mm] & & \qquad
+ \bigg(\,
\frac{13\,\pi^2}{48}
+ \frac{3}{2\,C_F^2}\,\kappa
+ \frac{3\,\beta_0}{2\,C_F\,\pi^2}
\, \ln\frac{M_t^2}{\mu_{\rm hard}^2}
- \Big(1 +\frac{3}{2}\, \frac{C_A}{C_F} \Big)\,\ln\Big(\frac{p_0}{M_t}\Big)
\,\bigg)\,\frac{p_0}{M_t}
\,\bigg]
\,\bigg\}
\,,
\label{RphotonfullQCD}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa & = &
C_F^2\,\bigg[\, \frac{1}{\pi^2}\,\bigg(\,
\frac{39}{4}-\zeta_3 \,\bigg) +
\frac{4}{3} \ln 2 - \frac{35}{18}
\,\bigg]
- C_A\,C_F\,\bigg[\, \frac{1}{\pi^2} \,\bigg(
\frac{151}{36} + \frac{13}{2} \zeta_3 \,\bigg) +
\frac{8}{3} \ln 2 - \frac{179}{72} \,\bigg]
\nonumber\\[2mm] & & +\,
C_F\,T\,\bigg[\,
\frac{4}{9}\,\bigg(\, \frac{11}{\pi^2} - 1\,\bigg)
\,\bigg] +
C_F\,T\,n_l\,\bigg[\, \frac{11}{9\,\pi^2} \,\bigg]
\,.
\label{kappadef}
\end{eqnarray}
The Born and ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s)$~\cite{Kallensabry1} contributions
are standard.
At order $\alpha_s^2$ the contributions in Eq.~(\ref{RphotonfullQCD})
that are
proportional to $C_F^2$, $C_A C_F$, $C_F T n_l$ and $C_F T$ have been
calculated in~\cite{Hoang4}, \cite{Melnikov4}, \cite{HoangKT1,Voloshin2}
and \cite{HoangKT1,Karshenboim1}, respectively.
(See also Refs.~\cite{Chetyrkin2,Chetyrkin3}.)
To determine the corresponding total vector-current-induced cross
section in NRQCD, we have to calculate the absorptive part of the
correlator diagrams depicted in Figs.~\ref{fignonrelcurrentborn},
\ref{fignonrelcurrent1loop} and \ref{fignonrelcurrent2loop}.
The various symbols are defined in
Fig.~\ref{fignonrealcurrentsymbols}. We emphasize that we neglect
multiple insertions of NNLO contributions.
The results for the absorptive
parts of the individual diagrams read
($a\equiv C_F \alpha_s$,
$D(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})\equiv
M_t/(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2-p_0^2-i\epsilon)$):
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor0n1.ps}
\hspace{2.2cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor0n2.ps}
\hspace{2.2cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor0n3.ps}
\vskip 1.5cm
\caption{\label{fignonrelcurrentborn}
Graphical representation of the NRQCD vector-current correlators
diagrams needed to determine the non-relativistic
vector-current-induced cross section at the Born level and NNLO in the
non-relativistic expansion.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor1n1.ps}
\hspace{2.2cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor1n2.ps}
\hspace{2.2cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor1n3.ps}
\hspace{2.2cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor1n4.ps}
\vskip 1.5cm
\caption{\label{fignonrelcurrent1loop}
Graphical representation of the NRQCD vector-current correlators
diagrams needed to determine the non-relativistic
vector-current-induced cross section at ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s)$ and NNLO
in the non-relativistic expansion.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor2n1.ps}
\hspace{2.2cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor2n2.ps}
\hspace{2.2cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor2n3.ps}
\\[1.3cm]
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor2n4.ps}
\hspace{2.2cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor2n5.ps}
\hspace{2.2cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor2n6.ps}
\\[1.3cm]
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor2n7.ps}
\hspace{2.2cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor2n8.ps}
\hspace{2.2cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=1.7cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{curcor2n9.ps}
\vskip 1.5cm
\caption{\label{fignonrelcurrent2loop}
Graphical representation of the NRQCD vector-current correlators
diagrams needed to determine the non-relativistic
vector-current-induced cross section at ${\cal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$ and NNLO in
the non-relativistic expansion.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=2.3cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{interaction1.ps}
\hspace{1cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=2.3cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{interaction2.ps}
\hspace{1cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=2.3cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{interaction3.ps}
\hspace{1cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=2.3cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{interaction4.ps}\\[1.5cm]
$V_c^{\tiny \mbox{LO}}$
\mbox{\hspace{2.65cm}}
$V_c^{\tiny \mbox{NLO}}$
\mbox{\hspace{2.55cm}}
$V_c^{\tiny \mbox{NNLO}}$
\mbox{\hspace{2.55cm}}
$V_{\mbox{\tiny BF}}$
\mbox{\hspace{1mm}}\\[.2cm]
\hspace{1cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=2.3cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{interaction6.ps}
\hspace{1cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=2.3cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{interaction5.ps}
\hspace{1cm}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=2.3cm
\epsffile[220 410 420 540]{interaction7.ps}\\[1.5cm]
\mbox{\hspace{2.cm}}
$V_{\mbox{\tiny NA}}$
\mbox{\hspace{2.65cm}}
$\delta H_{\mbox{\tiny kin}}$
\mbox{\hspace{1.55cm}}
${\tilde \psi}^\dagger \sigma_i
(\mbox{$-\frac{i}{2}$}
\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\mbox{\boldmath $D$}})^2
\tilde \chi$
\mbox{\hspace{.25cm}}
\vskip .2cm
\caption{\label{fignonrealcurrentsymbols}
Symbols describing the interactions potentials $V_c^{\tiny \mbox{LO}}$,
$V_c^{\tiny \mbox{NLO}}$,
$V_c^{\tiny \mbox{NNLO}}$, $V_{\mbox{\tiny BF}}$ and $V_{\mbox{\tiny
NA}}$ and the kinetic energy correction
$\delta H_{\mbox{\tiny kin}} = (p_0^4-\vec k^4)/(4 M_t^3)$.
$V_c^{\tiny \mbox{LO}}$, $V_c^{\tiny \mbox{NLO}}$ and $V_c^{\tiny
\mbox{NNLO}}$ refer to the Born, one-loop
and two-loop contributions to the Coulomb potential presented in
Eq.~(\ref{NNLOCoulomb}).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{eqnarray}
I_1^{(0)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})
\,\bigg]
\, = \,
\frac{M_t^2}{4 \pi}\,\frac{p_0}{M_t}
\,,
\\[2mm]
I_2^{(0)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
2\,\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\bigg(-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2}{6\,M_t^2}\,\bigg)\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})
\,\bigg]
\, = \, -
\frac{M_t^2}{4 \pi}\,\frac{p_0^3}{3\,M_t^3}
\,,
\\[2mm]
I_3^{(0)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\bigg(\,\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^2+p_0^2}{4\,M_t^2}\,\bigg)\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})
\,\bigg]
\, = \,
\frac{M_t^2}{4 \pi}\,\frac{p_0^3}{2\,M_t^3}
\,,
\\[5mm]
I_1^{(1)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})^2}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})
\,\bigg]
\, = \,
\frac{a\,M_t^2}{4\, \pi^2}\,\bigg[\,
\frac{\pi^2}{2}-\frac{4\,p_0}{\Lambda} +
{\cal{O}}\bigg( \frac{p_0^3}{M_t^3} \bigg)
\,\bigg]
\,,
\\[2mm]
I_2^{(1)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,2\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\bigg(-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}^2}{6\,M_t^2}\,\bigg)\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})^2}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = & -\,
\frac{a\,M_t^2}{4\, \pi^2}\,\bigg[\,
\frac{2\,\Lambda\,p_0}{3\,M_t^2} +
\frac{p_0^2\,\pi^2}{6\,M_t^2} +
{\cal{O}}\bigg( \frac{p_0^3}{M_t^3} \bigg)
\,\bigg]
\,,
\\[2mm]
I_3^{(1)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,2\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\bigg(\,\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}^2+p_0^2}{4\,M_t^2}\,\bigg)\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})^2}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = &
\frac{a\,M_t^2}{4\, \pi^2}\,\bigg[\,
\frac{\Lambda\,p_0}{M_t^2} +
\frac{p_0^2\,\pi^2}{2\,M_t^2} +
{\cal{O}}\bigg( \frac{p_0^3}{M_t^3} \bigg)
\,\bigg]
\,,
\\[2mm]
I_4^{(1)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$})\,
\bigg(\,
2\,\frac{\pi\,a}{M_t^2}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}^2+{\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}^2}
{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})^2} -
\frac{11}{3}\,\frac{\pi\,a}{M_t^2}\,
\bigg)\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = &
\frac{a\,M_t^2}{4\, \pi^2}\,\bigg[\,
- \frac{5\,\Lambda\,p_0}{3\,M_t^2}
+ \frac{p_0^2\,\pi^2}{2\,M_t^2}
+ {\cal{O}}\bigg( \frac{p_0^3}{M_t^3} \bigg)
\,\bigg]
\,,
\\[5mm]
I_1^{(2)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_3$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})^2}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_3$})^2}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_3$})
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = &
\frac{a^2\,M_t^2}{4\, \pi^3}\,\bigg[\,
\frac{M_t\,\pi^4}{12\,p_0}-\frac{2\,M_t\,\pi^2}{\Lambda} +
\frac{M_t\,p_0\,(12-\pi^2)}{2\,\Lambda^2} +
{\cal{O}}\bigg( \frac{p_0^2}{M_t^2} \bigg)
\,\bigg]
\,,
\\[2mm]
I_2^{(2)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,2\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_3$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\bigg(-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}^2}{6\,M_t^2}\,\bigg)\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})^2}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_3$})^2}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_3$})
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = & \, - \,
\frac{a^2\,M_t^2}{4\, \pi^3}\,\bigg[\,
\frac{\Lambda\,\pi^2}{3\,M_t} -
\frac{p_0\,(84+3\,\pi^2-\pi^4)}{36\,M_t} +
{\cal{O}}\bigg( \frac{p_0^2}{M_t^2} \bigg)
\,\bigg]
\,,
\\[2mm]
I_3^{(2)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,2\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_3$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\bigg(\,\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}^2+p_0^2}{4\,M_t^2}\,\bigg)\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})^2}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_3$})^2}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_3$})
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = & \,
\frac{a^2\,M_t^2}{4\, \pi^3}\,\bigg[\,
\frac{\Lambda\,\pi^2}{2\,M_t} -
\frac{p_0\,(84+3\,\pi^2-2\,\pi^4)}{24\,M_t} +
{\cal{O}}\bigg( \frac{p_0^2}{M_t^2} \bigg)
\,\bigg]
\,,
\\[2mm]
I_4^{(2)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_3$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})^2}\,
\bigg(\,\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}^2+p_0^2}{4\,M_t^2}\,\bigg)\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_3$})^2}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_3$})
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = & \,
\frac{a^2\,M_t^2}{4\, \pi^3}\,
\bigg[\,
\frac{p_0}{24\,M_t}\,\bigg(\,
12\,\pi^2 + \pi^4- 42\,\zeta_3 -
12\,\pi^2\,\ln\Big(\frac{2\,p_0}{\Lambda}\Big)
\,\bigg) +
{\cal{O}}\bigg( \frac{p_0^2}{M_t^2} \bigg)
\,\bigg]
\,,
\\[2mm]
I_5^{(2)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,2\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_3$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$})\,
\bigg(\,
2\,\frac{\pi\,a}{M_t^2}\,
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}^2+{\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}^2}
{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})^2} -
\frac{11}{3}\,\frac{\pi\,a}{M_t^2}\,
\bigg)\,
\nonumber
\\[2mm] & &
\mbox{\hspace{3cm}}
\times\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_3$})^2}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_3$})
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = &
\frac{a^2\,M_t^2}{4\, \pi^3}\,\bigg[\,
-\,\frac{5\,\Lambda\,\pi^2}{6\,M_t} +
\frac{p_0}{12\,M_t}\,
\bigg(92+21\,\pi^2 + 2\,\pi^4 - 7\,\zeta_3
- 2\,\pi^2\,\ln\Big(\frac{2\,p_0}{\Lambda}\Big)\,\bigg) +
{\cal{O}}\bigg( \frac{p_0^2}{M_t^2} \bigg)
\,\bigg]
\,,
\\[2mm]
I_6^{(2)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$})\,
\bigg(\,
\frac{C_A}{C_F}\,\frac{\pi^2\,a^2}
{M_t\,|\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}|}
\bigg)\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = & \,-\,
\frac{a^2\,M_t^2}{4\, \pi^3}\,\bigg[\,
\frac{C_A\,p_0\,\pi^2}{C_F\,M_t}\,
\bigg(\,-1 + \ln\Big(\frac{2\,p_0}{\Lambda}\Big)\,\bigg)
+ {\cal{O}}\bigg( \frac{p_0^2}{M_t^2} \bigg)
\,\bigg]
\,,
\\[2mm]
I_7^{(2)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_3$})^2}\,
\frac{a}{4\,C_F\,\pi}
\bigg(\, -\beta_0\,
\ln\Big(\frac{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})^2}{\mu^2}\Big)
+ a_1
\bigg)\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = &
\frac{a^2\,M_t^2}{4\,C_F\, \pi^3}\,\bigg[\,
\beta_0\,\bigg(\,
-\frac{\pi^2}{4}\,\ln\Big(\frac{2\,p_0}{\mu}\Big)
+\frac{2\,p_0}{\Lambda}\,
\bigg(1 + \ln\Big(\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\Big)\bigg)
\,\bigg)
+ a_1\,\bigg(\,
\frac{\pi^2}{8} -\frac{p_0}{\Lambda} \,\bigg)
+ {\cal{O}}\bigg( \frac{p_0^2}{M_t^2} \bigg)
\,\bigg]
\,,
\\[2mm]
I_8^{(2)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,2
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\bigg(-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}^2}{6\,M_t^2}\,\bigg)\,
\nonumber\\ & &
\mbox{\hspace{3cm}}
\times\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_3$})^2}\,
\frac{a}{4\,C_F\,\pi}
\bigg(\, -\beta_0\,
\ln\Big(\frac{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})^2}{\mu^2}\Big)
+ a_1
\bigg)\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = &
\frac{a^2\,M_t^2}{4\,C_F\, \pi^3}\,\bigg[\,
\beta_0\,\bigg(\,
\frac{\Lambda\,p_0}{3\,M_t^2}\,
\bigg(-1 + \ln\Big(\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\Big)\,\bigg)
\,\bigg)
- a_1\,
\frac{\Lambda\,p_0}{6\,M_t^2}
+ {\cal{O}}\bigg( \frac{p_0^2}{M_t^2}
\,\bigg)
\,\bigg]
\,,
\\[2mm]
I_9^{(2)} & = & \mbox{Im}\,\bigg[\,2
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\int\frac{d^3 \mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\bigg(\,\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}^2+p_0^2}{4\,M_t^2}\,\bigg)\,
\nonumber\\ & &
\mbox{\hspace{3cm}}
\times\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$})\,
\frac{4\pi a}{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_3$})^2}\,
\frac{a}{4\,C_F\,\pi}
\bigg(\, -\beta_0\,
\ln\Big(\frac{(\mbox{\boldmath $k_1$}-\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})^2}{\mu^2}\Big)
+ a_1
\bigg)\,
D(\mbox{\boldmath $k_2$})
\,\bigg]
\nonumber
\\[2mm]
& = &
\frac{a^2\,M_t^2}{4\,C_F\, \pi^3}\,\bigg[\,
\beta_0\,\bigg(\,
\frac{\Lambda\,p_0}{2\,M_t^2}\,
\bigg(1 - \ln\Big(\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\Big)\bigg)
\,\bigg)
+ a_1\,
\frac{\Lambda\,p_0}{4\,M_t^2}
+ {\cal{O}}\bigg( \frac{p_0^2}{M_t^2} \bigg)
\,\bigg]
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the upper index of the functions $I_j^{(i)}$ corresponds to the
power of the strong coupling of the diagrams and the lower index to
the numeration given in Figs.~\ref{fignonrelcurrentborn},
\ref{fignonrelcurrent1loop} and
\ref{fignonrelcurrent2loop}. Combinatorial factors are taken into
account. We note that the results above have been expanded in
$p_0/M_t, p_0/\Lambda \ll 1$; no condition has been assumed for the
ratio $\Lambda/M_t$.
Summing
all terms leads to the total vector-current-induced
cross section in NRQCD:
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\mbox{\tiny NNLO}}^{v,\mbox{\tiny thr}} & = &
\frac{6\,\pi\,N_c}{M_t^2\,(1+\frac{p_0^2}{M_t^2})}\,C^v\,
\bigg[\,
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\,I^{(0)}_i +
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{4}\,I^{(1)}_i +
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{9}\,I^{(2)}_i
\,\bigg]
\label{RphotonfullNRQCD}
\end{eqnarray}
The short-distance coefficient $C^v$ has to be chosen such that the
RHS of Eqs.~(\ref{RphotonfullQCD}) and (\ref{RphotonfullNRQCD}) are
equal for all terms up to order $\alpha_s^2$ and NNLO in the
non-relativistic expansion. The result
reads
\begin{eqnarray}
C^v(\Lambda,\mu) \, = \, 1 \, + \, c^v_{\mbox{\tiny NLO}}(\Lambda,\mu) \, + \,
c^v_{\mbox{\tiny NNLO}}(\Lambda,\mu)
\,,
\label{CVNNLOshortdistance}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
c^v_{\mbox{\tiny NLO}}(\Lambda,\mu) & = &
\frac{4\,a}{\pi}\,
\bigg[\,
-1 + \frac{M_t}{\Lambda}
\,\bigg]
\,,
\label{cvNLOshortdistance}
\\
c^v_{\mbox{\tiny NNLO}}(\Lambda,\mu) & = &
\frac{4\,a\,\Lambda}{3\,\pi\,M_t}
+
\frac{a^2}{\pi^2}\,\bigg[\,
\frac{\beta_0}{C_F}\,\bigg(\,
- \frac{\Lambda^2 + 12\,M_t^2}{6\,\Lambda\,M_t}
+ \frac{\Lambda^2 - 12\,M_t^2}
{6\,\Lambda\,M_t}\,\ln\Big(\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\Big)
+ 2\,\ln\Big(\frac{M_t}{\mu}\Big)
\,\bigg)
\nonumber
\\[2mm] & &
- \frac{a_1}{C_F}\,\frac{\Lambda^2 - 12\,M_t^2}{12\,\Lambda\,M_t}
+ \pi^2\,\bigg(\,\frac{2}{3}+\frac{C_A}{C_F}\,\bigg)\,
\ln\Big(\frac{2\,M_t}{\Lambda}\,\Big)
+ \frac{\pi^2\,\kappa}{C_F^2}
\nonumber
\\[2mm] & &
+ \frac{16\,\Lambda^2}{9\,M_t^2}
- \frac{16\,\Lambda}{3\,M_t}
- \frac{16\,M_t}{\Lambda}
+ \frac{M_t^2\,(20 + \pi^2)}{2\,\Lambda^2}
- \frac{53\,\pi^2}{24} - \frac{C_A\,\pi^2}{C_F} + \frac{25}{6} +
\frac{7}{3}\zeta_3
\,\bigg]
\,.
\label{cvNNLOshortdistance}
\end{eqnarray}
In Eq.~(\ref{CVNNLOshortdistance}) we have displayed the NLO and NNLO
short-distance contributions separately. We note that the NLO
short-distance contributions in Eq.~(\ref{cvNLOshortdistance}) differ
from the commonly quoted one by the term
$4\frac{C_F\alpha_s}{\pi}\frac{M_t}{\Lambda}$. This is a consequence
of our
cutoff regularization scheme, which excludes loop momenta with spatial
components larger than $\Lambda$, even if the corresponding integration
is UV-convergent. We also point out that the NNLO short-distance
contribution in Eq.~(\ref{cvNNLOshortdistance}) contains the term
$\frac{4\alpha_s}{3\pi}\frac{\Lambda}{M_t}$, which is of order $\alpha_s$
only. This term is a manifestation of the power-counting breaking
effects discussed in Sec.~\ref{sectionregularization}. The term exists
because it subtracts the power-counting breaking terms originating
from the linear UV-divergent behaviour of the Breit-Fermi
potential, $V_{\mbox{\tiny BF}}$, the kinetic energy correction,
$(p_0^4-\mbox{\boldmath $k$}^4)/(4 M_t^3)$, and the dimension-5
NRQCD vector-current in the non-relativistic current correlators. Thus
it is important to consider this term as NNLO. It is a conspicuous
fact that the NLO short-distance coefficient $c^v_{\mbox{\tiny NLO}}$
vanishes for the choice $\Lambda=M_t$. We emphasize, however, that
this cancellation is purely accidental. Nevertheless, comparing the
short-distance constant $C^v$ calculated in our cutoff regularization
scheme with the corresponding coefficient obtained in the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme~\cite{Melnikov4,Beneke2}
\begin{eqnarray}
C^v_{\tiny \overline{\mbox{MS}}}(\mu) \, = \, 1 \, + \,
c^v_{{\tiny \overline{\mbox{MS}}, \tiny NLO}}(\Lambda,\mu) \, + \,
c^v_{{\tiny \overline{\mbox{MS}}, \tiny NNLO}}(\Lambda,\mu)
\,,
\label{CVNNLOshortdistanceMSbar}
\end{eqnarray}
where ($\alpha_s\equiv\alpha_s(\mu)$)
\begin{eqnarray}
c^v_{\tiny \overline{\mbox{MS}}, \mbox{\tiny NLO}}(\mu) & = &
-4\,C_F\,\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}
\,,
\label{cvNLOshortdistanceMSbar}
\\
c^v_{\tiny \overline{\mbox{MS}}, \mbox{\tiny NNLO}}(\mu) & = &
\frac{\alpha_s^2}{\pi^2}\,\bigg[\,
C_F^2\,\bigg(\,\frac{39}{4} - \frac{79\,\pi^2}{18}
+ 2\,\pi^2\,\ln 2
+ \frac{\pi^2}{3}\,\ln\Big(\frac{M_t^2}{\mu^2}\Big)
- \zeta_3 \,\bigg)
\nonumber
\\[2mm] & &
+ C_A\,C_F\,\bigg( -\frac{151}{36} + \frac{89\,\pi^2}{72}
- \frac{5\,\pi^2}{3}\,\ln 2
+ \frac{\pi^2}{2}\,\ln\Big(\frac{M_t^2}{\mu^2}\Big)
- \frac{13}{2}\,\zeta_3 \,\bigg)
\nonumber
\\[2mm] & &
+ C_F\,T\,\bigg(\,\frac{44}{9} - \frac{4\,\pi^2}{9}\,\bigg)
+ C_F\,T\,n_f\,\frac{11}{9}
\,\bigg]
\,,
\label{cvNNLOshortdistanceMSbar}
\end{eqnarray}
we find that the perturbative corrections are in general smaller in
the cutoff scheme.
\begin{table}[t]
\vskip 7mm
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c||c|c|c||c|} \hline
$\mu [\mbox{GeV}]$
& \multicolumn{3}{|c||}
{$c^v_{\mbox{\tiny NLO}}(\Lambda [\mbox{GeV}])$}
& $c^v_{\tiny \overline{\mbox{MS}}, \mbox{\tiny NLO}}$
& \multicolumn{3}{|c||}
{$c^v_{\mbox{\tiny NNLO}}(\Lambda [\mbox{GeV}])$}
& $c^v_{\tiny \overline{\mbox{MS}}, \mbox{\tiny NNLO}}$
\\ \hline
& $90$ & $175$ & $350$ & & $90$ & $175$ & $350$ &
\\ \hline\hline
$15$ & $0.261$ & $0$ & $-0.138$ & $-0.276$ & $-0.018$ & $-0.101$ & $-0.040$ & $0.128$
\\\hline
$30$ & $0.228$ & $0$ & $-0.120$ & $-0.241$ & $0.018$ & $-0.069$ & $-0.029$ & $0.025$
\\\hline
$60$ & $0.202$ & $0$ & $-0.107$ & $-0.214$ & $0.039$ & $-0.048$ & $-0.022$ & $0.037$
\\\hline
$175$ & $0.172$ & $0$ & $-0.091$ & $-0.182$ & $0.056$ & $-0.028$ & $-0.015$ & $-0.091$
\\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tabshortdistance}
The NLO and NNLO contributions to the short-distance coefficient $C^v$
in our cutoff scheme and in the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme for
various choices of the cutoff $\Lambda$ and the renormalization scale
$\mu$. We have chosen $\alpha_s(M_z)=0.118$, and two-loop running for
the strong coupling has been employed.
}
\end{center}
\vskip 3mm
\end{table}
In Table~\ref{tabshortdistance} we have displayed the NLO and NNLO
short-distance corrections for exemplary choices of the
renormalization scale $\mu$ and the cutoff $\Lambda$ for
$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118$ and using two-loop running for the strong coupling.
We are not aware of any principle reason why the
short-distance corrections should be, in general, better convergent in our
cutoff scheme than when using the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ regularization.
We finally
note that the potentially large logarithmic term
$\alpha_s^2 C_A C_F \ln(M_t/\mu)$
in $C^v_{\tiny
\overline{\mbox{MS}}}$, which corresponds to an anomalous dimension of
the dimension-3 NRQCD vector-current
${\tilde \psi}^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} \tilde \chi$, does
not exist in $C^v$, since in our cutoff scheme the corresponding
logarithmic divergence
in the NRQCD diagrams is cut off at the scale $\Lambda\sim M_t$ rather
than $\mu\sim M_t v$, as in the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$
scheme. However, we emphasize that the absence of this
logarithmic term in $C^v$ is traded for the existence of logarithms of
the ratio $2p_0/\Lambda$ in the non-relativistic correlator, which are
not present in the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme. The logarithms of
$\Lambda/\mu$ and $M_t/\mu$ in $c^v_{\mbox{\tiny NNLO}}$,
Eq.~(\ref{cvNNLOshortdistance}), originate from the running of the
strong coupling and are not related to an anomalous dimension.
\end{appendix}
\vspace{1.5cm}
\sloppy
\raggedright
\def\app#1#2#3{{\it Act. Phys. Pol. }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
\def\apa#1#2#3{{\it Act. Phys. Austr.}{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\defProc. LHC Workshop, CERN 90-10{Proc. LHC Workshop, CERN 90-10}
\def\npb#1#2#3{{\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
\def\nP#1#2#3{{\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\plb#1#2#3{{\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
\def\prd#1#2#3{{\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf D #1} (#2) #3}
\def\pra#1#2#3{{\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf A #1} (#2) #3}
\def\pR#1#2#3{{\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\prl#1#2#3{{\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\prc#1#2#3{{\it Phys. Reports }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\cpc#1#2#3{{\it Comp. Phys. Commun. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\nim#1#2#3{{\it Nucl. Inst. Meth. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\pr#1#2#3{{\it Phys. Reports }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\sovnp#1#2#3{{\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\sovpJ#1#2#3{{\it Sov. Phys. LETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\jl#1#2#3{{\it JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\jet#1#2#3{{\it JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\zpc#1#2#3{{\it Z. Phys. }{\bf C #1} (#2) #3}
\def\epj#1#2#3{{\it Eur. Phys. J. }{\bf C #1} (#2) #3}
\def\ptp#1#2#3{{\it Prog.~Theor.~Phys.~}{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\nca#1#2#3{{\it Nuovo~Cim.~}{\bf #1A} (#2) #3}
\def\ap#1#2#3{{\it Ann. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\hpa#1#2#3{{\it Helv. Phys. Acta }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\ijmpA#1#2#3{{\it Int. J. Mod. Phys. }{\bf A #1} (#2) #3}
\def\ZETF#1#2#3{{\it Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\jmp#1#2#3{{\it J. Math. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\yf#1#2#3{{\it Yad. Fiz. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\aspn#1#2#3{{\it Arch. Sci. Phys. Nat. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
|
\section{Introduction}
We describe an experiment to measure the cross sections
for the disintegration of deuterons by neutral-
and charged-current interactions
with low energy electron-antineutrinos. Data were taken at the
Centrale Nucleaire de Bugey in France, at 18~m from the core
of Reactor~5.
Improvements were made to the
cosmic-ray shielding of the detector which we previously used in a
similar experiment at the Savannah River Plant in South Carolina
in the late 1970s~\cite{Pas79,Rei80}.
An outer layer of active cosmic ray veto detectors was added
which completely surrounds the lead and steel gamma ray shield.
These improvements reduced the neutron background
due to cosmic rays by a factor of six to $\sim 25$ day$^{-1}$.
There are two reactions of interest in this experiment ---
the Neutral Current disintegration of the Deuteron (NCD),
\[\bar{\nu}_e + d \rightarrow \bar{\nu}_e + p + n, \]
and the Charged Current disintegration of the Deuteron (CCD),
\[\bar{\nu}_e + d \rightarrow e^+ + n + n.\]
The experiment was designed to probe these reactions
at low energies ($\sim$1 MeV). In particular, it
measures the square of the isovector-axial vector coupling constant
($\beta^2$). The neutrino-induced disintegration of the deuteron
is an ideal reaction for this purpose since, at
reactor neutrino energies, all other coupling constants make negligible
contributions to the cross section. Other coupling constants depend
on the value of the Weinberg mixing angle, $\theta_W$, which is an unspecified
parameter of the theory, while $\beta$ is predicted to be -1.0, independent of
$\theta_W$. In addition,
it does not suffer from ambiguities arising from the presence of vector
interactions, nor from momentum-transfer-dependent form factors, to which
high-energy experiments are subject.
The deuteron disintegration experiment is unique, then,
in being able to measure the contribution of a single coupling constant
with an unambiguous theoretical value.
\section{The Detector} \label{sec:elem}
\subsection{Location}
The detector was installed at Reactor~5 of the Centrale Nucleaire
de Bugey, near Lyon, France.
It is located in a room about 10 m below ground level
with an overburden of 25~mwe.
The distance from the center of the
reactor core to the center of the detector was 18.5 meters.
\subsection{The Target}
Schematics of the detector and shielding are shown in
Figures~\ref{topviewout}, \ref{sideview}, and~\ref{fig:target}.
The target detector, labeled D$_{2}$O in Figures~\ref{topviewout} and
\ref{sideview} and shown in more detail in Figure ~\ref{fig:target},
consists of a
cylindrical stainless steel tank,
54 cm in diameter, 122 cm in
height, and a wall thickness of 0.18 cm,
containing 267~kg of 99.85\% pure D$_{2}$O and ten tubular proportional
chambers, equally spaced in two concentric rings
of 10.16 cm and
20.37 cm radius and offset from each other by $36^{\circ}$.
Running down the center of the target tank is a stainless steel
tube that allows the placement of radioactive sources inside the
tank for calibration purposes.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig1.ps,height=5in}}
\caption{Plan view of detector and shielding in the opened
configuration at the Bugey site.}
\label{topviewout}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig2.ps,height=4in}}
\caption{Side view of detector and shielding configuration.}
\label{sideview}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig3.ps,height=3in}}
\caption{Top view of target tank.} \label{fig:target}
\end{figure}
Immediately surrounding the target tank is 10~cm of lead
shielding and a 1~mm layer of cadmium to absorb thermal neutrons.
These are contained in an outer steel
tank that sits on a small pedestal inside the large, inner
veto detector tank (Tank 2 of Figures~\ref{topviewout} and
\ref{sideview}).
The proportional counters are
5.08 cm in diameter, 122 cm in
height, have a wall thickness of 0.025 cm, and
are filled with 1~atm of $^3$He and 1.7 atm of Ar as a buffer. They are
essentially black to thermal neutrons, with a capture cross
section of $\sim$5300 barns per $^{3}$He nucleus.
The neutron capture in the counters proceeds via the (n,p) reaction:
\[ ^{3}\mbox{He} + n \rightarrow \: ^{3}\mbox{H} + p + 764 \mbox{ keV.}\]
The energy resolution of the counters was measured to be 3\% at the
764~KeV neutron capture peak. A typical neutron spectrum obtained with
a $^{252}$Cf neutron source is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:He}.
A discussion of the neutron detection efficiency is given in
Section~\ref{sec:neff}.
A more detailed description of the construction and testing of
the $^{3}$He proportional tubes can be
found in Reference~\cite{Ref29}.
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{2in}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig4.ps,height=1.5in}}
\caption{Neutron-response spectrum of a $^3$He counter with a
$^{252}$Cf source.}
\label{fig:He}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Detection Technique}
The neutral-current and charged-current events in
the D$_{2}$O target are recognized solely by the
neutrons they produce: the
neutral-current reaction releases a single neutron and the
charged-current releases two.
Consequently, the quantities of interest are
the rates of single and double neutron captures.
\subsection{The Shielding and Anticoincidence System}
Due to the detector's close proximity to the reactor core,
there can be a significant reactor associated gamma flux. Gamma rays
of $>$2.2~MeV which reach the target detector can photodisintegrate the deuterons,
leading to single neutron signals. In the previous version of the experiment,
this background was reduced by surrounding the inner layer of active cosmic-ray
veto detectors with a layer of lead and water shielding.
Unfortunately, cosmic rays
interacting in the surrounding lead shield, but not reaching the inner veto
counters, were a significant source of neutrons in the target detector.
It was concluded that the shielding could be improved
by an additional layer of active cosmic ray veto detectors
outside the lead shielding. In this way, cosmic rays
interacting in the lead would be seen by the outer veto
detectors. Simulations showed that this would reduce the cosmic
ray neutron background by a factor of three to four.
In the current configuration, the target tank
is in the center of a large liquid scintillator
detector (the ``inner'' veto) composed of Tank~2 and Tank~4,
shown in Figure~\ref{sideview}.
Immediately surrounding Tanks 2 and 4 is a layer of each
lead and steel.
Surrounding this layer of passive shielding is an
outer layer of cosmic ray veto detectors (the ``outer'' veto).
Slabs of plastic scintillator cover
the north and south sides and
the bottom face, while larger tanks of mineral oil scintillator
(Tanks~1, 3, \& 5) cover the east, west, and top faces.
The liquid scintillator used in all five tanks is mineral oil based
with a high flash point.
Five-inch hemispherical photomultiplier tubes (PMTs)
are used to view the liquid scintillator
tanks and three inch tubes are employed on the plastic slabs.
As noted above, the inner veto system consists of two
liquid scintillator tanks, Tank~2 and Tank~4.
As indicated in Figures~\ref{topviewout} and \ref{sideview},
there is a string of fifteen evenly spaced PMTs
along each vertical corner of Tank~2 .
Alternating tubes are offset in direction
by $90^{\circ}$. Along the east and west walls
on the floor of the tank is a row of PMTs which view the space
underneath the target tank. Tank~4 has three PMTs in
each vertical corner that are configured like
those of Tank~2.
There are eight signal lines coming from the inner veto system.
The PMTs in each vertical string are ganged onto a single line,
as are each row along the floor. The signals from the
east corners of Tank~4 are fanned together as are the signals from
the west corners.
The inner veto detector is primarily a ``soft'' veto ---
its signals are recorded at each trigger and analyzed off line.
However, it also triggers an on-line veto in the event
that all four corner strings see a large pulse
simultaneously. Such a signal is likely to be
produced by a throughgoing muon.
Figure~\ref{fig:electronics} shows some details of our electronics
configuration.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig5_1.ps,height=8in}}
\caption{Some details of our electronics configuration.}
\label{fig:electronics}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig5_2.ps,height=8in}}
\begin{center} Figure \protect\ref{fig:electronics} continued.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Data collection system}
The data-collection program, based on a
80486DX processor and the software package LabVIEW, has
a fast, graphical interface to the electronics.
The software takes advantage of the multitasking capabilities of
the operating system, allowing the transfer and processing of data
without interrupting data collection.
A trigger is generated under the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A neutron-like pulse is detected in one of the $^3$He
proportional counters.
\item No pulses above hardware thresholds were detected in
any of the inner or outer veto detectors
in the preceeding $\sim 900\mu$s. This value was
chosen to reduce background from muon-induced neutrons
arising in the inner-anti scintillator which had a
neutron capture time of about 200$\mu$s.
\end{enumerate}
When a trigger occurs, the contents of waveform digitizers and scalers
are read by the computer and written to disk. The contents of the
digitizers give a pulse history of all detectors for a period of
4~milliseconds before and after the event.
More details on the detector and data-collection system can be found
in Reference~\cite{steveT}.
\section{Data Analysis}
\subsection{Selection criteria}
After the data are collected, they are further reduced by offline selection
according to the following criteria.
\subsubsection{Target cuts}
The purpose of the target cuts is to remove any events that do not appear
to be valid neutron captures.
\begin{description}
\item[\it No neutron in pulse-height window.] An event is removed
if there is
no target pulse in the pulse-height acceptance window within
5$\mu$sec\ of the trigger time. The pulse-height acceptance values
were determined from the neutron
calibrations and varied slightly from run to run. The total number of target
peaks in the pulse-height window during the 782$\mu$sec\ (three times
the neutron capture time in the target) following the trigger
is taken to be the number of neutrons in the event. This time interval
was selected to maximize the signal to background. Shorter time windows
yield consistent results with larger statistical errors.
\item [\it Remove ``early'' neutrons.] Remove event if it has
a pulse in the neutron pulse-height acceptance window before the trigger time.
\end{description}
\subsubsection{Outer-anti cut}
This cut removes cosmic-ray muons that might create neutrons that
would subsequently be detected by the target.
\begin{description}
\item[\it Remove muons.] If during the 1800 $\mu$sec\ preceeding the trigger
a signal is detected in any outer
anti which exceeds the threshold for that counter, the event is removed.
The pulse-height threshold values were determined run by run. The
values were chosen at the lowest value for which
the events removed by this criterion were
at least twice the number of the ``background'' peaks at the same pulse
height.
\end{description}
\subsubsection{Inner-anti cuts}
The inner-antis provide additional protection against cosmic-ray muons
that sneak through the outer anti. However, this large volume of liquid
scintillator also provides a large target for inverse-beta events on
hydrogen ($\bar{\nu_e} p \rightarrow e^+ n$).
A small fraction ($\sim 0.08\%$) of the neutrons thus produced
diffuse into the target area and
are recorded by the $^3$He tubes. To reduce this number, a low-energy cut is
applied to the inner antis, thus using the light produced by the
positron to veto the event.
\begin{description}
\item[\it Low-energy cut.]
The main purpose of this cut is to remove the inverse-beta events.
Any event with $>$0.8 MeV in either Tank 2 or Tank 4 within
900$\mu$sec\ before to 200$\mu$sec\ after the trigger was removed. This
energy-threshold value was chosen
in order to remove the maximum
number of inverse-beta events, while not suffering too much dead time from the
many low-energy background pulses.
From the Monte Carlo, the mean time between production of a neutron
by the inverse-beta process in Tanks 2 or 4 and its subsequent capture
by a $^3$He tube was about 230$\mu$sec. Thus the period in which this
cut is active is from about four such mean times before to one after the
trigger.
\item[\it High-energy cut.]
Events having a pulse of total energy
exceeding 8~MeV in Tank 2 or 6~MeV in Tank 4 from
2400 to 900$\mu$sec\ before the trigger are removed.
This cut removes cosmic-ray events that are recorded before the beginning
of the hardware anti block. Extending the times earlier than 2400$\mu$sec\
has little effect.
\end{description}
The fraction of events removed by each of the above cuts is shown in
Table~\ref{tab:cuts}. Figure~\ref{fig:cuts} shows the effects of the cuts on
the data.
As a result of the cuts, the number of
candidate neutrino events is reduced from roughly 60,000 per day to
about 25 per day, with the reactor off.
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{2in}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig6.ps,width=7in}}
\vspace{-1in}
\caption{All $^3$He detector signals, above the 25-count hardware
threshold, occuring in the 782~$\mu$sec (three neutron capture times)
following the event trigger. a) and b) are before any software cuts
were applied; c) and d) after all cuts were applied.}
\label{fig:cuts}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Reactor ON} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Reactor OFF}\\
Cut & Random & Normal & Random & Normal \\
& Triggers & Triggers & Triggers & Triggers \\ \hline
Early neutron & 0.5\% & 27.9\% & 0.5\% & 28.7\% \\
No neutron in window & 0\% & 17.2\% & 0\% & 17.5\% \\
Outer-anti cut & 26.0\% & 38.9\%& 26.4\% & 38.7\% \\
Inner-anti (high-energy) & 9.2\% & 8.5\% & 9.5\% & 9.3\% \\
Inner-anti (low-energy) & 17.2\% & 6.5\% & 19.2\% & 5.1\% \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}\end{center}
\caption{Fractions of total numbers of all
events removed by each data cut when applied in the order
indicated. Since many events satisfy more than one cut criterion,
these values would change if the ordering of the cuts were changed.}
\label{tab:cuts}
\end{table}
\subsection{Monte Carlo calculations}
{\sc geant} with the {\sc gcalor} interface was used for all
Monte Carlo simulations. The {\sc gcalor} interface handles neutron
transport from 20 MeV down to thermal energies. {\sc geant} handles
the transport of all other particles.
One comparison of the data and the Monte Carlo is given in Figs.~\ref{fig:HeA}
and \ref{fig:HeB}. The former shows the capture-time spectrum of neutrons
detected by the $^3$He counters from a simulated $^{252}$Cf source at the
center of the target detector. The mean capture time is $265\pm3$
$\mu$secs. Fig.~\ref{fig:HeB} is for the same configuration, but
for real data. The mean capture time is $267\pm4$ $\mu$secs.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig7.ps,height=5in}}
\caption{Capture-time spectrum of neutrons detected by the $^3$He
counters from a simulated $^{252}$Cf source in the center of the target
detector. The mean capture time is 265$\pm$3 $\mu$secs.
Results are from 100,000 generated neutrons.}
\label{fig:HeA}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig8.ps,height=5in}}
\caption{Capture-time spectrum of the second neutron detected by
the $^3$He counters from
a real $^{252}$Cf source in the center of the target detector.
The mean capture time is 267$\pm$4~$\mu$secs.}
\label{fig:HeB}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Neutron Detection Efficiency} \label{sec:neff}
Special neutron-calibration runs were periodically made with a $^{252}$Cf
source in the center of the target detector. Data from these runs
were processed thru the same programs used to analyze the neutrino
events. In particular, the same target cuts (as described above) were
used.
The resulting pulse-height spectra from the $^3$He tubes were
histogrammed for each calibration run, and the peaks fitted to
Gaussians. Only those pulses within 2 standard deviations
of the peak value are finally accepted as neutrons. The numbers of
events with 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 neutrons within a given time window
were tallied. The time window chosen was 3 neutron capture times.
Based on the known neutron multiplicity from $^{252}$Cf fissions,
one can calculate the neutron detection efficiency by assuming various
efficiencies and comparing the observed number distribution with the
calculated distribution. Our procedure took
into account:
\begin{itemize}
\item The neutron-number distribution from $^{252}$Cf fission.
\item The neutron acceptance time window of 3 capture times.
\item The probability of an ``extra'' fission from the Cf source during
the acceptance time window, which is a function of the source activity.
\end{itemize}
This procedure yielded a mean efficiency of 0.41$\pm$0.01 for a neutron
source at the center of the target. This value agreed well with the value
derived from the Monte Carlo. As a result we were able to use the
Monte Carlo value of 0.29${\pm}$0.01 as the mean efficiency for single neutrons
generated isotropically throughout the D$_2$O of the target volume.
The efficiency for two neutrons is the square of the single-neutron
efficiency (0.084${\pm}$0.006). And the efficiency for seeing only 1
neutron, if 2 were produced is $2 \times 0.29 \times (1.0-0.29) =
0.41\pm0.01$.
\subsection{Energy calibration of inner antis}
Since we desired to base the inner anti cut criteria
on energy, both Tanks 2 and 4 must be
energy calibrated. Periodic runs were made over the
course of the experiment with a $^{60}$Co
source placed at various known positions in Tank 2, and beneath the
center of Tank 4. (Tank 4 was also calibrated with a $^{252}$Cf source
in that same position.) The data were compared with Monte Carlo simulations.
Several
algorithms were tested to find the best estimates of the energy. The
best measures found were: Tank 4, sum the signals from the two
PMT strings; Tank 2, sum the signals from the 4 vertical corner strings.
Results are shown in
Table~\ref{tab:calib}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{lcc} \hline\hline
& Tank 2 & Tank 4\\ \hline
Uncertainty in peak position & ${\pm}$15\% & ${\pm}$10\% \\
Standard deviation & 0.25E$^{\frac{1}{2}}$ & 0.25E$^{\frac{1}{2}}$ \\
Max. deviation of peak over entire run & ${\pm}$20\% & ${\pm}$10\% \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}\end{center}
\caption{Calibration results for inner anti using a $^{60}$Co source.}
\label{tab:calib}
\end{table}
\section{Results}
\subsection{Event rates}
The 1- and 2-neutron event rates for both the reactor up and down
data are given in Table~\ref{tab:updown}. Subtracting the reactor down rates from the up rates yields the data shown in Table~\ref{tab:onetwo},
where we have also given the corresponding neutron detection efficiencies.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{lcc} \hline\hline
& Reactor Up & Reactor Down\\ \hline
Raw 1-neutron rate (events/day) & 44.62${\pm}$0.59 & 25.28${\pm}$0.68\\
Raw 2-neutron rate (events/day) & 2.69${\pm}$0.14 & 1.45${\pm}$0.16 \\
Software efficiency & 0.471${\pm}$0.003 & 0.444${\pm}$0.005 \\
Corrected 1-neutron rate & 94.66${\pm}$1.24 & 57.00${\pm}$1.53 \\
Corrected 2-neutron rate & 5.71${\pm}$0.31 & 3.26${\pm}$0.36 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}\end{center}
\caption{Reactor up and down event rates.} \label{tab:updown}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{lcc} \hline\hline
& 1 neutron & 2 neutron \\ \hline
Up minus down rate & 37.7${\pm}$2.0 & 2.45${\pm}$0.48 \\
Neutron efficiency & 0.29${\pm}$0.01 & 0.084${\pm}$0.006\\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}\end{center}
\caption{1- and 2- neutron event rates and detection efficiencies.}
\label{tab:onetwo}
\end{table}
The 2-neutron rate (per day) is
$ (2.45\pm0.48)/(0.084\pm0.006) = 29.2\pm6.1$.
To get the CCD rate from this value we need only correct for the effect
of a nearby reactor, Reactor \#4. It is located about 80~m from our
detector. While taking data with Reactor \#5 up, the mean power of reactor
\#4 was 1925 MW; while \#5 was down, it was 2246 MW. This gives a
correction factor of +0.6\% to our final rates. Thus the
CCD daily rate is
\[R_{CCD} = (29.2\pm6.1) \times (1.006) = 29.4\pm6.1 \]
To get the NCD rate from the 1-neutron rate, two corrections
must first be applied to the 1-neutron rate.
\begin{itemize}
\item The number of CCD reactions in which only 1, instead of 2, neutrons
was observed must be subtracted. This number is the CCD rate times the efficiency of seeing
only one out of the two neutrons:
\[ (29.2\pm6.1)\times(0.41\pm0.01) = 12.0\pm2.5 \]
\item The number of inverse-beta decays in the inner detector that
leak into the target volume and create a single neutron must also be
subtracted. From the Monte
Carlo we estimate 22.0${\pm}$0.5 inverse-beta events per day
enter the target volume. Also from the
Monte Carlo we estimate that only 5${\pm}$1\% of those events survive the
0.8 MeV inner-anti cut. Thus the number of events to be subtracted
from the 1-neutron rate is:
\[ (22.0\pm0.5) \times (0.05\pm0.01) \times (0.29\pm0.01) = 0.3\pm0.1 \]
\end{itemize}
The corrected 1-neutron event rate is then
\[(37.7\pm2.0) - (12.0\pm2.5) - (0.3\pm0.1) = 25.4\pm3.2\]
Applying the single-neutron detection efficiency correction and the
Reactor \#4 correction from above, yields the
daily NCD rate:
\[R_{NCD} = (25.4\pm3.2)\times(1.006)/(0.29\pm0.01) = 88.1 \pm 11.1 \]
\subsection{Systematic uncertainties}
The significant systematic uncertainties are given in Table~\ref{tab:syst}.
Other possible sources of systematic effects which were considered, but
found to be insignificant were: the calculated neutrino energy spectrum
and the energy-calibration effects on data cuts.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{lcc} \hline\hline
Parameter & Value & \%\\ \hline
Detector-reactor distance & 18.5${\pm}$0.1 m & 1.1\\
Mass of D$_2$O & 267.0${\pm}$2.0 kg & 0.8\\
No. MeV per fission & 205.0${\pm}$0.7& 0.3 \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Total systematic uncertainty} & 1.4 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}\end{center}
\caption{Parameters which have significant contributions to the
systematic uncertainties in the data rates.
The last column
shows the contribution of each parameter to the systematic uncertainty
in the final event rates.}
\label{tab:syst}
\end{table}
\subsection{Theoretically-expected event rates}
The rates (events per day) are given by:
\begin{equation}
R = \frac{N_D}{4\pi r^2} \int \bar{N}_{\nu}(E_{\nu}) \sigma(E_{\nu}) dE_{\nu}
\label{eqn:R}
\end{equation}
where $E_{\nu}$\ is the neutrino energy,
$\bar{N}_{\nu}(E_{\nu})$ the daily average neutrino energy spectrum per MeV,
$N_D$ the total number of deuterons in the target,
$\sigma(E_{\nu})$ the cross section for the
process, and $r$ is the distance from the reactor to the
detector.
The mean neutrino energy spectrum was determined from the reactor power
and the core ``burn up,''
i.e.\ the isotopic composition of the fuel, as a function of time.
The reactor power was obtained from reactor monitoring devices
several times per day. The isotopic composition of the fuel rods was
given to us at the beginning and ending of each reactor cycle of about
11 months.
The only four nuclei of importance are: $^{235}$U\cite{Schreckenbach},
$^{238}$U\cite{Klapdor}, $^{239}$Pu\cite{Hahn}, and $^{241}$Pu\cite{Hahn}.
Combining the data in those references with the reactor power as a function
of time, both the neutrino energy spectrum and the conversion
factor from MW-hours to total number of neutrinos was calculated for
each day.
The energy per fission and the mean number of fissions per day are
given in Table~\ref{tab:fissions} for each isotope.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{ccc} \hline\hline
Isotope & MeV/fission & N$_{fiss}$ \\ \hline
$^{235}$U & 201.7${\pm}$0.6 & 4.17$\times10^{24}$ \\
$^{238}$U & 205.0${\pm}$0.9 & 5.61$\times10^{23}$ \\
$^{239}$Pu & 210.0${\pm}$0.9 & 2.10$\times10^{24}$ \\
$^{241}$Pu & 212.4${\pm}$1.0 & 3.46$\times10^{23}$ \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}\end{center}
\caption{The energy per fission and the mean number of fissions per day for
each isotope.}
\label{tab:fissions}
\end{table}
The data-collection MW-hours was calculated for every day by combining the data collection
times with the reactor power level at that time.
The number of deuterons was 1.605$\times10^{28}$.
Combining all these factors and dividing by the number of live days
yields the mean neutrino spectrum (neutrinos/MeV/day) as shown in
Table~\ref{tab:spectrum}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{lclc} \hline\hline
Energy & N$_{\nu}$ & Energy & N$_{\nu}$ \\ \hline
2.0& 3.56$\times10^{25}$ & 6.0& 8.98$\times10^{23}$ \\
2.25& 2.99$\times10^{25}$ & 6.25& 6.49$\times10^{23}$ \\
2.5& 2.47$\times10^{25}$ & 6.5& 4.84$\times10^{23}$ \\
2.75& 2.09$\times10^{25}$ & 6.75& 3.55$\times10^{23}$ \\
3.0& 1.75$\times10^{25}$ & 7.0& 2.47$\times10^{23}$ \\
3.25& 1.45$\times10^{25}$ & 7.25& 1.58$\times10^{23}$ \\
3.5& 1.18$\times10^{25}$ & 7.5& 1.01$\times10^{23}$ \\
3.75& 9.47$\times10^{24}$ & 7.75& 6.13$\times10^{22}$ \\
4.0& 7.54$\times10^{24}$ & 8.0& 3.27$\times10^{22}$ \\
4.25& 5.93$\times10^{24}$ & 8.25& 1.35$\times10^{22}$ \\
4.5& 4.52$\times10^{24}$ & 8.5& 8.11$\times10^{21}$ \\
4.75& 3.44$\times10^{24}$ & 8.75& 4.89$\times10^{21}$ \\
5.0& 2.68$\times10^{24}$ & 9.0& 2.77$\times10^{21}$ \\
5.25& 2.07$\times10^{24}$ & 9.25& 1.65$\times10^{21}$ \\
5.5& 1.57$\times10^{24}$ & 9.5& 1.17$\times10^{21}$ \\
5.75& 1.21$\times10^{24}$ & \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}\end{center}
\caption{Time-averaged number of neutrinos per day per MeV. Energies are at
lower bin edge.}
\label{tab:spectrum}
\end{table}
There has been considerable work done on the CCD and NCD cross sections in the
past few years. Kubodera and Nozawa review the field in Ref.~\cite{Kubodera}.
In their Table 1, they give the cross sections for both the CCD and NCD
reactions from threshold to 170 MeV. They state that the uncertainties
in the values are 5\%.
Using the data of Ref.~\cite{Kubodera} with Eqn.~\ref{eqn:R}, yields
$R_{NCD} = 87.2\pm4.4$ and $R_{CCD} = 30.4\pm1.5$.
\subsection{Experimental cross sections}
The average cross section per neutrino is given by
\[ \bar{\sigma} = \frac{ \int \bar{N}_{\nu}(E_{\nu}) \sigma(E_{\nu}) dE_{\nu}}
{ \int \bar{N}_{\nu}(E_{\nu}) dE_{\nu}} \]
where the integrals go from the threshold for the reaction to infinity.
Combining this with Eqn.~\ref{eqn:R}, we get
\[ \bar{\sigma} = \frac{4\pi r^2 R}
{N_D \int \bar{N}_{\nu}(E_{\nu}) dE_{\nu}}. \]
The values obtained for the NCD and CCD cross sections are given in
Table~\ref{tab:sigma}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{lcc} \hline\hline
& NCD & CCD \\ \hline
Rate (events per day) & 88.1 ${\pm}$ 11.1 ${\pm}$ 1.2
& 29.4 ${\pm}$ 6.1 ${\pm}$ 0.4 \\
Reaction threshold (MeV) & 2.23 & 4.03 \\
Neutrinos (per day) & 3.86 $\times 10^{25}$ & 8.01 $\times 10^{24}$ \\
Average cross section (10$^{-45}$ cm$^2$ per $\bar{\nu_e}$) & 6.08 $\pm$ 0.77 & 9.83 $\pm$ 2.04 \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}\end{center}
\caption{The rates (with statistical and systematic uncertainties),
reaction thresholds,
total numbers of neutrinos above threshold,
and cross sections for the NCD and CCD reactions as measured in this
experiment}.
\label{tab:sigma}
\end{table}
\subsection{Improved NCD cross section}
As stated above, the CCD events create a significant background for the
NCD events, and this background must be subtracted. The large uncertainty
in our measured CCD rate makes a significant contribution to the
uncertainty in the NCD rate. However,
we note that our experimentally determined rates and the
theoretically-expected rates
agree within one standard deviation of each the experimental
and theoretical uncertainties. Given this excellent agreement, we feel
that an improved value for the NCD cross section may be calculated by
using the theoretically-expected CCD daily rate (30.4 $\pm$ 1.52)
rather than our observed rate (29.4 $\pm$ 6.1). Repeating the procedure
described above, this yields an improved NCD rate of
86.7 $\pm$ 7.9, and a corresponding cross section of $5.98 \pm 0.54
\times 10^{-45}$ cm$^2$ per neutrino.
\subsection{Calculation of $\beta^2$}
The value of $\beta^2$ is given by the ratio of the measured neutral current
rate to the theoretically expected rate. Thus we find
\[ \beta^2 = \frac{88.1\pm11.1\pm1.2}{87.2\pm4.4} = 1.01\pm0.16 \]
Using the improved NCD cross section determined above, we get an
improved $\beta^2$ of 0.99 $\pm$ 0.10.
\subsection{Neutrino oscillations}
Another aspect of this experiment is its ability to explore
neutrino oscillation by measuring the ratio of the CCD to NCD rates.
At reactor neutrino energies, there is insufficient
energy to create leptons more massive than the electron.
Therefore, if neutrino oscillation occurs at a significant level,
a deficit of charged-current events compared to neutral-current
events should be seen.
This leads us to define the ratio $R$, where
\begin{equation}
R = \frac{ \frac{ {\rm CCD_{exp}}}{ {\rm NCD_{exp}}}}
{ \frac{ {\rm CCD_{th}}}{ {\rm NCD_{th}}}},
\end{equation}
a ratio of ratios of experimentally determined reaction rates to theoretically
expected reaction rates. A deficit of charged current reactions
could imply that some electron antineutrinos have
oscillated to a different flavor or helicity state,
either of which would imply new physics.
We find
\[ R = \frac{\frac{29.4\pm6.1}{88.1\pm11.1}}{\frac{30.4}{87.2}}
= \frac{0.334\pm0.080}{0.348\pm0.004} = 0.96\pm0.23 \]
The error of 1\% in the theoretical ratio is taken from
reference~\cite{Kubodera}. The neutrino-oscillation exclusion plot
resulting from this value of R is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:exclusion}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig9.ps,height=8in}}
\vspace{-1.5in}
\caption{The neutrino-oscillation exclusion plot corresponding to our
value of $R$, the ratio of the observed to expected ratios of
the CCD to NCD rates. The solid line is the 90\% confidence level contour;
the dashed, the 95\%.}
\label{fig:exclusion}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Possible extension of this technique}
Since the theoretical error in the ratio is quite small,
a high statistics, good
precision measurement of R should be possible. This measurement has the
potential of reaching small values of $\sin^{2}2\theta$.
In the current experiment, the CCD measurement is handicapped by
the requirement
that we observe two neutrons. The efficiency for observing this goes as the
square of the single-neutron detection efficiency and so is necessarily
small.
Another method, which we explored but did not pursue, employs the addition
of a small amount (approximately 10\%) of light water into the heavy water
target. This small addition does not effect the neutron detection efficiency
appreciably and gives one
the opportunity to observe the charged current reaction
on the proton. Since the CCP reaction has a much larger cross-section
than the CCD reaction, a threshold of 1.8 MeV, closer to the CCD threshold
and since it can be detected by searching for a single neutron, one
can determine
the ratio of NCD to CCP with higher precision.
\section{Discussion}
This experiment was an improved version of our experiment done at
Savannah River in the late 1970s. The primary improvements were in the
cosmic-ray shielding, which cut that background by a factor of six,
and an improved data-collection system.
During the past 20 years great progress has been made in
calculating the CCD and NCD cross sections, and
they agree well with the results of this experiment.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to acknowledge the operators of the Bugey
Nuclear Plant, and the contributions of our technicians,
Thomasina Godbee, Herb Juds, Eric Juds, and Butch Juds.
This work was supported by the
U.S. Department of Energy.
|
\section{Introduction}
Supersymmetric sigma models in 2+1 dimensions with a K\"ahler
target space generally admit static soliton-like `lump' solutions with
energy $E= |T|$, where $T$ is the topological charge $\int \omega $
obtained by integrating the K\"ahler 2-form $\omega$
over the image in target space of the 2-dimensional space (see e.g.
\cite{ruback}). If the K\"ahler target space admits a holomorphic
Killing vector field $k$ then one can perform a `Scherk-Schwarz' (SS)
dimensional reduction to arrive at a `massive' supersymmetric sigma model
in 1+1 dimensions with a scalar potential $V \sim k^2$. This theory admits
`Q-kink' solutions \cite{AT,paptown} with an energy
\begin{equation}
E = \sqrt {Q_0^2 + Q^2}\, ,
\end{equation}
where $Q_0$ is the Noether charge associated with $k$, and
$Q = \int i_k\omega$, the integral being taken over the image in target
space of the 1-dimensional space. Because $k$ is holomorphic the 1-form
$i_k\omega $ is closed, so $Q$ is a topological charge. When
$Q_0 \ne 0$ the Q-kink is a {\sl time-dependent} solution
of the sigma-model field equations. When $Q_0 = 0$ it becomes a standard
static kink solution.
A 2+1 dimensional supersymmetric sigma model
with a K\"ahler target space has an N=2 supersymmetry
and the topological charge $T$ appears as a central charge in the
supersymmetry algebra. This implies the bound $E \ge |T|$, which is
saturated by the sigma-model lumps. Similarly,
1+1 dimensional massive supersymmetric sigma models
obtained by SS dimensional
reduction actually have (2,2) supersymmetry, and both $Q_0$ and $Q$
appear in the supersymmetry algebra as central charges. This implies the
bound $E \ge \sqrt {Q_0^2 + Q^2}$, which is saturated by the Q-kinks.
If the K\"ahler target space is actually hyper-K\"ahler then
the topological charge $T$ of the 2+1 dimensional model is just
one of a triplet of topological charges
\begin{equation}
{\bf T} = \int\! \mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}$ is the triplet of K\"ahler 2-forms. The number
of supersymmetries is also doubled to N=4, and the triplet of
charges $\bf T$ appear as central charges in the
N=4 supersymmetry algebra. If the
hyper-K\"ahler space admits a tri-holomorphic Killing vector field $k$ then
SS dimensional reduction along its orbits yields a (4,4) supersymmetric
massive sigma model in 1+1 dimensions, again with $V \sim k^2$.
The topological charge $Q$ is now one of a triplet of topological charges
\begin{equation}
{\bf Q} = \int i_k \mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}\, ,
\end{equation}
and the four charges $(Q_0, {\bf Q})$ appear as central charges in the (4,4)
supersymmetry algebra. This implies the bound
\begin{equation}
E \ge \sqrt{Q_0^2 + {\bf Q\cdot Q}}\, ,
\end{equation}
which is saturated by the (hyper-K\"ahler) Q-kinks.
There is a close analogy here to N=2 and N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills (SYM)
theories in 4+1 and 3+1 dimensions \cite{AT,dorey}. The lumps
of the 2+1 dimensional
sigma model are similar to the instantonic solitons of the 4+1
SYM theory; for example, they have no fixed scale. The Q-kinks of the 1+1
dimensional sigma model are similar to the dyons of 3+1 SYM theory;
for example the sigma model has a vacuum angle and Q-kinks generally have
fractional $Q_0$-charge, just as SYM dyons generally carry fractional
electric charge for nonzero vacuum angle. The scale introduced by the potential
term in the 1+1 dimensional sigma model is analogous to the scale introduced
by the Higgs mechanism in the SYM case.
The N=2 and N=4 SYM theories have interpretations
in IIB string theory as effective field theories describing the
fluctuations of D-branes around some `vacuum' brane
configuration. The dyon solutions are the field theory realization
of (p,q) strings, or string webs, stretched between the
D-branes. A feature of the brane
interpretation of the SYM theories is that in a limit in which the
individual branes become widely separated the dyon solutions
must transmute into a solution of the equations governing
the dynamics of a ${\sl single}$ brane. This is an
Abelian SYM theory, although not of a conventional
type because the brane action involves higher derivative interactions.
These `DBI solitons', were found in \cite{CM,G}; the supersymmetric
solutions are worldvolume `spikes' of infinite total energy per unit length
equal to the tension of a (p,q) string. Solutions with finite
${\sl total}$ energy can be found by considering the DBI action
in an appropriate supergravity background \cite{UK}.
These considerations motivate us to seek an interpretation of
sigma-model lumps and Q-kinks as solitons on the worldvolume of the
eleven-dimensional supermembrane \cite{supermem}, otherwise known as the
M2-brane. An M2-brane in a vacuum background has supersymmetric, but infinite
energy, vortex solutions that can be interpreted as intersections with other
M2-branes \cite{CM,G,GGT}. In a non-vacuum K{\" a}hler background we may have
the option of wrapping the `other' M2-branes on finite area holomorphic 2-cycles
of the background. These are finite energy solitons that provide the brane
realization of K{\" a}hler sigma-model lumps. We shall concentrate here on the
hyper-K\"ahler case; specifically, we shall consider the supermembrane in a
background for which the 4-form field-strength vanishes and the 11-metric
takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{11m}
ds^2 = ds^2(\bb{E}^{(1,5)} \times S^1) + ds^2_4\, ,
\end{equation}
where $ds^2_4$ is the Kaluza-Klein (KK) monopole metric
\begin{equation}\label{tfour}
ds^2_4= V^{-1}\left (d\varphi - {\bf A}\right )^2
+ V\, ds^2(\bb{E}^3) \, .
\end{equation}
The 1-form $\bf A$ on $\bb{E}^3$ satisfies
$\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} V = \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} \times {\bf A}$, which implies that
$V$ is harmonic on $\bb{E}^3$. The vector field $\partial/\partial\varphi$ is
Killing and triholomorphic. We take it to be the vector field $k$
of the previous discussion, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\label{KV}
k = \partial/\partial\varphi\, .
\end{equation}
The orbits of $k$ are
Kaluza-Klein (KK) circles which shrink to points at singularities of $V$.
Let $\bf X$ be Cartesian coordinates on $\bb{E}^3$ and ${\bf X}_0$ a constant
3-vector from the origin. The simplest choice of $V$ that serves our
purposes is
\begin{equation}\label{vee}
V = 1 + {1\over |{\bf X}+{\bf X}_0|} + {1\over |{\bf X}-{\bf X}_0|}\, ,
\end{equation}
which describes a two-centre KK-monopole of M-theory.
Upon reduction on orbits of $k$, the KK-monopole acquires an
interpretation as two parallel IIA D6-branes separated in $\bb{E}^3$ by the
constant vector $2{\bf X}_0$. The two centres of the metric at
${\bf X}=\pm {\bf X}_0$ can be considered as the poles of a 2-sphere
parametrized by $\varphi$ and the distance from one D6-brane along the line
joining the two of them. A membrane wrapped on this 2-sphere has a IIA
interpretation as a string stretched between the two D6-branes \cite{sen}.
Now consider a D2-brane parallel to the two D6-branes. In general it will not
be colinear in $\bb{E}^3$ with the two D6-branes and so will not intersect the
string joining them. However, we may move it until it does intersect. From the
D=11 perspective we then have a pointlike intersection of two M2-branes, one an
infinite planar one and the other one wrapped on a finite area 2-cycle of the
background. The singular intersection point may be desingularized so that we
have a single M2-brane with a non-singular lump soliton on it of some finite size
$L$. From the IIA perspective this corresponds to separating the points at
which the strings from each of the two D6-branes meet the D2-brane.
In the case of the lump, the vacuum is an infinite planar M2-brane. To find
a brane interpretation of the hyper-K\"ahler Q-kink we will need to wrap
this M2-brane on some one-cycle of the background space. This corresponds
to SS reduction on some Killing vector field with closed orbits. The
dimensional reduction will preserve all supersymmetries only if this
Killing vector field is triholomorphic. The Killing vector field $k$
of (\ref{KV}) is therefore an obvious candidate, but SS reduction
on orbits of $k$ does ${\it not}$ yield a potential $V \sim k^2$
as one might have expected from our earlier summary of the results of SS
reduction in sigma models.
Rather, it yields a non-vanishing, and non-uniform, IIA string tension.
The non-uniformity of the tension creates an attractive force between the
string and the D6-brane but on reaching the D6-brane core the string
can simply dissolve into Born-Infeld flux.
To get the potential term in the dimensionally reduced action one must
suppose that the 11-metric (\ref{11m})
has another tri-holomorphic Killing vector field
with closed orbits.
We may take this to be a vector field generating the U(1) isometry
of the $S^1$ factor in this metric. Let us call this vector field $\ell$.
Dimensional reduction on
orbits of $k+\ell$ leads to a bound state of the IIA string discussed
above with a D2-brane wrapped on orbits of $\ell$. This bound state is
itself bound to the D6-brane. The effective string action is the desired
brane version of the massive hyper-K\"ahler sigma model, admitting Q-kink
solutions. T-dualizing in the (compact) $\ell$ direction yields a
(1,1) IIB string bound to a D5-brane. As we shall see, the Q-kink
solution can then be interpreted as a (1,1) string that migrates
from one D5-brane to another.
Although lump and Q-kink solutions are known to minimise the energy of the
relevant sigma model it does not immediately follow that they
minimise the energy
on the M2-brane because of the nonlinearities of the Dirac membrane
action.
By means of the
brane version of the Bogomol'nyi argument \cite{GGT}, we show
that the energy of the M2-brane is indeed minimised by these solutions.
We consider the lumps first,
as these are static, and then generalize to the Q-kinks. Both
configurations are then shown to preserve some fraction of the
worldvolume supersymmetry. Again, this is known in the
sigma-model case, but the
supersymmetry transformations of the supermem\-brane are different.
They can be deduced from a combination of the target space
supersymmetry and the kappa-symmetry of the supermembrane,
and this leads to a simple condition for a worldvolume field configuration
to preserve some fraction of supersymmetry \cite{singleton,bbs,BKOP}. For a
vacuum background this condition is easily interpreted as a constraint on
the 32 independent constant Killing spinors of the background, but its
interpretation is less direct in a non-vacuum background in which the Killing
spinors are not constant and span a space of lower dimension. Here we
present a more geometrical derivation of the conditions for
preservation of supersymmetry and we discuss some
subtleties of the non-vacuum case that have been passed over previously.
\section{Energy bounds}
Our starting point for finding soliton solutions as minimum energy
configurations of the supermembrane will be its Hamiltonian
formulation \cite{yosh}. Let
$\xi^i = (t, \sigma^a)$ be the worldvolume coordinates, with $\sigma^a$
the worldspace coordinates, and let $X^m$ be the D=11 spacetime coordinates.
The supermembrane Lagrangian, omitting fermions, can then be written as
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = P_m \dot {X}^m - s^a P_m\partial_a X^m -
{\textstyle{1\over 2}} v \left [ P^2 + {\rm det} (g_{ab}) \right ]\, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
g_{ab} = \partial_a X^m \partial _b X^n g_{mn}
\end{equation}
is the induced worldspace metric, $P_m$ is the 11-momentum
conjugate to $X^m$, and $s^a$ and $v$ are Lagrange multipliers. Let
$X^m = (Y^i, X^I)$ ($i=0,1,2$) so that
\begin{equation}
ds^2_{11} = dY^i dY^j \eta_{ij} + dX^I dX^J g_{IJ}\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\eta$ is the 3-dimensional Minkowski metric. We make the
gauge choice $Y^i(\xi) = \xi^i$. This implies that
\begin{equation}
g_{ab} = \eta_{ab} + \partial_a X^I \partial_b X^J g_{IJ}\, .
\end{equation}
It also implies that
\begin{equation}
P_m = \left ( -\varepsilon -1, -P_I\partial_a X^I, P_I\right )
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon$ is the energy density relative to the brane vacuum
(which is taken to have unit tension). The Hamiltonian constraint
imposed by $v$ can be solved for $\varepsilon$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{16}
(\varepsilon +1)^2 &=& 1 + \nabla X^I \cdot \nabla X^J g_{IJ} + (g^{IJ} +
\nabla X^I \cdot \nabla X^J)P_I P_J\nonumber\\
&&+ {\textstyle{1\over 2}} (\nabla X^I \times \nabla X^J)(\nabla X^K\times
\nabla X^L)g_{IK}g_{JL}\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used standard 2D vector calculus notation for worldspace
derivatives. This expression differs in several respects from the
corresponding expression for the sigma-model energy density. Firstly, the
supermembrane expression is quadratic in $\varepsilon$; this is because
the sigma-model approximation is a kind of non-relativistic approximation to
the supermembrane (they differ in the same way that the energies of
a relativistic and non-relativistic particles differ). Secondly,
the supermembrane expression involves terms quartic in derivatives that are
absent in the sigma-model case.
\subsection{Lumps}
We now aim to rewrite the above expression for the energy density in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e2}
(\varepsilon+1)^2 &=& \left ( 1 \pm {\textstyle {1\over 2}}\nabla X^I \times
\nabla X^J \omega_{IJ}\right )^2 \nonumber\\
&&+ {\textstyle {1\over 2}}\left ( \nabla X^I \pm *\nabla X^K I_K{}^I\right)
\left ( \nabla X^J \pm *\nabla X^L I_L{}^J\right ) g_{IJ}\\
&&+ {\textstyle{1\over 4}}\sum_{r=1}^6 \left
(\nabla X^I \times \nabla X^J \Omega_{IJ}^{(r)}\right )^2\, ,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where we have set $P_I =0$ and
$*\nabla = (\partial_2, -\partial_1)$ if $\nabla =
(\partial_1, \partial_2)$. We assume that $I_I{}^J$ is a complex
structure, that the 8-metric $g_{IJ}$ is Hermitian with respect to it
and that $\omega_{IJ}=I_I{}^Kg_{KJ}$ is the corresponding closed
K\"ahler 2-form. For the moment we leave unspecified the six
2-forms $\Omega^{(r)}$. These conditions are already sufficient to
ensure that
all but the quartic terms in $\nabla X$ of (\ref{16}) are reproduced.
To reproduce the quartic terms too we require that
\begin{equation}
\label{XIJ}
X^{IJ} X^{KL}
\left [ \omega_{IJ} \omega_{KL} + \sum_{r=1}^6 \Omega^{(r)}_{IJ}
\Omega^{(r)}_{KL}
-2 g_{KI}g_{JL}\right ] = 0\, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
X^{IJ} \equiv \nabla X^I \times \nabla X^J\, .
\end{equation}
Note that $X^{IJ}$ is an antisymmetric $8\times 8$ matrix. If none
of its 4 skew-eigenvalues vanish, then (\ref{XIJ}) implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{15}
\omega_{I(J} \omega_{K)L} + \sum_{r=1}^6
\Omega^{(r)}_{I(J} \Omega^{(r)}_{K)L} = g_{I(K}g_{J)L}
- g_{KJ}g_{IL}\, .
\end{equation}
For a membrane in flat space this condition is satisfied by taking the
matrices
\begin{equation}
I_I{}^J \equiv \omega_{IK}g^{KJ}\, ,\qquad
(J^{(r)})_I{}^J \equiv \Omega^{(r)}_{IK}g^{KJ}
\end{equation}
to be the seven complex structures of $\bb{E}^8$.
For every vanishing skew eigenvalue of $X^{IJ}$ the dimension of the
transverse space is effectively reduced by two. In this reduced space,
we must again have (\ref{15}) but it may now be possible to choose some
of the six $J$ matrices to vanish. For example, if $X^{IJ}$ has two vanishing
skew-eigenvalues then the transverse space is effectively 4-dimensional; in
other words, there are four `active scalars'. We may now set all but two of
the $J$ matrices to zero. The other two, together with $I$ can be taken to
be the three almost complex structures of the transverse 4-manifold (these
will be covariantly constant if this transverse 4-space is hyper-K\"ahler,
but we need not assume any special properties at this point).
If $X^{IJ}$ has three vanishing skew-eigenvalues, corresponding to two
active scalars, then the transverse space is effectively two-dimensional,
and we may take all the $J$ matrices to vanish.
Given (\ref{XIJ}) we deduce that
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon \ge {\textstyle{1\over 2}}|X^{IJ} \omega_{IJ}|
\end{equation}
with equality when
\begin{equation}\label{17}
\nabla X^I = \mp *\nabla X^J I_J{}^I
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{18}
X^{IJ} \Omega_{IJ}^{(r)} = 0\hskip 1truecm r = 1,\cdots ,6\, .
\end{equation}
The condition (\ref{17}) is the statement that in complex coordinates
$Z^\alpha$, adapted to the complex structure $I$, the functions
$Z^\alpha(z)$ are holomorphic on worldspace, with
$z=\sigma^1 + i\sigma^2$. The conditions (\ref{18}) are implied by
(\ref{17}) if the matrices $J^{(r)}$ are such that
\begin{equation}
\label{19}
IJ^{(r)} + J^{(r)} I = 0\, ,\hskip 1.5truecm r = 1,\cdots ,6\, .
\end{equation}
This is true when $I,J^{(r)}$ are the 7 complex structures
of $\bb{E}^8$. It is also satisfied if $I,J^{(1)}, J^{(2)}$ are the three
almost complex structures of a 4-dimensional space, with the other $J$
matrices vanishing. This is the case of most interest here because
we may obviously reduce the transverse 8-space to an effective transverse
4-space by requiring all scalars to vanish except those
associated with the $ds^2_4$ metric in (\ref{11m}). This restriction still
allows configurations with either two or four active scalars.
In the case of a flat background, a solution of (\ref{17}) with $2n$ real
`active scalars' has the interpretation as the (orthogonal) intersection with
the worldvolume of $n$ M2-branes, corresponding to a spacetime intersection of
$n+1$ M2-branes. The spacetime configuration is known to preserve the
fraction $1/2^{n+1}$ of the spacetime supersymmetry \cite{mbrane} so we may
expect the fraction of worldvolume supersymmetry preserved to be $1/2^n$. This
can be confirmed directly from a consideration of $\kappa$-symmetry of the
supermembrane \cite{gibpap,GLW}. The lump solution of (\ref{17}) for
the KK-monopole background is also one with two `active scalars' and preserves
half the worldvolume supersymmetry but the total number of worldvolume
supersymmetries is half what it would be in a flat spacetime. The fraction of
supersymmetry of the M-theory vacuum that is preserved by the total system is
therefore 1/8 (1/2 for the solution, 1/2 for the brane and 1/2 for the
background). We shall examine the question of supersymmetry in more
detail in section 3.
\subsection{Q-Kinks}
We now set
\begin{equation}\label{ssred}
\partial_2 X^I = k^I\, ,
\end{equation}
where $k$ is a holomorphic Killing vector field. The holomorphicity
condition ensures that the dimensionally
reduced 1+1 dimensional theory preserves the $N=2$ supersymmetry
of the (2+1)-dimensional model. Any additional supersymmetries will
be associated with additional complex structures; if $k$ is holomorphic
with respect to them too then the reduction will preserve these
additional supersymmetries. For the KK-monopole background we may take
$k$ to be the triholomorphic Killing vector of (\ref{KV}).
Using (\ref{ssred}) in (\ref{16}) we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{24}
(\varepsilon+1)^2 &=& 1 + \left ( g^{IJ} +
\partial X^I\partial X^J + k^I k^J\right )
P_I P_J + |\partial X|^2 + |k|^2\nonumber\\
&& + \ 2 \partial X^{[I} k^{J]} \partial X^{[K} k^{L]} g_{IK} g_{JL}\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\partial X = \partial_1 X$. Restricting to static $(P=0)$ and
uniform $(\partial X = 0)$ configurations yields
$\epsilon = \sqrt{1 + |k|^2} - 1 \approx {1\over 2} |k|^2$,
which is the membrane version of the scalar potential that leads to
Q-kink solutions interpolating between its
minima at fixed points of $k$ where $|k|$ vanishes.
Under the same conditions as before,
the expression (\ref{24}) for the energy density can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
(\varepsilon+1)^2 &=& \left [ 1 + v k\cdot P +
\sqrt {1-v^2}\ \partial X^I k^J
\omega_{IJ}\right ]^2 + \left |P - vk\right |^2\nonumber\cr
&&+\ \left |\partial X^I + \sqrt {1-v^2}\ k^J I_J{}^I\right |^2 +
\left (P\cdot \partial X\right )^2\cr
&&+\ \left [v\ \partial X^I k^J \omega_{IJ} -
\sqrt {1-v^2}\ k\cdot P\right ]^2
+ \sum_r \left ( \partial X^I k^J \Omega_{IJ}^{(r)}\right )^2\, .
\end{eqnarray}
for arbitrary constant $v$ with $|v|<1$.
We deduce that
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon
\ge vk\cdot P + \sqrt {1-v^2}\ \partial X^I k^J \omega_{IJ}\,
\end{equation}
with equality when
\begin{eqnarray}\label{kinkbps}
P^I &=& v k^I\, ,\cr
\partial X^I &=& - \sqrt {1- v^2}\ k^J I_J{}^I\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
since these equations imply the vanishing of the remaining terms.
Setting $P^I=\dot X^I$ in (\ref{kinkbps}) we recover the equations found in
\cite{AT}, the solutions of which are Q-kinks. The explicit Q-kink
solution of \cite{AT} was given for the two-centre metric with $V$ as in
(\ref{vee}) but without the constant term (i.e. for the Eguchi-Hanson
metric \cite{prasad}). The explicit
solution when $V$ includes a constant term has been found by
Opfermann \cite{andreas}.
\section{Supersymmetry}
The supermembrane is invariant under all isometries of the background.
Supersymmetries correspond to Grassmann odd Killing vector superfields
$\chi = \chi^A E_A$, where $E_A = E_A{}^M\partial_M$. The (Grassman even)
spinor component $\chi^\alpha$ is a Killing spinor in the standard sense,
at least
in a purely bosonic background. The (Grassman odd) vector
component $\chi^a$ is a
superfield satisfying the constraint ${\cal D}_\alpha \chi^a =
(\Gamma^a\chi)_\alpha$. Let
$\{\chi\}$ be the complete set of these Killing vector superfields and let
$\{\epsilon\}$ be a corresponding set of anticommuting parameters.
The supersymmetry transformations of the worldvolume fields $Z^M$ are then
\begin{equation}
\delta_\epsilon Z^M = \epsilon\cdot \chi^M\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon\cdot\chi$ is used to denote the sum over the $(\epsilon,\chi)$
pairs. Defining $\delta E^A = \delta Z^M E_M{}^A$, we then have
\begin{equation}
\delta_\epsilon E^A = \epsilon\cdot \chi^A\, .
\end{equation}
The $\kappa$-symmetry variation $\delta_\kappa Z^M$ can be similarly
expressed in the form
\begin{equation}
\delta_\kappa E^\alpha = \kappa^\beta (1+\Gamma)_\beta{}^\alpha\, ,
\hskip 1truecm \delta_\kappa E^a = 0\, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Gamma = {1\over 6\sqrt{-g}}\epsilon^{ijk} E_i{}^a E_j{}^b E_k{}^c
\Gamma_{abc}\, ,
\end{equation}
with $E_i{}^a = \partial_i Z^M E_M{}^a$, and $g$ is the determinant of
the induced worldvolume metric $g_{ij} = E_i{}^a E_j{}^b\eta_{ab}$. To
fix $\kappa$-symmetry, we make the gauge choice \cite{singleton}
\begin{equation}
E^\alpha (1+\Gamma)_\alpha{}^\beta = 0\, .
\end{equation}
This restricts only $dZ^M$, but this is sufficient.
Note that this gauge choice is invariant under supersymmetry, at
least in a bosonic background and for vanishing worldvolume fermions; under
these conditions we may neglect the variation of $\Gamma$, while
\begin{equation}
\delta_\epsilon (dZ^M E_M{}^\alpha) = D(\epsilon\cdot\chi)^\alpha -
\epsilon\cdot\chi^\beta E^\gamma T_{\gamma\beta}{}^\alpha \, ,
\end{equation}
which vanishes by the Killing spinor equation (the $T_{\gamma\beta}{}^\alpha$
component of the torsion tensor is proportional to the 4-form field strength of
D=11 supergravity).
The remaining physical variables are such that their
variations are $\delta E^\alpha (1-\Gamma)_\alpha{}^\beta$.
The condition that the worldvolume configuration preserves some
supersymmetry is therefore
\begin{equation}
\label{30}
\epsilon \cdot \chi^\alpha (1-\Gamma)_\alpha{}^\beta = 0\, .
\end{equation}
For flat superspace, $\chi_I{}^\alpha = \delta_I{}^\alpha$, so
$\epsilon\cdot\chi=\epsilon$, a constant 32-component spinor.
We thus recover the flat space condition \cite{singleton}
\begin{equation}\label{flat}
\epsilon^\alpha (1-\Gamma)_\alpha{}^\beta = 0\, .
\end{equation}
More generally, we must take into account the fact that $\epsilon\cdot\chi$ is
neither constant nor a spinor with 32 independent components. For the simplest
backgrounds, including the KK-monopole background considered here, we have
\begin{equation}\label{first}
\epsilon\cdot \chi = f_\chi\, \epsilon\, ,
\end{equation}
where $f_\chi$ is an ordinary function, and $\epsilon$ is a constant
32-component spinor satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{chicon}
P_\chi\, \epsilon =0\, ,
\end{equation}
with $P_\chi$ a {\sl constant} projection matrix. For the
KK-monopole background
the matrix $P_\chi$ is just the product of four constant
Dirac matrices, one for
each of the four dimensions of the 4-metric, and it
has the property (associated
with the fact that this background preserves 1/2 of the spacetime
supersymmetry) that ${\rm tr} P_\chi=16$. The fraction of spacetime supersymmetry
preserved by the brane plus background configuration is therefore determined by
the number of simultaneous solutions to (\ref{flat}) and (\ref{chicon}).
Note that the function $f_\chi$ of (\ref{first}) is
irrelevant to the final result.
We now fix worldvolume diffeomorphisms by the `static gauge' choice
\begin{equation}
X^m = \left (\xi^i, X^I(\xi)\right )\, .
\end{equation}
With this gauge choice the condition (\ref{flat}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gaugefixed}
\sqrt {-g}\, \epsilon &=& \big[\Gamma_* +
\Gamma^k\partial_k X^I\Gamma_I \Gamma_*
+ {\textstyle{1\over 2}}\Gamma_k \epsilon^{ijk}\partial_iX^I\partial_jX^J
\Gamma_{IJ} \nonumber\\
&& +\ {\textstyle{1\over 6}}\varepsilon^{ijk}\partial_i
X^I\partial_j X^J \partial_k X^K \Gamma_{IJK}\big]\,\epsilon\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_* = \Gamma_{012}\, .
\end{equation}
In addition
\begin{equation}
g = {\rm det}\left (\eta_{ij} + {\tilde g}_{ij}\right )\, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\tilde g}_{ij} = \partial_i X^I\partial_j X^J g_{IJ}\, .
\end{equation}
The condition (\ref{gaugefixed}) for preservation of
supersymmetry can now be expanded in a power series in
$\partial X$. We assume here that each term in the series must vanish
separately\footnote{For a flat space background this amounts to the
assumption that the worldspace is the contact set of a K{\"a}hler
calibration. K{\"a}hler calibrations are only ones of relevance here, although
for the M5-brane there are other calibrations for which the
assumption would be false. See \cite{gibpap,GLW,QMW} for a discussion
of calibrations in relation to branes.}.
At zeroth order in this expansion we learn that
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_* \epsilon = \epsilon\, .
\end{equation}
Because the projector $P_\chi$ involves only the $\Gamma^I$ matrices, this
equation tells us that the worldvolume vacuum preserves
half the supersymmetries
of the supergravity background, i.e. that the M2--brane
is $1/2$ supersymmetric.
At first order in the $\partial X$ expansion we learn that
\begin{equation}\label{key}
\Gamma^k \partial_k X^I \Gamma_I\, \epsilon = 0\, .
\end{equation}
This implies various higher-order identities. In particular
it implies that ${\rm det}\, {\tilde g}_{ij}$ vanishes and that
\begin{equation}
\label{38}
\eta^{im}
\eta^{jn} {\tilde g}_{jm} {\tilde g}_{in}
= {\textstyle{1\over 2}}(\eta^{ij}{\tilde g}_{ij})^2\, .
\end{equation}
Using these identities, and the constraints on $\epsilon$ quadratic
and cubic in
$\partial X$ that also follow from (\ref{key}), one can show that the
${\sl full}$ constraint $\Gamma\epsilon = \epsilon$ is satisfied.
Thus, (\ref{key}) is the only condition (apart from $P_\chi\epsilon=0$) that
we need analyse to determine the fraction of supersymmetry preserved by
lump and Q-kink soliton solutions.
Having found the conditions for partial preservation of worldvolume
supersymmetry, we are now in a position to verify that the lump and Q-kink
solitons are supersymmetric and to determine the fraction of supersymmetry they
preserve. We need not discuss the lump and Q-kink cases separately
because the
formalism to follow will apply equally to both. For lumps we just set $v=0$
while for Q-kinks we set $\partial_2 X^I = k^I$. We begin with the observation
that the equations
\begin{equation}
\label{39}
\dot {X}^I = v\partial_2 X^I\, ,\hskip 1.0truecm
\partial_1 X^I + \sqrt {1-v^2}\ \partial_2X^J\, I_J{}^I=0\, ,
\end{equation}
imply that
\begin{equation}
{\tilde g} = \tilde g_{22} \times \pmatrix{v^2&0&v\cr
0&1-v^2&0\cr
v&0&1}\, ,
\end{equation}
which manifestly has vanishing determinant and solves (\ref{38}).
Using (\ref{39}) in (\ref{key}) and
$\Gamma_*\epsilon = \epsilon$,
we have
\begin{equation}\label{susycon}
\partial_2 X^I\Gamma^J
\left ( g_{IJ} + {\tilde \Gamma} \omega_{IJ}\right )\epsilon = 0\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\tilde\Gamma} = {1\over \sqrt{1-v^2}}\left (\Gamma^0 + v \Gamma^2
\right )\, .
\end{equation}
Note that $\tilde \Gamma^2=-1$.
The matrices $\Gamma^I$ are space-dependent. We can write them
in terms of the constant complex matrices
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^\alpha = \Gamma^I e_I{}^\alpha
\end{equation}
and their complex conjugates $\bar\Gamma^{\bar\alpha}$, where $e_I{}^\alpha$
is a complex target space vielbein (with complex conjugate
$\bar e_I{}^{\bar\alpha}$) chosen such that
\begin{equation}
\{\Gamma^\alpha,\Gamma^\beta\}=0 \qquad
\{\Gamma^\alpha,\bar\Gamma^{\bar\beta}\} = \delta^{\alpha\bar\beta}\, .
\end{equation}
Using the fact that $\omega_{\alpha\bar\beta}=
i\delta_{\alpha\bar\beta}$ in this
basis, we now have
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\alpha=\bar\alpha} \left[ e^\alpha \bar\Gamma^{\bar\alpha} +
\bar e^{\bar\alpha} \Gamma^\alpha + i(e^\alpha\bar\Gamma^{\bar\alpha} -
\bar e^{\bar\alpha}\Gamma^\alpha)\tilde \Gamma \right ]\epsilon =0
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
e^\alpha = \partial_2 X^I e_I{}^\alpha\, .
\end{equation}
Each term in the sum must vanish separately. This leads to a set of equations,
each of which can be written in the form
\begin{equation}
(e\bar\Gamma + \bar e\Gamma)(1-i\tilde
\Gamma[\Gamma,\bar\Gamma])\epsilon =0\, .
\end{equation}
It follows that {\it either} $e=0$, which effectively requires one
complex worldvolume scalar to be constant, {\it or} $\epsilon$ must
satisfy the constraint
\begin{equation}
(1-i\tilde \Gamma[\Gamma,\bar\Gamma])\epsilon =0\, ,
\end{equation}
which reduces the fraction of supersymmetry preserved by two, unless it is
already satisfied by virtue of the $P_\chi$ projection imposed by the
background.
We briefly discussed the flat background case in section 2.1. Solutions with
$2n$ active (real) scalars preserve $1/2^n$ of the
worldvolume supersymmetry and
hence $1/2^{n+1}$ of the spacetime supersymmetry;
their spacetime interpretation
is as $n+1$ intersecting M2-branes. The computation of the fraction of
worldvolume supersymmetry preserved by the finite energy lumps and Q-kinks is
slightly more involved because the effects of the $P_\chi$ projection must be
taken into account. However this just reduces the initial number of
supersymmetries by a factor of two. The M2-brane breaks half of that and
the lump and Q-kink solitons halve it again,
exactly as in the flat space case.
These results could be anticipated from the central charge structure of the
supermembrane worldvolume superalgebra. In the KK-monopole background we would
need to consider the N=4 D=3 worldvolume supersymmetry algebra. For simplicity
we concentrate here on the N=8 D=3 algebra relevant to a
supermembrane in a flat
space background. As we are considering only scalar central charges, the
supersymmetry algebra is \cite{BGT}
\begin{equation}
\{Q_\alpha^{\tilde I} ,Q_\beta^{\tilde J}\} =
\delta^{\tilde I \tilde J}P_{\alpha\beta} +
\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}\tilde Z^{\tilde I \tilde J}\, ,
\end{equation}
where the 8 supersymmetry charges $Q^{\tilde I}$ transform as a chiral $SO(8)$
spinor. The antisymmetric central charge matrix $\tilde Z$ has four skew
eigenvalues $\zeta_k$ ($k=1,2,3,4$). The positivity
of the $\{Q,Q\}$ anticommutator implies the bound
\begin{equation}
M^2 \ge {\rm sup} (\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3,\zeta_4)\, .
\end{equation}
The fraction of worldvolume supersymmetry preserved is $2^{n-5}$ where $n$ is
the number of factors of $\det \{Q,Q\}$ of the form $(M^2-\zeta)^2$ that
simultaneously vanish. For example, states for which all four
skew eigenvalues are equal, but non-zero, preserve half of the
worldvolume supersymmetry. Note that since $\tilde I$ is a {\sl spinor}
index the central charge $\tilde Z$ cannot be directly interpreted as the
two-form topological charge $Z$ associated with a membrane in a given
2-plane; the relation between the two is such that equal skew-eigenvalues
of $\tilde Z$ corresponds to three vanishing skew-eigenvalues of $Z$, and
vice-versa.
\section{IIB interpretation of Q-kinks}
In the introduction we explained briefly the IIA superstring
interpretation of the supermembrane lump solutions. As mentioned there,
the most natural superstring interpretation of Q-kinks is in terms of IIB
superstring theory. We now return to this point.
It was implicit in our discussion of the Q-kink in section 2.2
that $\xi^2=\rho$ is periodically identified; otherwise we do not have
a genuine compactification.
Since we had already made the static gauge choice $Y^2= \rho$, it follows
that we must take $Y^2$ to be an angular variable, i.e. the coordinate of
the $S^1$ factor in (\ref{11m}). In fact, the Killing
vector field $\partial/\partial Y^2$ can be identified as a multiple
of the triholomorphic Killing vector field $\ell$ mentioned in the
introduction. A standard dimensional reduction on orbits of the
triholomorphic Killing vector field $k$ would imply that $Y^2$ is
the only field depending on $\rho$. However, the SS reduction
ansatz of (\ref{ssred}) means that $Y^2$ is not the only $\rho$-dependent
worldvolume field. In fact, given (\ref{KV}), the condition
(\ref{ssred}) implies that $\partial_\rho\varphi=1$, or $\varphi=\rho$ up
to a constant. If we introduce the new coordinates
\begin{equation}
X^0 = \varphi - Y^2 \qquad \tilde Y = {1\over2}\left(Y^2 + \varphi\right)
\end{equation}
then the combination of the static gauge choice and the SS reduction imply that
$(X^0,{\bf X})$ are $\rho$-independent while $\tilde Y=\rho$. In other words,
we are wrapping the membrane on the $\tilde Y$ direction, i.e. on the
$k+\ell$ cycle. We can consider this to be a non-marginal bound state of a
membrane wrapped on the $k$ cycle with one wrapped on the $\ell$ cycle
\cite{george}. The IIA interpretation of this bound state (with the $k$
cycle interpreted as the KK circle) was explained briefly in the introduction:
a membrane wrapped on the $k$ cycle yields a IIA
string in the D6-brane while a membrane wrapped on the $\ell$ cycle yields
a D2-brane, so we end up with a IIA string bound to a D2-brane in a D6-brane.
We now consider the IIB interpretation obtained by T-duality in the $\ell$
direction.
The IIB dual of a membrane wrapped once on each of the two cycles of the
torus relating the IIB theory to M-theory is a (1,1) string \cite{jhs}.
In our case the (1,1) string is bound to the D5-brane that is
the IIB dual of the KK-monopole. The binding is due to the
fact that the D5-brane attracts (1,0) strings and
is neutral to (0,1) strings. Thus, there is
effectively a potential confining the (1,1) string to the D5-brane
(as expected from the $V\sim k^2$ potential relevant to the IIA
description; in fact, the potential is T-duality
invariant \cite{lambert}). Given sufficient
energy, the (1,1) string could migrate from one D5-brane to another one
at some position in the transverse 4-space specified by a 4-vector. In fact
the supermembrane Q-kinks discussed earlier correspond to strings which begin
on one D5-brane but then jump over to another one. The charge 4-vector
$(Q_0,{\bf Q})$ is just the position 4-vector of the other D5-brane, as we
now explain.
The triplet of K\"ahler 2-forms associated with the 4-metric (\ref{tfour}) is
\begin{equation}
{\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}} = (d\varphi + {\bf A} \cdot d{\bf X}) d{\bf X} -
V d{\bf X} \times d{\bf X}
\end{equation}
where the wedge product of forms is understood. Hence the triplet of
topological charges ${\bf Q}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
{\bf Q} = \int i_k\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$} = \int d{\bf X}
\end{equation}
where the integral is over the (1,1) string worldspace. For $V$ as given in
(\ref{vee}), the potential $k^2$ has minima at
${\bf X}=\pm {\bf X}_0$, so a string that
starts at one minimum and ends at the other one has a 3-vector kink charge
${\bf Q} = 2{\bf X}_0$.
This is the same charge as in the IIA interpretation. However, the
Noether charge in the IIA interpretation becomes
a fourth topological charge in the IIB interpretation
(cf. \cite{lambert}). To see this it is
simplest to get to the IIB theory by first compactifying on the $\ell$ cycle
followed by T-duality on the $k$ cycle. This leads to the S-dual of the
configuration obtained
from performing these operations in the reverse order
(i.e. a (1,1) string in a NS-5-brane),
but the result we are aiming at is unaffected by S-duality. Having compactified
on the $\ell$ cycle, T-duality on the $k$ cycle takes $\dot\varphi$ to
$\partial \tilde\varphi$, where $\tilde\varphi$ is the T-dual coordinate,
and hence takes the Noether charge $Q_0 = \int V^{-1}
\dot\varphi$ to the topological
charge
\begin{equation}
\tilde Q_0 = \int d\tilde\varphi\, .
\end{equation}
This result is to be expected
from the fact that the transverse space of the IIB D5-brane is 4-dimensional.
Thus, in the IIB theory the Q-kink charges $(Q_0,{\bf Q})$ become a single
topological 4-vector charge $Q=(\tilde Q_0,{\bf Q})$. A configuration for
which this charge is non-zero represents a (1,1) string that starts at
one D5-brane and then migrates to another one positioned at some distance
$|Q|$ from the first in the direction given by $Q$.
\vskip .5truecm
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements}
\vspace{.5truecm}
One of us (PKT) would like to thank Groningen university for its
hospitality, and Neil Lambert and George Papadopoulos for discussions.
The work of E.B.~is supported by the European Commission TMR program
ERBFMRX-CT96-0045, in which E.B.~is associated to the University of
Utrecht.
\vspace{.5truecm}
|
\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.01}
\renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.99}
\setcounter{topnumber}{2}
\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.99}
\setcounter{bottomnumber}{2}
\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.99}
\textwidth16.cm
\textheight22.5cm
\topmargin-1.0cm
\oddsidemargin-0.0cm
\evensidemargin-0.0cm
\begin{document}
\author{
{\large\bf S. Bosch${}^{1}$, A.J.~Buras${}^{1}$,
M. Gorbahn${}^{1}$, S. J\"ager${}^{1}$,} \\
{\large\bf
M. Jamin${}^{2}$,
M.E.~Lautenbacher${}^{1}$ and L. Silvestrini${}^{1}$} \\
\ \\
{\small\bf ${}^{1}$ Physik Department,
Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen,} \\
{\small\bf D-85748 Garching, Germany} \\
{\small\bf ${}^{2}$ Sektion Physik, Universit\"at M\"unchen,} \\
{\small\bf Theresienstrasse 37, D-80333 M\"unchen, Germany}
}
\date{}
\title{
{\normalsize\sf
\rightline{TUM-HEP-347/99}
\rightline{LMU 06/99}
}
\bigskip
{\LARGE\bf
Standard Model Confronting\\ New Results for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
}}
\maketitle
\thispagestyle{empty}
\phantom{xxx} \vspace{-6mm}
\begin{abstract}
We analyze the CP violating ratio $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the Standard Model in
view of the new KTeV results. We review the present status of the
most important non-perturbative parameters $B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$, $\hat B_K$
and of the strange quark mass $m_{\rm s}$.
We also briefly discuss the issues of final state interactions
and renormalization scheme dependence.
Updating the values of the CKM parameters,
of $m_{\rm t}$ and $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ and using Gaussian errors for the experimental
input and flat distributions for the theoretical parameters we
find $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ substantially below the NA31 and KTeV data:
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon= ( 7.7^{~+6.0}_{~-3.5}) \cdot 10^{-4}$ and
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon= ( 5.2^{~+4.6}_{~-2.7}) \cdot 10^{-4}$ in the NDR and HV
renormalization schemes respectively. A simple scanning of all
input parameters gives on the other hand
$1.05 \cdot 10^{-4} \le \varepsilon'/\varepsilon \le 28.8 \cdot 10^{-4}$ and
$0.26 \cdot 10^{-4} \le \varepsilon'/\varepsilon \le 22.0 \cdot 10^{-4}$ respectively.
Analyzing the dependence on various parameters we find that only
for extreme values of $B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$ and $m_{\rm s}$ as well as
suitable values of
CKM parameters and $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$, the ratio $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ can be made
consistent with data. We analyze the impact of these data on
the lower bounds for ${\rm Im} V_{td}V_{ts}^*$, $Br(K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu)$,
$Br(K_L\to\pi^0e^+e^-)_{\rm dir}$ and on $\tan\beta$ in
the Two Higgs Doublet Model II.
\end{abstract}
\newpage
\setcounter{page}{1}
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
One of the most fascinating phenomena in particle physics is the violation of
CP symmetry in weak interactions. In the Standard Model CP violation is
supposed to originate in a single complex phase $\delta$ in the charged
current interactions of quarks \cite{KM}.
This picture is consistent, within theoretical hadronic uncertainties, with
CP violation in $K^0-\bar K^0$ mixing (indirect CP violation) discovered in
$K_L\to\pi\pi$ decays already in 1964 \cite{CRONIN} and
described by the parameter $\varepsilon$ \cite{PDG}:
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon=(2.280\pm 0.013)\cdot 10^{-3} \exp(i \Phi_\varepsilon),
\qquad
\Phi_\varepsilon\approx \frac{\pi}{4}.
\label{eexp}
\end{equation}
It is also consistent with the recent measurement of $\sin 2\beta$
from $B\to \psi K_S$ at CDF \cite{CDF99}, although the large experimental
error precludes any definite conclusion.
It should be emphasized that the agreement of
the Standard Model with the experimental value of $\varepsilon$
is non-trivial as $|\sin\delta|\le 1 $.
Indeed in the Standard Model
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon= \hat B_K~ {\rm Im}\lambda_t \cdot
F_\varepsilon(m_{\rm t},{\rm Re}\lambda_t) \exp(i \pi/4)
\label{epsm}
\end{equation}
where $\hat B_K$ is a non-pertubative
parameter ${\cal O}(1)$ and $\lambda_t=V_{td}V_{ts}^*$
with $V_{ij}$ being the elements of the CKM matrix \cite{KM,CAB}.
The function
$F_\varepsilon$ results from well known box
diagrams with $W^\pm,~ t,~c,~u$ exchanges \cite{IL}
and includes NLO QCD corrections \cite{BJW90,HNab}.
An explicit expression
for $F_\varepsilon$ can be found in (10.42) of \cite{AJBLH}.
It is an increasing function of
the top quark mass
$m_{\rm t}$ and of ${\rm Re}\lambda_t$ . The QCD scale ($\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}$) dependence of $F_\varepsilon$
is very weak.
Now, ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$
is an important quantity as it plays a central role
in the phenomenology of CP
violation in $K$ decays and is furthermore closely related to the Jarlskog
parameter $J_{CP}$ \cite{CJ},
the invariant measure of CP violation in the Standard Model:
$J_{CP}=\lambda\sqrt{1-\lambda^2}\, {\rm Im}\lambda_t$ with $\lambda=0.221$
denoting one of the Wolfenstein parameters \cite{WO}.
To an excellent approximation one has
\begin{equation}
{\rm Im}\lambda_t = |V_{ub}||V_{cb}|\sin\delta.
\label{imt}
\end{equation}
As can be inferred from (\ref{epsm}) and (\ref{imt})
only for sufficiently
large values of $|V_{ub}|$, $|V_{cb}|$, $m_{\rm t}$ and $\hat B_K$
can $\varepsilon$ in (\ref{epsm}) and consequently the indirect CP violation in
the Standard Model be consistent with the one observed experimentally.
It turns out that using the known values of
$|V_{ub}|$, $|V_{cb}|$, $m_{\rm t}$ (see Section 3)
and taking $\hat B_K=0.80\pm 0.15$ in accordance with lattice
and large-N calculations (see Section 2),
the experimental value of $\varepsilon$ can be reproduced
in the Standard Model provided
$\sin\delta \ge 0.69$. This determination of
$\sin\delta$ includes constraints from $B^0_{d,s}-\bar B^0_{d,s}$
mixings. We also find
\begin{equation}
1.04\cdot 10^{-4}\le{\rm Im}\lambda_t\le 1.63\cdot 10^{-4}~.
\label{imte}
\end{equation}
It should be noticed that $\sin\delta={\cal O}(1)$ and that the extracted range
for ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ is not far from the
upper limit of $1.73\cdot 10^{-4}$ following from the unitarity of the CKM
matrix. It should also be
emphasized that the large top quark mass plays an important role in
obtaining the
experimental value for $\varepsilon$.
Had $m_{\rm t}$ been substantially lower than it is,
the theoretical value of $\varepsilon$ would be
below the experimental one.
While indirect CP violation in $K_L\to\pi\pi$ reflects the fact that the
mass eigenstates in the $K^0-\bar K^0$ system
are not CP eigenstates, the so-called direct CP violation is realized
via direct
transitions between states of different CP parities:
CP violation in the decay amplitude.
In $K_L\to\pi\pi$ decays this type of CP violation is characterized by
the parameter $\varepsilon'$. In the Standard Model one has
\begin{equation}
\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon}=
{\rm Im}\lambda_t \cdot F_{\varepsilon'}(m_{\rm t},\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)},m_{\rm s},B_6^{(1/2)},B_8^{(3/2)},\Omega_{\eta+\eta'})
\label{epeth}
\end{equation}
where the function $F_{\varepsilon'}$ results from the calculation of
QCD penguin and electroweak
penguin diagrams. Here $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ are non-perturbative parameters
related to the dominant QCD penguin and electroweak penguin contributions
respectively, $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ is the QCD scale and $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ represents isospin
breaking effects.
The expression (\ref{epeth}) has been obtained by calculating
$\varepsilon'$ and dividing it by the experimental value of
$\varepsilon$ in (\ref{eexp}) in order to be able to compare
with the experimental value of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$.
This procedure exhibits the nature
of $\varepsilon'$ which representing direct CP violation is
proportional to ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$. However, one could also
proceed differently and ignoring the constraint (\ref{eexp})
calculate $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ fully in theory. In this case (\ref{epeth})
is replaced by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon}=
\frac{\bar F_{\varepsilon'}(m_{\rm t},\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)},m_{\rm s},B_6^{(1/2)},B_8^{(3/2)},\Omega_{\eta+\eta'})}
{\hat B_K F_\varepsilon(m_{\rm t},{\rm Re}\lambda_t)}
\label{epeth1}
\end{equation}
where $\bar F_{\varepsilon'}=|\varepsilon_{\rm exp}|F_{\varepsilon'}$
is independent of $\varepsilon$. One should notice that ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$
cancelled out in $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ calculated in this manner and $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
is actually a function of ${\rm Re}\lambda_t$ and not
of ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$. However, once the constraint (\ref{eexp})
has been taken into account (\ref{epeth1}) reduces to
(\ref{epeth}). We will return to this point in Section 3.
There is a long history of calculations of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the Standard
Model.
The first calculation of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ for $m_{\rm t} \ll M_{\rm W}$ without the inclusion
of renormalization group effects can be found in \cite{EGN}.
Renormalization group effects
in the leading
logarithmic approximation have been first presented in \cite{GW79}.
For $m_{\rm t} \ll M_{\rm W}$ only QCD
penguins play a substantial role.
First extensive phenomenological analyses in this approximation
can be found in
\cite{BSS}.
Over the eighties these calculations
were refined through the inclusion of QED penguin effects
for $m_{\rm t} \ll M_{\rm W}$ \cite{BW84,donoghueetal:86,burasgerard:87},
the inclusion of isospin breaking in the
quark masses \cite{donoghueetal:86,burasgerard:87,lusignoli:89},
and through improved estimates of hadronic matrix elements in
the framework of the $1/N$ approach \cite{bardeen:87}.
This era of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ culminated
in the analyses in \cite{flynn:89,buchallaetal:90}, where QCD
penguins, electroweak penguins ($\gamma$ and $Z^0$ penguins)
and the relevant box diagrams were included for arbitrary
top quark masses. The strong cancellation between QCD penguins
and electroweak penguins for $m_t > 150~\, {\rm GeV}$ found in these
papers was confirmed by other authors \cite{PW91}.
During the nineties considerable progress has been made by
calculating complete NLO corrections to $\varepsilon'$
\cite{BJLW1}-\cite{ROMA2}. Together with the NLO
corrections to $\varepsilon$ and $B^0-\bar B^0$ mixing
\cite{BJW90,HNab,Dresden}, this allowed
a complete NLO analysis of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ including
constraints from the observed indirect CP violation ($\varepsilon$)
and $B_{d,s}^0-\bar B_{d,s}^0$ mixings ($\Delta M_{d,s}$). The improved
determination of the $V_{ub}$ and $V_{cb}$ elements of the CKM matrix,
the improved estimates of hadronic matrix elements using the lattice
approach as well as other non-perturbative approaches
and in particular the determination of the top quark mass
$m_{\rm t}$ had of course also an important impact on
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$.
In a crude approximation (not to be used for any serious analysis)
\begin{equation}\label{ap}
F_{\varepsilon'}\approx 13\cdot
\left[\frac{110\, {\rm MeV}}{m_{\rm s}(2~\, {\rm GeV})}\right]^2
\left[B_6^{(1/2)}(1-\Omega_{\eta+\eta'})-0.4\cdot B_8^{(3/2)}\left(\frac{m_{\rm t}}{165\, {\rm GeV}}\right)^{2.5}\right]
\left(\frac{\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}}{340~\, {\rm MeV}}\right)
\end{equation}
where $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}\approx 0.25$.
This formula exhibits very clearly the dominant uncertainties in
$F_{\varepsilon'}$ which
reside in the values of $m_{\rm s}$, $B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$, $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ and $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$.
Because of the accurate value $m_{\rm t}(m_{\rm t})=165\pm 5~\, {\rm GeV}$, the uncertainty
in $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ due to the top quark mass amounts only to a few percent.
A more accurate formula
for $F_{\varepsilon'}$ will be given in Section 2.
A comparison of the formulae (\ref{epsm}) and (\ref{epeth}) reveals that
the analysis of $\varepsilon$ is theoretically cleaner. Indeed,
$\varepsilon$ depends on a single
non-perturbative
parameter $\hat B_K$, whereas $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is a sensitive function of $B_6^{(1/2)}$,
$B_8^{(3/2)}$, $m_{\rm s}$, $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ and $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$. Moreover, the partial
cancellation between QCD penguin ($B_6^{(1/2)}$) and electroweak
penguin ($B_8^{(3/2)}$) contributions requires
accurate
values of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ for an acceptable estimate of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$.
Until recently the experimental situation on $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ was rather unclear.
While the result of the NA31 collaboration at CERN with
Re$(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon) = (23.0 \pm 6.5)\cdot 10^{-4}$ \cite{barr:93}
clearly indicated direct CP violation, the value of E731 at Fermilab,
Re$(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon) = (7.4 \pm 5.9)\cdot 10^{-4}$
\cite{gibbons:93}, was compatible with superweak theories
\cite{wolfenstein:64} in which $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon = 0$.
This controversy is now settled with the very recent measurement
by KTeV at Fermilab \cite{KTEV}
\begin{equation}\label{eprime1}
{\rm Re}(\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon}) =
(28.0 \pm 4.1)\cdot 10^{-4}
\end{equation}
which together with the NA31 result confidently establishes direct
CP violation in nature.
The grand average including NA31, E731 and KTeV results reads
\begin{equation}
{\rm Re}(\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon}) = (21.8\pm 3.0)\cdot 10^{-4}
\label{ga}
\end{equation}
very close to the NA31 result but with a smaller error. The error
should be further reduced once the first data from
NA48 collaboration at
CERN are available and complete data from both collaborations have
been analyzed. It is also
of great interest to see what value for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ will be measured by KLOE at
Frascati, which uses a different experimental technique than KTeV and NA48.
Does the direct CP violation observed in $K_L\to\pi\pi$ decays agree with
the Standard Model expectations? Before entering the details let us take a
set of ``central" values for the parameters entering $F_{\varepsilon'}$.
Together with $\hat B_K=0.80$, $m_{\rm t}(m_{\rm t})=165~\, {\rm GeV}$,
$|V_{ub}|=3.56\cdot 10^{-3}$ and
$|V_{cb}|=0.040$ needed for the $\varepsilon$-analysis we set
\begin{equation}
B_6^{(1/2)}=1.0, \qquad B_8^{(3/2)}=0.8, \qquad {m_{\rm s}}(2~\, {\rm GeV})=110~\, {\rm MeV},
\qquad \Omega_{\eta+\eta'}=0.25
\label{central}
\end{equation}
and $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}=340~\, {\rm MeV}$.
Using the formula (\ref{eq:3b}) for $F_{\varepsilon'}$, we find
$F_{\varepsilon'}= 5.2$. On the other hand the $\varepsilon$-analysis gives
${\rm Im} \lambda_t=1.34\cdot 10^{-4}$. Consequently
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon}\right)^{\rm central} =
7.0 \cdot 10^{-4}
\label{cth}
\end{equation}
well below the experimental findings in (\ref{ga}).
Equivalently, with $F_{\varepsilon'}=5.2 $,
the experimental value in (\ref{ga})
implies ${\rm Im}\lambda_t=(4.2\pm0.6)\cdot 10^{-4} $ which lies outside the
range (\ref{imte}) extracted from the standard analysis of the unitarity
triangle. Moreover it
violates the upper bound ${\rm Im}\lambda_t=1.73\cdot 10^{-4}$ following from
the unitarity of the CKM matrix.
The fact that for central values of the
input parameters the size of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
in the Standard Model is well below the NA31 value of
$(23.0\pm6.5)\cdot 10^{-4}$ has been known for some time. The
extensive NLO analyses with lattice and large-N estimates of
$B_6^{(1/2)}\approx 1$ and
$B_8^{(3/2)}\approx 1$ performed
first in \cite{BJLW,ROMA1} and after the top discovery in
\cite{ciuchini:95}-\cite{ciuchini:96} have found $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in
the ball park of
$(3-7)\cdot 10^{-4}$ for $m_{\rm s}(2~\, {\rm GeV})\approx 130~\, {\rm MeV}$.
On the other hand
it has been stressed repeatedly in \cite{AJBLH,BJL96a} that
for extreme values of $B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$ and $m_{\rm s}$ still consistent with
lattice, QCD sum rules and large-N estimates as well as
sufficiently high values of ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ and $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$,
a ratio $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ as high as $(2-3)\cdot 10^{-3}$ could be obtained within
the Standard Model. Yet, it has also been admitted that such simultaneously
extreme values of all input parameters and consequently values of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
close to the NA31 result
are rather improbable in the Standard Model.
Different conclusions have been reached in \cite{paschos:96}, where
values $(1-2)\cdot 10^{-3}$ for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ can be found.
Also the Trieste group \cite{BERT98}, which calculated the parameters
$B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$
in the chiral quark model, found $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon=(1.7\pm 1.4)\cdot 10^{-3}$.
On the other hand using an effective chiral
lagrangian approach, the authors in \cite{BELKOV} found $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
consistent with zero.
The purpose of the present paper is to update the analyses in
\cite{AJBLH,BJL96a} and to
confront the Standard Model estimates of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ with the experimental
findings in (\ref{ga}).
Other very recent discussions of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ can be found in
\cite{Nierste}-\cite{MM99}. We will comment on them
below.
In the present paper
we address in particular the following questions:
\begin{itemize}
\item
What is the maximal value of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the Standard Model consistent with
the usual analysis of the unitarity triangle as a function of
$B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$, $m_{\rm s}$ and $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ ?
\item
What is the lowest value of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ as a function of $B_8^{(3/2)}$ for fixed values
of $m_{\rm s}$ and $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ for which
the Standard Model is simultaneously compatible with (\ref{ga})
and the analysis of the unitarity triangle?
\item
What is the sensitivity of the analysis of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ to the values of
$\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ and $\hat B_K$?
\item
What is the impact of the experimental value for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ on
${\rm Im}\lambda_t$, on the usual
analysis of the unitarity triangle and in particular on Standard Model
expectations for the rare decays
$K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$ and $K_L\to\pi^0e^+e^-$ in which direct
CP violation plays an important role?
\item
What are the general implications of (\ref{ga}) for physics beyond the
Standard Model? In particular, what is the impact on the allowed range in
the space $({\rm M_H}, \tan\beta)$ in the so called two Higgs doublet model
II (2HDMII) \cite{Abbott}?
\end{itemize}
While addressing these questions we would like to emphasize that it is by no
means the purpose of our paper to fit
$B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$, $m_{\rm s}$, $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$, $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ and $\hat B_K$ in order to
make the
Standard Model compatible simultaneously with experimental values
on $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$, $\varepsilon$ and the analysis of the unitarity triangle. Such an
approach would be against the whole philosophy of searching for new physics
with the help of loop induced transitions as represented by $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ and
$\varepsilon$. Moreover it should be kept in mind that:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$ and $\hat B_K$, in spite of carrying the names of
non-perturbative parameters, are really not
parameters of the Standard Model as they can be calculated by means of
non-perturbative methods in QCD. The same applies to $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$.
\item
$m_{\rm s}$, $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$, $m_{\rm t}$, $|V_{cb}|$ and $|V_{ub}|$ are parameters of the
Standard Model but there are better places than $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ to
determine them. In particular the usual determinations of these parameters
can only marginally be affected by physics beyond the Standard Model,
which is not necessarily the case for $\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$.
\end{itemize}
Consequently, the only parameter to be fitted by direct CP violation is
$\sin\delta$ or ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$. The
numerical analysis of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ as a function of
$B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$, $m_{\rm s}$, $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$, $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ and $\hat B_K$
should only give a global picture for
which ranges of parameters the presence of new physics in $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ and
$\varepsilon$ should be expected.
Our paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall briefly
the basic formulae for
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the Standard Model.
We also review the existing methods for estimating hadronic
matrix elements of relevant local operators and we present
a rather accurate analytic formula for $F_{\varepsilon'}$.
In Section 3 we address
several of the questions listed
above.
In
Section 4 we discuss briefly general implications for physics beyond
the Standard Model. In particular we investigate the lower bound on
$\tan\beta$ as a function of the charged
Higgs mass in the 2HDMII.
Conclusions and outlook are given in
Section 5.
\section{Basic Formulae}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{Formulae for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$}
The parameter $\varepsilon'$ is given in terms of the isospin amplitudes
$A_I$ as follows
\begin{equation}\label{first}
\varepsilon'=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}{\rm Im}\left(\frac{A_2}{A_0}\right)
\exp(i\Phi_{\varepsilon'}),
\qquad \Phi_{\varepsilon'}=\frac{\pi}{2}+\delta_2-\delta_0,
\end{equation}
where $\delta_I$ are final state interaction phases.
Then, the basic formula for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon} =
{\rm Im} \lambda_t\cdot F_{\varepsilon'},
\label{eq:epe1}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
F_{\varepsilon'} =
\left[ P^{(1/2)} - P^{(3/2)} \right] \exp(i\Phi),
\label{eq:epe2}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{(1/2)} & = & r \sum y_i \langle Q_i\rangle_0
(1-\Omega_{\eta+\eta'})~,
\label{eq:P12} \\
P^{(3/2)} & = &\frac{r}{\omega}
\sum y_i \langle Q_i\rangle_2~.~~~~~~
\label{eq:P32}
\end{eqnarray}
Here
\begin{equation}
r = \frac{G_{\rm F} \omega}{2 |\varepsilon| {\rm Re} A_0}~,
\qquad
\langle Q_i\rangle_I \equiv \langle (\pi\pi)_I | Q_i | K \rangle~,
\qquad
\omega = \frac{{\rm Re} A_2}{{\rm Re} A_0}.
\label{eq:repe}
\end{equation}
Since
\begin{equation}
\Phi=\Phi_{\varepsilon'}-\Phi_\varepsilon \approx 0,
\label{Phi}
\end{equation}
$F_{\varepsilon'}$ and $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
are real to an excellent approximation.
The operators $Q_i$ are
given explicitly as follows:
{\bf Current--Current :}
\begin{equation}\label{OS1}
Q_1 = (\bar s_{\alpha} u_{\beta})_{V-A}\;(\bar u_{\beta} d_{\alpha})_{V-A}
~~~~~~Q_2 = (\bar s u)_{V-A}\;(\bar u d)_{V-A}
\end{equation}
{\bf QCD--Penguins :}
\begin{equation}\label{OS2}
Q_3 = (\bar s d)_{V-A}\sum_{q=u,d,s}(\bar qq)_{V-A}~~~~~~
Q_4 = (\bar s_{\alpha} d_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum_{q=u,d,s}(\bar q_{\beta}
q_{\alpha})_{V-A}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{OS3}
Q_5 = (\bar s d)_{V-A} \sum_{q=u,d,s}(\bar qq)_{V+A}~~~~~
Q_6 = (\bar s_{\alpha} d_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum_{q=u,d,s}
(\bar q_{\beta} q_{\alpha})_{V+A}
\end{equation}
{\bf Electroweak--Penguins :}
\begin{equation}\label{OS4}
Q_7 = {3\over 2}\;(\bar s d)_{V-A}\sum_{q=u,d,s}e_q\;(\bar qq)_{V+A}
~~~~~ Q_8 = {3\over2}\;(\bar s_{\alpha} d_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum_{q=u,d,s}e_q
(\bar q_{\beta} q_{\alpha})_{V+A}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{OS5}
Q_9 = {3\over 2}\;(\bar s d)_{V-A}\sum_{q=u,d,s}e_q(\bar q q)_{V-A}
~~~~~Q_{10} ={3\over 2}\;
(\bar s_{\alpha} d_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum_{q=u,d,s}e_q\;
(\bar q_{\beta}q_{\alpha})_{V-A} \,.
\end{equation}
Here, $\alpha,\beta$ are colour indices and
$e_q$ denotes the electric quark charges reflecting the
electroweak origin of $Q_7,\ldots,Q_{10}$.
The Wilson coefficient functions $ y_i(\mu)$
were calculated including
the complete next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections in
\cite{BJLW1}-\cite{ROMA2}. The details
of these calculations can be found there and in the review
\cite{BBL}.
Their numerical values for $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ corresponding to
$\alpha_{\overline{MS}}^{(5)}(M_{\rm Z})=0.119\pm 0.003$
and two renormalization schemes (NDR and HV)
are given in table
\ref{tab:wc10smu13}.
There we also give the coefficients $z_{1,2}$
relevant for the discussion of hadronic matrix elements.
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption[]{$\Delta S=1 $ Wilson coefficients at $\mu=m_{\rm c}=1.3\, {\rm GeV}$ for
$m_{\rm t}=165\, {\rm GeV}$ and $f=3$ effective flavours.
$y_1 = y_2 \equiv 0$.
\label{tab:wc10smu13}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c||c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}=290\, {\rm MeV}$} &
\multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}=340\, {\rm MeV}$} &
\multicolumn{2}{c| }{$\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}=390\, {\rm MeV}$} \\
\hline
Scheme & NDR & HV & NDR & HV & NDR & HV \\
\hline
$z_1$ & --0.393 & --0.477 & --0.425 & --0.521 & --0.458 & --0.570 \\
$z_2$ & 1.201 & 1.256 & 1.222 & 1.286 & 1.244 & 1.320 \\
\hline
$y_3$ & 0.027 & 0.030 & 0.030 & 0.034 & 0.033 & 0.038 \\
$y_4$ & --0.054 & --0.056 & --0.059 & --0.061 & --0.064 & --0.067 \\
$y_5$ & 0.006 & 0.015 & 0.005 & 0.016 & 0.003 & 0.017 \\
$y_6$ & --0.082 & --0.074 & --0.092 & --0.083 & --0.105 & --0.093 \\
\hline
$y_7/\alpha$ & --0.038 & --0.037 & --0.037 & --0.036 & --0.037 & --0.034 \\
$y_8/\alpha$ & 0.118 & 0.127 & 0.134 & 0.143 & 0.152 & 0.161 \\
$y_9/\alpha$ & --1.410 & --1.410 & --1.437 & --1.437 & --1.466 & --1.466 \\
$y_{10}/\alpha$ & 0.496 & 0.502 & 0.539 & 0.546 & 0.585 & 0.593 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
It is customary in phenomenological
applications to take ${\rm Re} A_0$ and $\omega$ from
experiment, i.e.
\begin{equation}
{\rm Re} A_0 = 3.33 \cdot 10^{-7}\, {\rm GeV},
\qquad
\omega = 0.045,
\label{eq:ReA0data}
\end{equation}
where the last relation reflects the so-called $\Delta I=1/2$ rule.
This strategy avoids to a large extent the hadronic uncertainties
in the real parts of the isospin amplitudes $A_I$.
In order to be consistent the constraint (\ref{eq:ReA0data})
should also be incorporated in the matrix elements $\langle Q_i\rangle_I$
necessary for the evaluation of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$. This in fact has
has been done in \cite{BJLW} and we will return
to this approach briefly below.
Studies of the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule can be found in
\cite{DI12,kilcup:99,DORT99}.
The sum in (\ref{eq:P12}) and (\ref{eq:P32}) runs over all contributing
operators. $P^{(3/2)}$ is fully dominated by electroweak penguin
contributions. $P^{(1/2)}$ on the other hand is governed by QCD penguin
contributions which are suppressed by isospin breaking in the quark
masses ($m_u \not= m_d$). The latter effect is described by
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\eta+\eta'} = \frac{1}{\omega} \frac{({\rm Im} A_2)_{\rm
I.B.}}{{\rm Im} A_0}\,.
\label{eq:Omegaeta}
\end{equation}
For $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ we will first set
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\eta+\eta'} = 0.25\,,
\label{eq:Omegaetadata}
\end{equation}
which is in the ball park of the values obtained in the $1/N$ approach
\cite{burasgerard:87} and in chiral perturbation theory
\cite{donoghueetal:86,lusignoli:89}. $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ is
independent of $m_{\rm t}$. We will investigate the sensitivity of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
to $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ in Section 3.
\subsection{Hadronic Matrix Elements}
The main source of uncertainty in the calculation of
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ are the hadronic matrix elements $\langle Q_i \rangle_I$.
They generally depend
on the renormalization scale $\mu$ and on the scheme used to
renormalize the operators $Q_i$. These two dependences are canceled by
those present in the Wilson coefficients $y_i(\mu)$ so that the
resulting physical $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ does not (in principle) depend on $\mu$ and on the
renormalization scheme of the operators. Unfortunately, the accuracy of
the present non-perturbative methods used to evalutate $\langle Q_i
\rangle_I$ is not
sufficient to have the $\mu$ and scheme dependences of
$\langle Q_i \rangle_I$ fully under control.
We believe that this situation will change once the lattice calculations
and QCD sum rule calculations improve.
A brief review of the existing methods
including most recent developments will be given below.
In view of this situation it has been suggested in \cite{BJLW} to
determine as many matrix elements $\langle Q_i \rangle_I$ as possible
from the leading CP conserving $K \to \pi\pi$ decays, for which the
experimental data is summarized in (\ref{eq:ReA0data}).
To this end it turned out to be very convenient to determine $\langle
Q_i \rangle_I$ in the three-flavour effective theory at a scale $\mu
\approx m_c$. With this choice of $\mu$ the operators $Q_{1,2}^c$,
being present only for $\mu>m_{\rm c}$,
are integrated out and the contribution of penguin operators to
${\rm Re} A_I$ turns out to be very small. Unfortunately, since the charm mass
is not much larger than the scale $M_K$ of the process we are
studying, the matching procedure between the four- and three-flavour
effective theories contains an ambiguity related to the choice of
external momenta in the matching \cite{BJLW1,BJLW}.
Furthermore, as pointed out in \cite{ciuchini:95}, there is an ambiguity
due to the contribution of higher dimensional operators which are
unsuppressed for $\mu \approx m_c$. However, all these ambiguities are of
$O(\alpha_s)$ and one can easily verify that their
possible contribution to ${\rm Re} A_I$ is at the level of a few percent
at most.
Consequently, they have only a minor impact on our determination of $\langle
Q_i \rangle_I$ at $\mu=m_{\rm c}$ from ${\rm Re} A_I$.
Using the renormalization group evolution one
can then find $\langle Q_i \rangle_I$ at any other scale $\mu \not=
m_{\rm c}$. The details of this procedure can be found in
\cite{BJLW}.
As we will see below this method allows to determine only the matrix
elements of the $(V-A)\otimes(V-A)$ operators.
For the central value of ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$
these operators give a negative contribution to $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
of about $-2.5\cdot 10^{-4}$. This shows that these
operators are only relevant if $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is below $1 \cdot 10^{-3}$.
Unfortunately the matrix elements of the dominant $(V-A)\otimes(V+A)$
operators cannot be determined by the CP conserving data and
one has to use non-perturbative methods to estimate them.
Before giving the results for $\langle Q_i\rangle_I$
in our approach we would like to emphasize why it is reasonable
to extract hadronic parameters from ${\rm Re} A_I$, while this would
not be the case for ${\rm Im} A_I$, which govern $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$. The point is that
${\rm Re} A_I$, in contrast to ${\rm Im} A_I$, are not expected to be affected
by new physics contributions.
It is customary to express the matrix elements
$\langle Q_i \rangle_I$ in terms of non-perturbative parameters
$B_i^{(1/2)}$ and $B_i^{(3/2)}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\langle Q_i \rangle_0 \equiv B_i^{(1/2)} \, \langle Q_i
\rangle_0^{\rm (vac)}\,,
\qquad
\langle Q_i\rangle_2 \equiv B_i^{(3/2)} \, \langle Q_i
\rangle_2^{\rm (vac)} \,.
\label{eq:1}
\end{equation}
The label ``vac'' stands for the vacuum
insertion estimate of the hadronic matrix elements in question
for
which $B_i^{(1/2)}=B_i^{(3/2)}=1$.
Then the approach in \cite{BJLW} gives at $\mu=m_{\rm c}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle Q_1(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 &=& \frac{0.187\, {\rm GeV}^{3}}{z_1(m_{\rm c})}
- \frac{z_2(m_{\rm c})}{z_1(m_{\rm c})} \langle Q_2(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0\, ,
\label{eq:Q10} \\
\langle Q_2(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 &=& \frac{5}{9} X B_2^{(1/2)} (m_{\rm c}) \, ,
\label{eq:Q20} \\
\langle Q_3(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 &=& \frac{1}{3} X B_3^{(1/2)} (m_{\rm c}) \, ,
\label{eq:Q30} \\
\langle Q_4(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 &=& \langle Q_3(m_{\rm c})\rangle_0
+ \langle Q_2 (m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 -\langle Q_1 (m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 \, ,
\label{eq:Q40} \\
\langle Q_5 (m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 &=& \frac{1}{3} B_5^{(1/2)}(m_{\rm c})
\langle \overline{Q_6(m_{\rm c})} \rangle_0 \, ,
\label{eq:Q50} \\
\langle Q_6 (m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 &=& -\,4 \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}
\left[ \frac{m_{\rm K}^2}{m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c}) + m_{\rm d}(m_{\rm c})}\right]^2
\frac{F_\pi}{\kappa} \,B_6^{(1/2)}(m_{\rm c}) \, ,
\label{eq:Q60} \\
\langle Q_7 (m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 &=&
- \left[ \frac{1}{6} \langle \overline{Q_6(m_{\rm c})} \rangle_0 (\kappa + 1)
- \frac{X}{2} \right] B_7^{(1/2)} (m_{\rm c}) \, ,
\label{eq:Q70} \\
\langle Q_8 (m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 &=&
- \left[ \frac{1}{2} \langle \overline{Q_6(m_{\rm c})} \rangle_0 (\kappa + 1)
- \frac{X}{6} \right] B_8^{(1/2)} (m_{\rm c}) \, ,
\label{eq:Q80} \\
\langle Q_9 (m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 &=&
\frac{3}{2} \langle Q_1 (m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0
- \frac{1}{2} \langle Q_3(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 \, ,
\label{eq:Q90} \\
\langle Q_{10}(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 &=&
\langle Q_2(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 + \frac{1}{2} \langle Q_1(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0
- \frac{1}{2} \langle Q_3(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 \, ,
\label{eq:Q100}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle Q_1(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_2 &=&
\langle Q_2(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_2 = \frac{8.44 \cdot 10^{-3}\, {\rm GeV}^3}{z_+(m_c)} \, ,
\label{eq:Q122} \\
\langle Q_i \rangle_2 &=& 0 \, , \qquad i=3,\ldots,6 \, ,
\label{eq:Q362} \\
\langle Q_7(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_2 &=&
-\left[ \frac{\kappa}{6 \sqrt{2}} \langle \overline{Q_6(m_{\rm c})} \rangle_0
+ \frac{X}{\sqrt{2}}
\right] B_7^{(3/2)}(m_{\rm c}) \, ,
\label{eq:Q72} \\
\langle Q_8(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_2 &=&
-\left[ \frac{\kappa}{2 \sqrt{2}} \langle \overline{Q_6(m_{\rm c})} \rangle_0
+ \frac{\sqrt{2}}{6} X
\right] B_8^{(3/2)}(m_{\rm c}) \, ,
\label{eq:Q82} \\
\langle Q_9 (m_{\rm c}) \rangle_2 &=&
\langle Q_{10}(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_2 =
\frac{3}{2} \langle Q_1(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_2 \, ,
\label{eq:Q9102}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\kappa = \frac{F_\pi}{F_{\rm K} - F_\pi} \, ,
\qquad
X = \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} F_\pi \left( m_{\rm K}^2 - m_\pi^2 \right) \, ,
\label{eq:XQi}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\langle \overline{Q_6(m_{\rm c})} \rangle_0 =
\frac{\langle Q_6(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0}{B_6^{(1/2)}(m_{\rm c})} \,,
\qquad z_+=z_1+z_2.
\label{eq:Q60bar}
\end{equation}
The equality of the matrix elements in (\ref{eq:Q122}) follows from
isospin symmetry of strong interactions.
Finally,
by making
the very plausible assumption,
valid in known non-perturbative approaches, that
$\langle Q_-(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 \ge
\langle Q_+(m_{\rm c}) \rangle_0 \ge 0$, where $Q_\pm=(Q_2\pm Q_1)/2$,
$B_2^{(1/2)} (m_{\rm c})$ can be determined as well.
This gives for $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}=340\, {\rm MeV}$
\begin{equation}
B_{2,NDR}^{(1/2)}(m_{\rm c}) = 6.5 \pm 1.0,
\qquad
B_{2,HV}^{(1/2)}(m_{\rm c}) = 6.1 \pm 1.0 \, .
\label{eq:B122mc}
\end{equation}
The actual numerical values used for $m_{\rm K}$, $m_\pi$, $F_{\rm K}$,
$F_\pi$ are collected in the appendix of \cite{BBL}.
In particular $F_\pi=131~\, {\rm MeV}$.
It should be noted that this method allows to determine not only
the size but also the renormalization scheme
dependence of those matrix elements which can be fixed in this
manner. This dependence enters through $z_{1,2}(m_{\rm c})$ and the scheme
dependence of $B_2^{(1/2)} (m_{\rm c})$. In obtaining the results above
one also uses operator relations valid for $\mu\lem_{\rm c}$ which
allow to express $Q_4$, $Q_9$ and $Q_{10}$ in terms of $Q_1$, $Q_2$
and $Q_3$. Theoretical issues related to these relations in
the presence of NLO QCD corrections and the case of matrix elements
for $\mu>m_{\rm c}$ are discussed in detail in \cite{BJLW}.
In order to proceed further one has to specify the remaining
$B_i$ parameters in the formulae above.
As the numerical analysis in \cite{BJLW} shows $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is only
weakly sensitive to the values of the parameters
$B_3^{(1/2)}$, $B_5^{(1/2)}$, $B_7^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(1/2)}$
and $B_7^{(3/2)}$ as long as their absolute values are not
substantially larger than 1.
As in \cite{BJLW} our strategy
is to set
\begin{equation}
B_{3,7,8}^{(1/2)}(m_{\rm c}) = 1,
\qquad
B_5^{(1/2)}(m_{\rm c}) = B_6^{(1/2)}(m_{\rm c}),
\qquad
B_7^{(3/2)}(m_{\rm c}) = B_8^{(3/2)}(m_{\rm c})
\label{eq:B1278mc}
\end{equation}
and to treat $B_6^{(1/2)}(m_{\rm c})$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}(m_{\rm c})$ as free
parameters.
The approach in \cite{BJLW} allows then in a good approximation
to express $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ or equivalently $F_{\varepsilon'}$ in terms of
$\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$, $m_{\rm t}$, $m_{\rm s}$ and the two non-perturbative parameters
$B_6^{(1/2)}\equiv B_6^{(1/2)}(m_{\rm c})$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}\equiv B_8^{(3/2)}(m_{\rm c})$
which cannot be fixed by the CP conserving data.
\subsection{The Issue of Final State Interactions}
In (\ref{first}) and (\ref{Phi})
the strong phases $\delta_0\approx 37^\circ$ and
$\delta_2\approx -7^\circ$ are taken from experiment.
They can also be calculated from NLO chiral perturbation
for $\pi\pi$ scattering \cite{JGUM}.
However, generally
non-perturbative approaches to hadronic matrix elements are unable
to reproduce them at present.
As $\delta_I$ are factored out in (\ref{first}), in non-perturbative
calculations in which some final state interactions are
present in $\langle Q_i\rangle_I$
one should make the following
replacements in (\ref {eq:P12}) and (\ref{eq:P32}):
\begin{equation}\label{FS0}
\langle Q_i\rangle_I \to \frac{{\rm Re}\langle Q_i\rangle_I}
{(\cos\delta_I)_{\rm th}}
\end{equation}
in order to avoid double counting of final state interaction
phases. Here $(\cos\delta_I)_{\rm th}$ is obtained in a given
non-perturbative calculation. In leading large-N calculations
and in quenched lattice calculations the phases $\delta_I$
vanish and this replacement is ineffective. When loop
corrections in the large-N approach \cite{bardeen:87,DORT99,DORT98}
and in the chiral quark model \cite{BERT98} are included
an absorptive part and related non-vanishing phases are
generated. Yet, in most calculations the phases are
substantially smaller than found in experiment. For instance
in the chiral quark model $(\cos\delta_0)_{\rm th}\approx 0.94$
to be compared to the experimental
value $(\cos\delta_0)_{\rm exp}\approx 0.8$. Even smaller
phases are found in \cite{bardeen:87,DORT99,DORT98}.
The above point has been first discussed by the Trieste group
\cite{BERT98} who suggested
that in models in which at least the real part of $\langle Q_i\rangle_I$
can be calculated reliably, one should make the following
replacements in (\ref {eq:P12}) and (\ref{eq:P32}):
\begin{equation}\label{FS}
\langle Q_i\rangle_I \to \frac{{\rm Re}\langle Q_i\rangle_I}
{(\cos\delta_I)_{\rm exp}}
\end{equation}
where this time the experimental value of $\delta_I$ enters the
denominator.
As $(\cos\delta_0)_{\rm exp}\approx 0.8$ and
$(\cos\delta_2)_{\rm exp}\approx 1$
this modification enhances $P^{(1/2)}$ by $25\%$ leaving $P^{(3/2)}$
unchanged. The same procedure has been adopted in \cite{DORT99}.
To our knowledge there is no method for hadronic matrix
elements which can provide $\delta_0\approx 37^\circ$ and consequently
the replacement (\ref{FS}) may lead to an overestimate of the matrix
elements.
As in our paper the matrix elements of $(V-A)\otimes(V-A)$
operators are extracted from the data, the replacements in
(\ref{FS0}) and (\ref{FS}) are ineffective for the
determination of the corresponding contributions. They
merely change the definition of the $B_i$ parameters
in the matrix elements of $(V-A)\otimes(V-A)$ operators.
The situation is different with the matrix elements
of $(V-A)\otimes(V+A)$ operators which are taken from
theory.
Yet in view of the remarks made above, in our analysis we will use
exclusively (\ref {eq:P12}) and (\ref{eq:P32}) including
possible effects of this sort in the uncertainties in
$B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$.
\subsection{An Analytic Formula for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$}
\label{subsec:epeanalytic}
As shown in \cite{buraslauten:93}, it is possible to cast the formal
expressions for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in (\ref{eq:epe1})--(\ref{eq:P32})
into an analytic formula which exhibits the $m_{\rm t}$ dependence
together with the dependence on $m_{\rm s}$, $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$,
$B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$.
To this end the approach for hadronic matrix elements presented
above is used and $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ is set to $0.25$.
The analytic formula given below, while being rather accurate,
exhibits
various features which are not transparent in a pure numerical
analysis. It can be used in phenomenological applications if
one is satisfied with a few percent accuracy. Needless to
say, in our numerical analysis in Section 3 we have used
exact expressions.
In this formulation
the function $F_{\varepsilon'}$
is given simply as follows ($x_t=m_{\rm t}^2/M_{\rm W}^2$):
\begin{equation}
F_{\varepsilon'} =
P_0 + P_X \, X_0(x_t) + P_Y \, Y_0(x_t) + P_Z \, Z_0(x_t)
+ P_E \, E_0(x_t).
\label{eq:3b}
\end{equation}
Exact expressions for the $m_{\rm t}$-dependent functions in (\ref{eq:3b})
can be found for instance in \cite{AJBLH,BBL}.
In the range $150\, {\rm GeV} \le m_{\rm t} \le 180\, {\rm GeV}$
one has to an accuracy much better than 1\%
\begin{equation}
X_0(x_t)=1.51~\left(\frac{m_{\rm t}}{165\, {\rm GeV}}\right)^{1.13},
\quad\quad
Y_0(x_t)=0.96~\left(\frac{m_{\rm t}}{165\, {\rm GeV}}\right)^{1.55},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
Z_0(x_t)=0.66~\left(\frac{m_{\rm t}}{165\, {\rm GeV}}\right)^{1.90},\quad\quad
E_0(x_t)= 0.27~\left(\frac{m_{\rm t}}{165\, {\rm GeV}}\right)^{-1.08}.
\end{equation}
In our numerical analysis we use exact expressions.
The coefficients $P_i$ are given in terms of $B_6^{(1/2)} \equiv
B_6^{(1/2)}(m_{\rm c})$, $B_8^{(3/2)} \equiv B_8^{(3/2)}(m_{\rm c})$ and $m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})$
as follows:
\begin{equation}
P_i = r_i^{(0)} +
r_i^{(6)} R_6 + r_i^{(8)} R_8 \, .
\label{eq:pbePi}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{RS}
R_6\equiv B_6^{(1/2)}\left[ \frac{137\, {\rm MeV}}{m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})+m_{\rm d}(m_{\rm c})} \right]^2,
\qquad
R_8\equiv B_8^{(3/2)}\left[ \frac{137\, {\rm MeV}}{m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})+m_{\rm d}(m_{\rm c})} \right]^2.
\end{equation}
The $P_i$ are renormalization scale and scheme independent. They depend,
however, on $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$. In table~\ref{tab:pbendr} we give the numerical
values of $r_i^{(0)}$, $r_i^{(6)}$ and $r_i^{(8)}$ for different values
of $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ at $\mu=m_{\rm c}$ in the NDR renormalization scheme.
This table differs from the ones presented in \cite{AJBLH,BJL96a}
in the values of $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ and the central value of $m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})$
in $R_s$ which
has been lowered from $150\, {\rm MeV}$ to $130\, {\rm MeV}$.
The
coefficients $r_i^{(0)}$, $r_i^{(6)}$ and $r_i^{(8)}$ depend only very
weakly on
$m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})$ as the dominant $m_{\rm s}$ dependence has been factored out. The
numbers given in table~\ref{tab:pbendr} correspond exactly
to $m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})=130\,\, {\rm MeV}$.
However, even for $m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})\approx100\, {\rm MeV}$ or
$m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})\approx160\, {\rm MeV}$, the analytic expressions given
here reproduce the numerical calculations of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ given in Section 3
to better than $4\%$.
For different scales $\mu$ the numerical values in the tables change
without modifying the values of the $P_i$'s as it should be. The values
of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ should also be modified,
in principle, but as a detailed numerical analysis in \cite{BJLW}
showed, it is a good approximation to keep them $\mu$-independent
for $1~\, {\rm GeV} \le\mu\le 2~\, {\rm GeV}$. We will return to this point below.
\begin{table}[thb]
\caption[]{Coefficients in the formula (\ref{eq:pbePi})
for various $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ in
the NDR scheme.
The last row gives the $r_0$ coefficients in the HV scheme.
\label{tab:pbendr}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c||}{$\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}=290\, {\rm MeV}$} &
\multicolumn{3}{c||}{$\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}=340\, {\rm MeV}$} &
\multicolumn{3}{c| }{$\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}=390\, {\rm MeV}$} \\
\hline
$i$ & $r_i^{(0)}$ & $r_i^{(6)}$ & $r_i^{(8)}$ &
$r_i^{(0)}$ & $r_i^{(6)}$ & $r_i^{(8)}$ &
$r_i^{(0)}$ & $r_i^{(6)}$ & $r_i^{(8)}$ \\
\hline
0 &
--2.771 & 9.779 & 1.429 &
--2.811 & 11.127 & 1.267 &
--2.849 & 12.691 & 1.081 \\
$X_0$ &
0.532 & 0.017 & 0 &
0.518 & 0.021 & 0 &
0.506 & 0.024 & 0 \\
$Y_0$ &
0.396 & 0.072 & 0 &
0.381 & 0.079 & 0 &
0.367 & 0.087 & 0 \\
$Z_0$ &
0.354 & --0.013 & --9.404 &
0.409 & --0.015 & --10.230 &
0.470 & --0.017 & --11.164 \\
$E_0$ &
0.182 & --1.144 & 0.411 &
0.167 & --1.254 & 0.461 &
0.153 & --1.375 & 0.517 \\
\hline
0 &
--2.749 & 8.596 & 1.050 &
--2.788 & 9.638 & 0.871 &
--2.825 & 10.813 & 0.669 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The inspection of table~\ref{tab:pbendr} shows
that the terms involving $r_0^{(6)}$ and $r_Z^{(8)}$ dominate the ratio
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$. Moreover, the function $Z_0(x_t)$ representing a gauge invariant
combination of $Z^0$- and $\gamma$-penguins grows rapidly with $m_{\rm t}$
and due to $r_Z^{(8)} < 0$ these contributions suppress $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ strongly
for large $m_{\rm t}$ \cite{flynn:89,buchallaetal:90}.
\subsection{Renormalization Scheme Dependence}\label{rsd}
Concerning the renormalization scheme dependence only the coefficients
$r_0^{(0)}$, $r_0^{(6)}$ and $r_0^{(8)}$
are scheme dependent at the NLO level. Their values in the HV
scheme are given in the last row of table~\ref{tab:pbendr}.
We note that the parameter $r_0^{(0)}$ is essentially the same in both
schemes as the dominant scheme independent contributions to
$r_0^{(0)}$ have been determined by the data on ${\rm Re} A_I$. Since
$P_0$ must be scheme independent and $r_0^{(6)}$ and $r_0^{(8)}$
are scheme dependent, we conclude that $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ must
be scheme dependent. Indeed the matrix elements in the NDR
and HV schemes are related by a finite renormalization
which can be found in equation (3.7) of \cite{BJLW}. Using this
equation together with the approach to matrix elements presented
above, we find approximate relations between the values of
$(B_6^{(1/2)},B_8^{(3/2)})$ in
the NDR scheme and the corresponding values in the HV scheme:
\begin{equation}\label{NDRHV}
(B_6^{(1/2)})_{\rm HV}\approx 1.2 (B_6^{(1/2)})_{\rm NDR},
\qquad
(B_8^{(3/2)})_{\rm HV}\approx 1.2 (B_8^{(3/2)})_{\rm NDR}.
\end{equation}
One can check that the scheme dependence
of $(B_6^{(1/2)},B_8^{(3/2)})$ cancels to a very good approximation the one
of $r_0^{(6)}$ and $r_0^{(8)}$ so that $P_0$ is scheme independent.
On the other hand the coefficients $r_i$,
$i=X, Y, Z, E$ are scheme independent at NLO.
This is related to the fact that the $m_{\rm t}$
dependence in $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ enters first at the NLO level and consequently all
coefficients $r_i$ in front of the $m_{\rm t}$ dependent functions must be
scheme independent. Strictly speaking then the scheme dependence
of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ inserted into
$P_i$ with $i \not= 0$ is really a part of
higher order contributions to $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ and should be dropped
at the NLO level. Formally this can be done by not performing the
finite renormalization when going from the NDR to the HV scheme.
Then the coefficients $P_i$ with $i \not= 0$ are clearly scheme
independent.
In practice the situation is more complicated. The present
non-perturbative methods used to evaluate $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$
like the large-N approach are not sensitive
to the renormalization scheme dependence and we do not know
which renormalization scheme the resulting values for
these parameters correspond to. Lattice calculations,
QCD sum rule calculations and the chiral quark model
can in principle give us the
scheme dependence of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ but the accuracy of
these methods must improve before they could
be useful in this respect.
In view of this situation our strategy will be to use the
same values for $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ in the NDR and HV schemes.
This will introduce a scheme dependence in $P_0$ and
consequently in $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ but will teach us something about
the uncertainty in $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ due to the poor sensitivity of present
methods to renormalization scheme dependence.
It should also be noted that even if we knew the scheme dependence
of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ without the ability of separating a scheme
independent part in these parameters, the resulting $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ would
be scheme dependent at the NLO level. This time
the scheme dependence would enter through the scheme dependence of
$P_i$ with $i \not= 0$. The latter scheme dependence could
only be reduced by including the next order of perturbation theory
in the Wilson coefficients:
a formidable task. We should also stress \cite{BJLW}
that the scheme dependences discussed here apply not only
to QCD corrections but also to QED corrections. That is
QED corrections to the matrix elements of operators have to be also
known.
For similar reasons the NLO analysis of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is still insensitive to
the precise definition of $m_{\rm t}$. In view of the fact that the NLO
calculations needed to extract ${\rm Im} \lambda_t$
have been performed with $m_{\rm t}=m_{\rm t}(m_{\rm t})$ we will also use this
definition in calculating $F_{\varepsilon'}$.
\subsection{Status of the Strange Quark Mass}
At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the present status of the
value of the strange quark mass. Since different methods provide
$m_{\rm s}$ at different values of $\mu$ we give in table~\ref{tab:ms}
a dictionary between
the $m_{\rm s}$ values at $\mu=1\, {\rm GeV}$, $\mu=m_{\rm c}=1.3\, {\rm GeV}$ and $\mu=2\, {\rm GeV}$.
In the case of quenched lattice QCD the present status
has been summarized recently by Kenway \cite{kenway98}.
Averaging the results
presented by him at LATTICE 98, we obtain $m_{\rm s}(2\, {\rm GeV})=(120\pm20)\,\, {\rm MeV}$. It
is expected that unquenching will lower this value but it is difficult to
tell by how much. Strange quark masses as low as
$m_{\rm s}(2\, {\rm GeV})=80\,\, {\rm MeV}$ have been
reported in the literature \cite{LOWMS},
although the errors on unquenched calculations
are still large. Lacking more precise information on unquenched lattice
calculations we take as the average lattice value
\begin{equation}\label{mslat}
m_{\rm s}(2\, {\rm GeV})=(110\pm20)\;\, {\rm MeV}.
\end{equation}
which is very close to the one given by Gupta \cite{GUPTA98}.
A large number of determinations of the strange quark mass from QCD sum
rules exist in the literature. Historically, QCD sum rule results for $m_{\rm s}$
are given at a scale $1\,\, {\rm GeV}$. Taking an average over recent results
\cite{jaminmuenz:95}-\cite{dominguezetal:98}
we find $m_{\rm s}(1\, {\rm GeV})=(170\pm30)\,\, {\rm MeV}$. This translates to
$m_{\rm s}(2\, {\rm GeV})=(124\pm22)\,\, {\rm MeV}$, somewhat higher than the lattice result
but compatible within the errors. QCD sum rules also allow to
derive lower bounds on the strange quark mass. It was found that generally
$m_{\rm s}(2\, {\rm GeV})~{}_{\textstyle\sim}^{\textstyle >}~ 100\,\, {\rm MeV}$ \cite{DERAF}-\cite{Dosch}. If these bounds
hold, they would rule out the very low strange mass values found in
unquenched lattice QCD simulations.
\begin{table}[thb]
\caption[]{The dictionary between the values of $m_s(\mu)$
in units of $\, {\rm MeV}$. $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}=340~\, {\rm MeV}$ and $m_{\rm c}=1.3~\, {\rm GeV}$
have been used.
\label{tab:ms}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
$m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})$& $ 105$& $130$& $155$ & $180$ \\ \hline
$m_{\rm s}(2~\, {\rm GeV})$& $ ~90$& $111$& $132$ & $154$ \\ \hline
$m_{\rm s}(1~\, {\rm GeV})$& $ 123$& $152$& $181$ & $211$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Finally, one should also mention the very recent determination of the
strange mass from the hadronic $\tau$-spectral
function \cite{PP,aleph:99} which proceeds similarly
to the determination of
$\alpha_s$ from $\tau$-decays. Normalized at the $\tau$ mass,
the ALEPH collaboration obtains
$m_{\rm s}(m_\tau)=(176^{+46}_{-57})\,\, {\rm MeV}$ which translates to
$m_{\rm s}(2\, {\rm GeV})=(170^{+44}_{-55})\,\, {\rm MeV}$. We observe that the central value
is much larger than the corresponding results from lattice and sum rules
although the error is still large. In the future, however, improved
experimental statistics and a better understanding of perturbative QCD
corrections should make the determination of $m_{\rm s}$ from the $\tau$-spectral
function competitive to the other methods.
We conclude that the error on $m_{\rm s}$ is still rather large. In our
numerical analysis of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$, where $m_{\rm s}$ is evaluated at the scale $m_{\rm c}$,
we will set
\begin{equation}\label{msvalues}
m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})=(130\pm25)\;\, {\rm MeV} \,,
\end{equation}
roughly corresponding to $m_{\rm s}(2~\, {\rm GeV})$ given in (\ref{mslat}).
\subsection{Review of $\hat B_K$,
$B^{(1/2)}_{6}$ and $B^{(3/2)}_{8}$ }
\subsubsection{$\hat B_K$}
The renormalization group invariant parameter $\hat B_K$ is
defined through
\begin{equation}
\hat B_K = B_K(\mu) \left[ \alpha_s^{(3)}(\mu) \right]^{-2/9} \,
\left[ 1 + \frac{\alpha_s^{(3)}(\mu)}{4\pi} J_3 \right],
\label{eq:BKrenorm}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\langle \bar K^0| (\bar s d)_{V-A} (\bar s d)_{V-A} |K^0\rangle
\equiv \frac{8}{3} B_K(\mu) F_K^2 m_K^2
\label{eq:KbarK}
\end{equation}
where $J_3=1.895$ and $J_3=0.562$ in the NDR and HV scheme
respectively.
There is a long history of evaluating $\hat B_K$
in various non-perturbative approaches.
The status of quenched lattice calculations \cite{JLQCD,GKS,APE}
as of 1998 has been
reviewed by Gupta \cite{GUPTA98}.
The most accurate result for $B_K(2~\, {\rm GeV})$
using lattice methods has been obtained by the
JLQCD collaboration \cite{JLQCD}:
$B_K(2~\, {\rm GeV})=0.628\pm0.042$.
A similar result has been published by Gupta, Kilcup and
Sharpe \cite{GKS} last year.
The APE collaboration \cite{APE}
found $B_K(2~\, {\rm GeV})=0.66\pm0.11$ which is
consistent with \cite{JLQCD,GKS}.
The final lattice value
given by Gupta was then
\begin{equation}\label{G1}
(\hat B_K)_{\rm Lattice}=0.86\pm0.06\pm0.06
\end{equation}
where the second error is attributed to quenching.
The
corresponding result from the APE collaboration \cite{APE}
was $\hat B_K=0.93\pm0.16$. The most recent global analysis of
lattice data
including also the UKQCD results gives \cite{LL}
\begin{equation}
\hat B_K=0.89\pm0.13
\end{equation}
in good agreement with (\ref{G1}).
In the $1/N$ approach of \cite{bardeen:87} one finds $\hat B_K=0.70\pm 0.10$
\cite{BBG0,Bijnens}. The most recent analysis in this approach
with a modified matching procedure and inclusion of higher order
terms in momenta gives a bigger range $0.4<\hat B_K<0.7 $ \cite{DORT99}
which results from a stronger dependence on the matching scale between
short and long distance contributions than found in previous
calculations. It is hoped that inclusion of
higher resonances in the effective low energy theory will make
the dependence weaker.
QCD sum rules give results around $\hat B_K=0.5-0.6$ with
errors in the range $0.2-0.3$ \cite{BKQCD}.
Still lower
values are found using the QCD Hadronic Duality
approach ($\hat B_K=0.39\pm0.10$) \cite{Prades},
the SU(3) symmetry and
PCAC ($\hat B_K=1/3$) \cite{Donoghue} or chiral perturbation theory
at next-to-leading order ($\hat B_K =0.42\pm 0.06$) \cite{Bruno}.
However, as stressed in \cite{Bijnens,Sonoda}, SU(3) breaking
effects considerably increase these values.
Finally, the analysis in
the chiral quark model gives a value as high as
$\hat B_K=1.1\pm 0.2$ \cite{BERT97}.
In our numerical analysis presented
below we will use
\begin{equation}\label{BKT}
\hat B_K=0.80\pm 0.15 \,
\end{equation}
which is in the ball park of various lattice and large-N estimates.
We will, however, discuss what happens if values outside this
range are used.
\subsubsection{General Comments on $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$}
As the different methods for the evaluation of these parameters
use different values of $\mu$, it is useful to say something about
their $\mu$-dependence. As seen in (\ref{eq:Q60}) and (\ref{eq:Q82})
the $\mu$-dependences of
$\langle Q_6 (\mu) \rangle_0$ and $\langle Q_8 (\mu) \rangle_2$
are governed by the known $\mu$-dependence of $m_{\rm s}$ and $m_{\rm d}$
and could also in principle be present in $B_6^{(1/2)}(\mu)$ and
$B_8^{(3/2)}(\mu)$.
Now, as can be demonstrated in the large-N limit,
the $\mu$-dependence
of $1/(m_{\rm s}(\mu)+m_{\rm d}(\mu))^2$ in $\langle Q_6\rangle_0$ and
$\langle Q_8\rangle_2$
is exactly cancelled in the decay amplitude by the diagonal
evolution (no operator mixing) of the Wilson coefficients $y_6(\mu)$ and
$y_8(\mu)$ taken in the large-N limit. An explicit demonstration
of this feature is given in \cite{AJBLH}. In the large-N limit
one also finds
\begin{equation}\label{LN}
B^{(1/2)}_{6}=B^{(3/2)}_{8}=1, \quad\quad{\rm (Large-N~Limit)}.
\end{equation}
The $\mu$-dependence of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ for $N=3$ and
in the presence of mixing with other operators
has been investigated in \cite{BJLW}. This analysis shows that
$B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ depend only very weakly on $\mu$,
when $\mu\ge 1~\, {\rm GeV}$. In such a numerical
renormalization study the
factors $B_{6}^{(1/2)}$ and $B_{8}^{(3/2)}$ have been set to unity
at $\mu=m_{\rm c}$.
Subsequently the evolution of the matrix elements in the range $1\, {\rm GeV}
\le \mu \le 2\, {\rm GeV}$ has been calculated showing that for the NDR scheme
$B_{6}^{(1/2)}$ and $B_{8}^{(3/2)}$ were $\mu$ independent within
an accuracy of $2\,\%.$ The $\mu$ dependence in the HV scheme has
been found to be stronger but still below $6\,\%$.
Similar weak $\mu$-dependences have been found
for $B_{5}^{(1/2)}$ and $B_{7}^{(3/2)}$.
These findings simplify the comparison of results for
$B_{5,6}^{(1/2)}$ and $B_{7,8}^{(3/2)}$ obtained by different
methods.
\subsubsection{$B^{(1/2)}_{6}$ and $B^{(3/2)}_{8}$ from the Lattice}
The lattice calculations of $B_{5,6}^{(1/2)}$ and $B_{7,8}^{(3/2)}$
have been reviewed
by Gupta \cite{GUPTA98} and the APE collaboration \cite{APE}.
They are all given at $\mu=2\, {\rm GeV}$ and in the NDR scheme.
The most reliable
results are found for $B^{(3/2)}_{7,8}$. The ``modern" quenched
estimates for these parameters
are collected in table \ref{tab:317} \cite{GUPTA98}.
The errors given there are purely statistical.
The first three calculations
use perturbative matching between lattice and continuum, the last
one uses non-perturbative matching. All three groups agree
within perturbative matching that $B_{7,8}^{(3/2)}$
are suppressed below unity:
$B_{7}^{(3/2)}\approx 0.6$ and $B_{8}^{(3/2)}\approx 0.8$.
The non-perturbative matching
seems to increase these results by about $20\%$.
It is important to see whether this feature will be confirmed
by other groups.
Concerning the
lattice results for $B^{(1/2)}_{5,6}$ the situation is
worse. The old results read
$B^{(1/2)}_{5,6}(2~\, {\rm GeV})=1.0 \pm 0.2$ \cite{kilcup:91,sharpe:91}.
More accurate estimates for $B^{(1/2)}_{6}$ have been given
in \cite{kilcup:98}:
$B^{(1/2)}_{6}(2~\, {\rm GeV})=0.67 \pm 0.04\pm 0.05$
(quenched) and $B^{(1/2)}_{6}(2~\, {\rm GeV})=0.76 \pm 0.03\pm0.05$
($f=2$). However, as stressed by Gupta \cite{GUPTA98}, the systematic
errors in this analysis are not really under control.
A recent work of Pekurovsky and Kilcup \cite{kilcup:99}, in which
$B_6^{(1/2)}$ is even found to be negative, unfortunately supports this
criticism.
We have to conclude that there are no solid predictions for
$B^{(1/2)}_{5,6}$ from the lattice at present.
\begin{table}[thb]
\caption[]{ Lattice results for $B^{(3/2)}_{7,8} (2~\, {\rm GeV})$ obtained
by various groups.
\label{tab:317}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline
{ Fermion type}& $B^{(3/2)}_7$& $B^{(3/2)}_8$ & Matching \\
\hline
Staggered\cite{GKS}& $0.62(3)(6)$ &$0.77(4)(4)$ & 1-loop \\
Wilson\cite{G67}& $0.58(2)(7)$ &$0.81(3)(3)$ & 1-loop \\
Clover\cite{APE}& $0.58(2)$ &$0.83(2)$ & 1-loop \\
Clover\cite{APE}& $0.72(5)$ &$1.03(3)$ & Non-pert. \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{$B^{(1/2)}_{6}$ and $B^{(3/2)}_{8}$ from the 1/N Approach}
The 1/N approach to weak hadronic matrix elements was introduced
in \cite{bardeen:87}.
In this approach the 1/N expansion becomes a loop expansion
in an effective meson theory. In the strict large-N limit only
the tree level matrix elements of $Q_6$ and $Q_8$ contribute
and one finds (\ref{LN})
while $B^{(1/2)}_{5}=B^{(3/2)}_{7}=0$. The latter fact is not disturbing,
however, as the operators $Q_5$ and $Q_7$ having small Wilson
coefficients are unimportant for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$.
In view of the fact that for $B^{(1/2)}_{6}=B^{(3/2)}_{8}=1$ and the
known value of $m_{\rm t}$ there is a strong cancellation between
gluon and electroweak penguin contributions to $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$, it is
important to investigate whether the $1/N$ corrections significantly
affect this cancellation.
This has been investigated in \cite{DORT98}, where
a calculation
of $\langle Q_6\rangle_0$ and $\langle Q_8\rangle_2$ in the
twofold expansion in powers of external momenta $p$, and in
$1/N$ has been presented. The final results for
$\langle Q_6\rangle_0$ and $\langle Q_8\rangle_2$
in \cite{DORT98} include the orders $p^2$ and $p^0/N$.
For $\langle Q_8\rangle_2$ also the term $p^0$ contributes.
Of particular interest are the ${\cal O}(p^0/N)$ contributions
resulting from non-factorizable chiral loops which are
important for the matching between long- and short-distance
contributions. The cut-off scale $\Lambda_c$ in these
non-factorizable diagrams is identified with the QCD renormalization
scale $\mu$ which enters the Wilson coefficients.
\begin{table}[thb]
\caption[]{ Results for $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ obtained
in the $1/N$ approach.
\label{tab:318}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}\hline
& $\Lambda_c=0.6~\, {\rm GeV}$ & $\Lambda_c=0.7~\, {\rm GeV}$ &
$\Lambda_c=0.8~\, {\rm GeV}$ & $\Lambda_c=0.9~\, {\rm GeV}$ \\
\hline\hline
$B_{6}^{(1/2)}$ & $1.10$ &$0.96$ & $0.84$ & $ 0.72 $ \\
& $(1.30)$ &$(1.19)$ & $(1.09)$ & $(0.99) $ \\
$B_{8}^{(3/2)}$ & $0.64$ &$0.56$ & $0.49$ & $ 0.42 $ \\
& $(0.71)$ &$(0.65)$ & $(0.59)$ & $(0.53) $ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
In table \ref{tab:318}, taken from \cite{DORT98,DORT99},
we show the values of
$B_{6}^{(1/2)}$ and $B_{8}^{(3/2)}$ as functions of the cut-off
scale $\Lambda_c$. The results depend on whether $F_\pi$ or
$F_K$ is used in the calculation, the difference being of higher
order. The results using $F_K$ are shown in parentheses.
The decrease of both B-factors with $\Lambda_c=\mu$ is qualitatively
consistent with their $\mu$-dependence found for $\mu\ge 1$ in
\cite{BJLW}, but it is much stronger. Clearly one could also
expect a stronger $\mu$-dependence in the analysis of \cite{BJLW}
for $\mu\le 1~\, {\rm GeV}$, but in view of large perturbative corrections
for such small scales a meaningful test of the dependence in
table \ref{tab:318} cannot be made.
We note that for $\Lambda_c=0.7~\, {\rm GeV}$ the value of $B_{6}^{(1/2)}$
is close to unity as in the large-N limit. However, $B_{8}^{(3/2)}$
is considerably suppressed. An interesting feature of these
results is the near $\Lambda_c$ independence of the ratio $B_6^{(1/2)}/B_8^{(3/2)}$.
Consequently the results in \cite{DORT98,DORT99} can be summarized by
\begin{equation}
\label{DOR}
\frac{B_6^{(1/2)}}{B_8^{(3/2)}} \approx 1.72~(1.84),
\qquad 0.72~(0.99)\leB_6^{(1/2)}\le 1.10~(1.30)~.
\end{equation}
It is difficult to decide which value should be used in the phenomenology
of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$. On the one hand, for $\Lambda_c\ge 0.7~\, {\rm GeV}$ neglected
contributions from vector mesons in the loops should be included.
On the other hand for $\Lambda_c=\mu= 0.6~\, {\rm GeV}$
the short distance calculations are questionable.
Probably the best thing to do at present is to vary $\Lambda_c=\mu$
in the full range shown in table \ref{tab:318}.
This has been done in a recent analysis \cite{DORT99b} in
which $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ has been found to be
a decreasing function of $\Lambda_c$.
Finally, we would like to mention that the first non-trivial
$1/N$ corrections to the matrix elements of $Q_7$ have been calculated
in \cite{DER1} using the methods developed in \cite{DER2}. In
particular it has been found that $B^{(3/2)}_7$ is a rather
strongly increasing function of $\mu$ with negative values for
$\mu\lem_{\rm c}$, $B^{(3/2)}_7(m_{\rm c})=0$ and positive values for
$\mu>m_{\rm c}$. This strong $\mu$-dependence of $B^{(3/2)}_7$ is rather
surprising as the numerical renormalization group analysis
in \cite{BJLW} has shown a rather weak dependence of this
parameter. We suspect that the inclusion of the full mixing
between $Q_7$ and other operators in the analysis of \cite{DER1}
would weaken the $\mu$-dependence of $B^{(3/2)}_7$
considerably. While this issue requires an additional
investigation, the value of $B^{(3/2)}_7$ has
fortunately only a minor impact on $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$. Setting
$B^{(3/2)}_7(m_{\rm c})=0$ instead of $B^{(3/2)}_7(m_{\rm c})=B_8^{(3/2)}(m_{\rm c})$
used here would change our results for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ only
by a few percent.
\subsubsection{$B^{(1/2)}_{6}$ and $B^{(3/2)}_{8}$ from
the Chiral Quark Model}
Effective Quark Models of QCD can be derived in the framework of
the extended Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model of chiral symmetry
breaking \cite{NJL}.
For kaon decays and in particular for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$, an extensive analysis
of this model including chiral loops, gluon and ${\cal O}(p^4)$ corrections
has been performed over the last years by the Trieste group
\cite{TR96,TR97}. The
crucial parameters in this approach are a mass parameter $M$ and
the condensates $\langle\bar q q\rangle $ and $\langle\alpha_s GG\rangle$.
They can be constrained by imposing the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule.
Since there exists a nice review \cite{BERT98} by the Trieste
group, we will only quote here their estimates of the relevant
$B_i$ parameters. They are given in the HV scheme as follows
\begin{equation}\label{TRIESTE}
B^{(1/2)}_{6}=1.6\pm0.3, \quad\quad B^{(3/2)}_{8}=0.92\pm 0.02~,
\quad\quad{(\rm Chiral~QM)}.
\end{equation}
Translating these values into the NDR scheme by means of (\ref{NDRHV})
one finds
\begin{equation}\label{TRHV}
B^{(1/2)}_{6}=1.33\pm0.25, \quad\quad B^{(3/2)}_{8}=0.77\pm 0.02~,
\quad\quad{(\rm NDR)}.
\end{equation}
We observe a substantial enhancement of $B^{(1/2)}_{6}$ in the
chiral quark model, not found in other calculations,
and a
moderate suppression of $B^{(3/2)}_{8}$. The errors given above arise
from the variation of $m_{\rm s}$. We will return to this point in
subsection \ref{SL}.
It should be remarked that the definitions of the $B_i$ parameters
used in \cite{BERT98} agree with our definitions only if
in the vacuum insertion formulae in \cite{BERT98} the
$\langle\bar q q\rangle$
condensate is given in terms of $m_{\rm s}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\langle\bar q q\rangle^2 =\frac{F_\pi^4}{4}
\left[\frac{m_{\rm K}^2}{m_{\rm s} + m_{\rm d}}\right]^2.
\end{equation}
This means that in the usual PCAC relation one has to set
$F_K=F_\pi$.
It is interesting to observe that in this method
$B_6^{(1/2)}/B_8^{(3/2)}=1.74\pm0.33$ in the ball park of (\ref{DOR}).
It will be of interest to see whether future lattice calculations
will confirm this
correlation between $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$.
\subsubsection{$B_6^{(1/2)}$ and the $\Delta I=1/2$ Rule}
In one of the first estimates of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$, Gilman and Wise \cite{GW79}
used the suggestion of Vainshtein, Zakharov and Shifman \cite{PENGUIN}
that the amplitude ${\rm Re} A_0$ is dominated by the QCD-penguin operator
$Q_6$. Estimating $\langle Q_6 \rangle_0$ in this manner they predicted
a large value of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$. Since then it has been understood
\cite{DI12,kilcup:99,DORT99} that
as long as the scale $\mu$ is not much lower than $1~\, {\rm GeV}$
the amplitude ${\rm Re} A_0$ is dominated by the operators $Q_1$ and
$Q_2$, rather than by $Q_6$. Indeed, at least in the HV
scheme the operator $Q_6$ does not contribute to ${\rm Re} A_0$
for $\mu=m_{\rm c}$ at all, as its coefficient $z_6(m_{\rm c})$ relevant for
this amplitude vanishes. Also in the NDR scheme $z_6(m_{\rm c})$ is
negligible.
For decreasing $\mu$ the coefficient $z_6(\mu)$ increases and
the $Q_6$ contribution to ${\rm Re} A_0$ is larger.
However, if the analyses in \cite{DI12,kilcup:99,DORT99} are
taken into account, the operators $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are responsible
for at least $90\%$ of ${\rm Re} A_0$ if the scale $\mu=1~\, {\rm GeV}$ is considered.
Therefore in our opinion there is no strict relation between the large
value of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ and the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule as sometimes
stated in the literature.
Moreover, if the $90\%$ contribution of the operators
$Q_1$ and $Q_2$ to ${\rm Re} A_0$ is taken into account and $z_6(1~\, {\rm GeV})$
is calculated in the NDR scheme, $B_6^{(1/2)}$ cannot exceed 1.5 if
$m_{\rm s}(1~\, {\rm GeV})=150\, {\rm MeV}$. Consequently we do not think that values of
$B_6^{(1/2)}$ in the NDR scheme as high as 4.0 suggested in \cite{Nierste}
are plausible. Unfortunately, due to the very strong $\mu$ and
renormalization scheme dependences of $z_6(\mu)$,
general
definite conclusions about $B_6^{(1/2)}$ cannot be reached in this manner
at present.
Similarly,
we cannot exclude the possibility that $B_6^{(1/2)}$ is substantially
higher than unity if it turned out that the present methods
overestimate the role of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ in ${\rm Re} A_0$.
\subsubsection{Summary}
We have seen that most non-perturbative approaches discussed
above found $B_8^{(3/2)}$ below unity. The suppression of $B_8^{(3/2)}$
below unity is rather modest (at most $20\%$) in the lattice
approaches and in the chiral quark model. In the $1/N$ approach
$B_8^{(3/2)}$ is rather strongly suppressed and can be as low as 0.5.
Concerning $B_6^{(1/2)}$ the situation is worse. As we stated above
there is no solid prediction for this parameter in the lattice
approach. On the other hand while the average value of $B_6^{(1/2)}$
in the $1/N$ approach is close to $1.0$, the chiral
quark model gives at $\mu=0.8~\, {\rm GeV}$ and in the NDR scheme
the value for $B_6^{(1/2)}$
as high as $1.33\pm 0.25$.
Interestingly both approaches give the ratio
$B_6^{(1/2)}/B_8^{(3/2)}$ in the ball park of 1.7.
Guided by the results presented above and biased to some
extent by the results from the large-N approach and lattice
calculations, we will use
in our numerical analysis below $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ in
the ranges:
\begin{equation}\label{bbb}
B_6^{(1/2)}=1.0\pm0.3,
\qquad
B_8^{(3/2)}=0.8\pm 0.2
\end{equation}
keeping always $B_6^{(1/2)}\ge B_8^{(3/2)}$.
In our 1996 analysis \cite{BJL96a} we have used $B_6^{(1/2)}=1.0\pm0.2$ and
$B_8^{(3/2)}=1.0\pm0.2$ without the constraint $B_6^{(1/2)}\ge B_8^{(3/2)}$.
The decrease of $B_8^{(3/2)}$ below unity is motivated
by the recent results discussed above. The increase in the range
of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ is supposed to take effectively into account the
uncertainty in $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ which we estimate to be at most $\pm 30\%$
i.e $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}=0.25\pm0.08$. We will return to this point in Section 3.
\section{Numerical Results in the Standard Model}\label{sec:standard}
\subsection{Input Parameters}
In order to make predictions for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ we need the value of
${\rm Im} \lambda_t$. This can be obtained from the standard analysis
of the unitarity triangle which uses the data for $|V_{cb}|$, $|V_{ub}|$,
$\varepsilon$, $\Delta M_d$ and $\Delta M_s$, where the last two
measure the size of
$B^0_{d,s}-\bar B^0_{d,s}$ mixings.
Since this analysis is very well known we do not list the
relevant formulae here. They can be found for instance
in \cite{AJBLH,UT99}.
The input parameters needed to perform the
standard analysis of the unitarity triangle
are given in table \ref{tab:inputparams}, where
$m_{\rm t}$
refers
to the running current top quark mass defined at $\mu=m_{\rm t}^{Pole}$.
It corresponds to
$m_{\rm t}^{Pole}=174.3\pm 5.1\, {\rm GeV}$ measured by CDF and D0 \cite{CDFD0}.
We also recall that
the lower bound on $\Delta M_s$
together with $\Delta M_d$ puts the following constraint on
the ratio $|V_{td}|/|V_{ts}|$:
\begin{equation}\label{107b}
\frac{|V_{td}|}{|V_{ts}|}<
\xi\sqrt{\frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}}}
\sqrt{\frac{\Delta M_d}{\Delta M^{\rm min}_s}},
\qquad
\xi =
\frac{F_{B_s} \sqrt{B_{B_s}}}{F_{B_d} \sqrt{B_{B_d}}}.
\end{equation}
The range for $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ in table~\ref{tab:inputparams}
corresponds roughly to $\alpha_s(M_{\rm Z})=0.119\pm 0.003$.
\begin{table}[thb]
\caption[]{Collection of input parameters.
We impose $B_6^{(1/2)}\geB_8^{(3/2)}$.
\label{tab:inputparams}}
\vspace{0.4cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{\bf Quantity} & {\bf Central} & {\bf Error} & {\bf Reference} \\
\hline
$|V_{cb}|$ & 0.040 & $\pm 0.002$ & \cite{PDG} \\
$|V_{ub}|$ & $3.56\cdot 10^{-3}$ & $\pm 0.56\cdot 10^{-3} $ &
\cite{STOCCHI} \\
$\hat B_K$ & 0.80 & $\pm 0.15$ & See Text \\
$\sqrt{B_d} F_{B_{d}}$ & $200\, {\rm MeV}$ & $\pm 40\, {\rm MeV}$ & \cite{BF} \\
$m_{\rm t}$ & $165\, {\rm GeV}$ & $\pm 5\, {\rm GeV}$ & \cite{CDFD0} \\
$\Delta M_d$ & $0.471~\mbox{ps}^{-1}$ & $\pm 0.016~\mbox{ps}^{-1}$
& \cite{LEPB}\\
$\Delta M_s$ & $>12.4~\mbox{ps}^{-1}$ & $ 95\% {\rm C.L.}$
& \cite{LEPB}\\
$\xi$ & $1.14$ & $\pm 0.08$
& \cite{BF} \\
$\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ & $340 \, {\rm MeV}$ & $\pm 50\, {\rm MeV}$ & \cite{PDG,BETKE} \\
$m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})$ & $130\, {\rm MeV}$ & $\pm 25\, {\rm MeV}$ & See Text\\
$B_6^{(1/2)} $ & 1.0 & $\pm 0.3$ & See Text\\
$B_8^{(3/2)} $ & 0.8 & $\pm 0.2$ & See Text\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Monte Carlo and Scanning Estimates of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$}
In what follows we will present two types of numerical analyses of
${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ and $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$:
\begin{itemize}
\item
Method 1: The experimentally measured numbers are used with Gaussian errors
and for the theoretical input parameters we take a flat distribution
in the ranges given in
table~\ref{tab:inputparams}.
\item
Method 2: Both the experimentally measured numbers and the theoretical input
parameters are scanned independently within the ranges given in
table~\ref{tab:inputparams}.
\end{itemize}
Using the first method we find the probability density
distributions for
${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ and $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in figs.~\ref{g3} and \ref{g1}
respectively.
From the distributions in figs.~\ref{g3} and \ref{g1}
we deduce the following results:
\begin{equation}
{\rm Im}\lambda_t =( 1.33\pm 0.14) \cdot 10^{-4}
\label{eq:imfinal}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
~~~~~~\varepsilon'/\varepsilon= ( 7.7^{~+6.0}_{~-3.5}) \cdot 10^{-4}\qquad {\rm (NDR)}
\label{eq:eperangefinal}
\end{equation}
Since the probability density in fig.~\ref{g3} is rather
symmetric we give only the
mean and the standard deviation for ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$.
On the other hand, the resulting probability density distribution for
$\epsilon'/\epsilon$ is very asymmetric with a very long
tail towards large values. Therefore we decided to quote the median
and the $68\%(95\%)$ confidence level intervals. This means that $68\%$
of our data can be found inside the corresponding error interval and
that $50\%$ of our data has smaller $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ than our
median.
We observe that negative values of $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ can be
excluded at $95\%$ C.L. For completeness we quote the mean and the
standard deviation for $\epsilon'/\epsilon$:
\begin{equation}\label{mean}
\varepsilon'/\varepsilon=9.1\pm6.2 \qquad {\rm (NDR)}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\input{imlamt.tex}
\end{center}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{Probability density distributions for ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ without
(solid line)
and with (dashed line) the $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$-constraint.}
\label{g3}
\end{figure}
Using the second method and the parameters in table~\ref{tab:inputparams}
we find :
\begin{equation}
1.04 \cdot 10^{-4} \le {\rm Im}\lambda_t \le 1.63 \cdot 10^{-4}
\label{eq:imnew}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
~~~~~1.05 \cdot 10^{-4} \le \varepsilon'/\varepsilon \le 28.8 \cdot 10^{-4}\qquad {\rm (NDR)}.
\label{eq:eperangenew}
\end{equation}
The above results for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ apply to the NDR scheme.
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is generally lower in the HV scheme if the same values for
$B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ are used in both schemes.
As discussed in subsection \ref{rsd}, such treatment of
$B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ is the proper way of estimating
scheme dependences at present.
Using the two error analyses we find respectively:
\begin{equation}
~~~~~~\varepsilon'/\varepsilon= ( 5.2^{~+4.6}_{~-2.7}) \cdot 10^{-4}\qquad {\rm (HV)}
\label{hv:final}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
~~~~~0.26 \cdot 10^{-4} \le \varepsilon'/\varepsilon \le 22.0 \cdot 10^{-4}\qquad {\rm (HV)}.
\label{hv:eperangenew}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the mean and the standard deviation read
\begin{equation}\label{hmean}
\varepsilon'/\varepsilon =6.3\pm4.8 \qquad {\rm (HV)}.
\end{equation}
The corresponding probability density distribution for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is compared
to the one obtained in the NDR scheme in fig.~\ref{g1}.
Assuming, on the other hand, that the values in (\ref{bbb}) correspond
to the NDR scheme and using the relation (\ref{NDRHV}), we find for
the HV scheme the range
$0.58 \cdot 10^{-4} \le \varepsilon'/\varepsilon \le 26.9 \cdot 10^{-4}$ which is
much closer to the NDR result in (\ref{eq:eperangenew}).
This exercise shows that it is very desirable to have the
scheme dependence under control.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\input{monte.tex}
\end{center}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{Probability density distributions for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in NDR and HV
schemes.}
\label{g1}
\end{figure}
We observe that the most probable values for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the NDR scheme
are in the
ball park of $1 \cdot 10^{-3}$. They are lower by roughly $30\%$ in the
HV scheme if the same values for $(B_6^{(1/2)},B_8^{(3/2)})$ are used.
On the other hand the ranges in (\ref{eq:eperangenew}) and
(\ref{hv:eperangenew}) show that for
particular choices of the input parameters, values for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ as high as
$(2-3)\cdot 10^{-3}$ cannot be excluded at present. Let us study
this in more detail.
\subsection{Anatomy of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$}
\subsubsection{Global Analysis}
In table~ \ref{tab:31731} we show the values
of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in units of $10^{-4}$
for specific values of $B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$ and $m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})$ as calculated
in the NDR scheme. The corresponding values in the HV scheme
are lower as discussed above.
The fourth column shows the results for central values of all remaining
parameters. The comparison of the the fourth and the fifth column
demonstrates
how $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is increased when $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ is raised from $340~\, {\rm MeV}$
to $390~\, {\rm MeV}$. As stated in (\ref{ap}) $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is roughly proportional
to $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$. Finally, in the last column maximal values of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
are given.
To this end we have scanned all parameters relevant for
the analysis of ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ within one
standard deviation and have chosen the highest value of
$\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}=390\, {\rm MeV}$. Comparison of the last two columns demonstrates
the impact of the increase of ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ from its
central to its maximal value and of the variation of $m_{\rm t}$.
Table~\ref{tab:31731} gives a good insight in the dependence of
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ on various parameters which is roughly described
by (\ref{ap}). We observe the following hierarchies:
\begin{itemize}
\item
The largest uncertainties reside in $m_{\rm s}$, $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$.
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ increases universally by roughly a factor of 2.3 when
$m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})$ is changed from $155 \, {\rm MeV}$ to $105 \, {\rm MeV}$. The increase
of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ from 1.0 to 1.3 increases $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ by $(55\pm 10)\%$,
depending on $m_{\rm s}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$. The corresponding changes
due to $B_8^{(3/2)}$ are approximately $(40\pm 15)\%$.
\item
The combined uncertainty due to ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ and $m_{\rm t}$,
present both in ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ and $F_{\varepsilon'}$,
is approximately $\pm 25\%$. The uncertainty due to
$m_{\rm t}$ alone is only $\pm 5\%$.
\item
The uncertainty due to $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ is approximately $\pm 16\%$.
\end{itemize}
The large sensitivity of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ to $m_{\rm s}$ has been known
since the analyses in the eighties. In the context of
the KTeV result this issue has been analyzed in \cite{Nierste}.
It has been found that provided $2B_6^{(1/2)}-B_8^{(3/2)}\le 2$ the
consistency of the Standard Model with the KTeV result
requires the $2\sigma$ bound $m_{\rm s}(2\, {\rm GeV})\le 110\, {\rm MeV}$.
Our analysis is compatible with these findings.
It is of interest to investigate the impact of the
relation (\ref{DOR}) on our results. Scanning
all parameters in the ranges given in table~\ref{tab:inputparams}
and imposing $B_6^{(1/2)}=1.7\cdot B_8^{(3/2)}$ we find
\begin{equation}
3.7 \cdot 10^{-4} \le \varepsilon'/\varepsilon \le 26.2 \cdot 10^{-4}
\label{eperangenew}
\end{equation}
which is somewhat reduced with respect to (\ref{eq:eperangenew}).
Finally we would like to comment on formula (\ref{epeth1})
in which ${\rm Re}\lambda_t$ appears instead of ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$.
Since $F_{\varepsilon}$ decreases with decreasing ${\rm Re}\lambda_t$
one can come closer to the experimental data for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ by choosing
${\rm Re}\lambda_t$ sufficiently small. In the
Wolfenstein parametrization ${\rm Re}\lambda_t$ is proportional
to $1-\varrho$ and a small ${\rm Re}\lambda_t$ corresponds to a
sufficiently
large positive value of the parameter $\varrho$. Yet it is known
from analyses of the unitarity triangle that $\varrho$ is bounded
from above by the ratio $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ and even stronger by the value of
$\varepsilon$. If these constraints are taken into account the analysis
using (\ref{epeth1}) reduces to the one presented above.
\begin{table}[thb]
\caption[]{ Values of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in units of $10^{-4}$
for specific values of $B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$ and $m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})$
and other parameters
as explained in the text.
\label{tab:31731}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c||c|}\hline
$B^{(1/2)}_6$& $B^{(3/2)}_8$ & $m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})[\, {\rm MeV}]$ &
Central & $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}=390\, {\rm MeV} $ & Maximal \\ \hline
& & $105$ & 20.2 & 23.3 & 28.8\\
$1.3$&$0.6$& $130$ & 12.8 & 14.8 & 18.3\\
& & $155$ & 8.5 & 9.9 & 12.3 \\
\hline
& & $105$ & 18.1 & 20.8 & 26.0\\
$1.3$&$0.8$ & $130$ & 11.3 & 13.1 & 16.4\\
& & $155$ & 7.5 & 8.7 & 10.9\\
\hline
& & $105$ & 15.9 & 18.3 & 23.2\\
$1.3$&$1.0$ & $130$ & 9.9 & 11.5 & 14.5\\
& & $155$ & 6.5 & 7.6 & 9.6\\
\hline\hline
& & $105$ & 13.7 & 15.8 & 19.7\\
$1.0$&$0.6$ & $130$ & 8.4 & 9.8& 12.2 \\
& & $155$ & 5.4 & 6.4 & 7.9 \\
\hline
& & $105$ & 11.5 & 13.3 & 16.9\\
$1.0$&$0.8$ & $130$ & 7.0 & 8.1 & 10.4\\
& & $155$ & 4.4 & 5.2 & 6.6\\
\hline
& & $105$ & 9.4 & 10.9 & 14.1 \\
$1.0$&$1.0$ & $130$ & 5.5 & 6.5 & 8.5 \\
& & $155$ & 3.3 & 4.0 & 5.2\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Parametric vs. Hadronic Uncertainties}
One should distinguish between parametric and hadronic uncertainties.
Parametric uncertainties are related to $m_{\rm t}$, $|V_{ub}|$, $|V_{cb}|$
and $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$. One should in principle include $m_{\rm s}$ in this list.
However, in order to extract $m_{\rm s}$ from the kaon mass one
encounters large non-perturbative uncertainties. Clearly such
uncertainties are also present in the determination of $|V_{cb}|$ and
in particular in the determination of $|V_{ub}|$,
but they are substantially smaller.
Hence the hadronic uncertainties discussed below are related to
$\hat B_K$, $B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$ and $m_{\rm s}$.
In table~\ref{tab:3}
we show ranges for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ related to various uncertainties.
The parametric uncertainties have been obtained for central values of
$\hat B_K$ and $m_{\rm s}$ and two choices of $(B_6^{(1/2)},B_8^{(3/2)})$. The hadronic
uncertainties due to $\hat B_K$, $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ have been found
by setting all the remaining parameters at their central values.
The uncertainty due to $m_{\rm s}$ has been shown for
two choices of $(B_6^{(1/2)},B_8^{(3/2)})$ and all other parameters set at
their central
values. The last row in table~\ref{tab:3}
shows the total hadronic uncertainty. It is evident from this
table that hadronic uncertainties dominate, although the
reduction of parametric uncertainties is very desirable.
\begin{table}[thb]
\caption[]{ Uncertainties in $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in units of $10^{-4}$
as explained in the text.
\label{tab:3}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
Uncertainties & $B_6^{(1/2)}$ & $B^{(3/2)}_8$ & $(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_{\rm min}$&
$(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_{\rm max}$ \\ \hline
Parametric & 1.0 & 0.8 & 5.0 & 9.5 \\
Parametric & 1.3 & 0.8 & 8.4 & 15.1 \\
\hline
Hadronic ($B_i$) & -- & -- & 3.0 & 13.6 \\
Hadronic ($m_{\rm s}$) & 1.0 & 0.8 & 4.5 & 11.3 \\
Hadronic ($m_{\rm s}$) & 1.3 & 0.8 & 7.6 & 17.9 \\
Hadronic (full ) & -- & -- & 1.7 & 21.3 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{$B_6^{(1/2)}$-$B_8^{(3/2)}$ Plot}
In fig.~\ref{g2} we show the minimal value of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ for two
choices of $m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})$ and $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$
as a function of $B_8^{(3/2)}$ for which the theoretical value of
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is higher than $2.0 \cdot 10^{-3}$. To obtain
this plot we have varied all other parameters in
the ranges given in table~\ref{tab:inputparams}.
We show also the
line corresponding to the relation (\ref{DOR}).
We observe that as long as $B_8^{(3/2)}\ge0.6$, the parameter
$B_6^{(1/2)}$ is required to be larger than unity.
This plot should be useful when our knowledge of
$B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$, $m_{\rm s}$ and $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ improves.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\input{b6.tex}
\end{center}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{Minimal value of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ consistent
with $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon\ge 2.0\cdot 10^{-3}$.}
\label{g2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Approximate Scaling Laws for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$}\label{SL}
\subsubsection{Preliminaries}
Table~\ref{tab:31731} contains a lot of information on $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$.
This information can be further extended by noting that $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
depends to a very good approximation on certain combinations
of the input parameters.
This is seen in (\ref{ap}) and (\ref{eq:pbePi}).
Here we want to provide scaling laws based on these formulae
which allow to obtain from table~\ref{tab:31731} values for
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ for different sets of input parameters.
\subsubsection{$B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$ and $m_{\rm s}$}
As seen in (\ref{eq:pbePi}), $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ depends on these important
three parameters only through $R_6$ and $R_8$ defined in
(\ref{RS}).
Using this property one can for instance immediately find that the
values for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the tenth row of
table~\ref{tab:31731} can also be obtained for the set
\begin{equation}
B_6^{(1/2)}=1.50,\qquad B_8^{(3/2)}=0.90,\qquad m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})=130~\, {\rm MeV}~.
\end{equation}
This set of parameters is similar
to the input parameters used by the Trieste group \cite{BERT98}.
At this point we would like to remark that in
principle the determination of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ in a given
non-perturbative framework could depend on the value of $m_{\rm s}$.
This turns out not to be the case in the large-N approach
\cite{bardeen:87,DORT98,DORT99}. In the lattice approach this
question has still to be investigated. On the other hand
there are results in the literature showing a strong
$m_s$-dependence of the $B_i$ parameters. This is the case
for $B_6^{(1/2)}$ in the chiral quark model where $B_6^{(1/2)}$ scales
like $m_{\rm s}$ \cite{BERT98}. Similarly values for $B_7^{(3/2)}$
calculated in \cite{DER1} show a strong $m_{\rm s}$-dependence.
In the present paper we have varied $(B_6^{(1/2)},B_8^{(3/2)})$ and $m_{\rm s}$
independently which is in accordance with large-N calculations.
This resulted in the following ranges for $R_6$ and $R_8$
\begin{equation}
0.5\le R_6\le 1.95, \qquad 0.4\le R_8\le 1.5
\end{equation}
which are correlated through their common dependence on $m_{\rm s}$.
If $(B_6^{(1/2)},B_8^{(3/2)})$ depend on $m_{\rm s}$ these ranges could
change.
In this context
one should remark that in the chiral quark model
\cite{BERT98} the highest value of $R_6$
corresponds to the minimal value of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and consequently
the comparison of the results from the chiral
quark model and the large-N approach has to be made with
care.
Finally, it should be remarked that the decomposition of
the relevant hadronic
matrix elements of penguin operators into a product of $B_i$ factors times
$1/m_s^2$ although useful in the $1/N$ approach will become unnecessary in
the lattice approach, once matrix elements of dimension three
will be calculable with improved accuracy.
\subsubsection{$\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ and ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$}
For $\alpha_s(M_{\rm Z})=0.119\pm0.003$, the ratio $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is within
a few percent proportional to $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$. On the
other hand $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is exactly
proportional to ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ at fixed $m_{\rm t}$.
However, if $m_{\rm t}$ is varied
the correlation in $m_{\rm t}$ between ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$
extracted from $\varepsilon$ and $F_{\varepsilon'}$ has to be taken
into account. Consequently the simple
rescaling of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ with the values of ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$
is only true within a few percent.
\subsubsection{Sensitivity to $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$}
The dependence of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ on $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ can be studied numerically by
using the formula (\ref{eq:P12}) or incorporated approximately
into the analytic formula (\ref{eq:3b}) by simply replacing
$B_6^{(1/2)}$ with an effective parameter
\begin{equation}\label{eff}
(B_6^{(1/2)})_{\rm eff}=B_6^{(1/2)}\frac{(1-0.9~\Omega_{\eta+\eta'})}{0.775}
\end{equation}
A numerical analysis shows that using $(1-\Omega_{\eta+\eta'})$
overestimates the role of $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$. In our numerical analysis
we have incorporated the uncertainty in $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ by increasing
the error in $B_6^{(1/2)}$ from $\pm 0.2$ to $\pm 0.3$.
The last estimates of $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ have been done more than ten years
ago \cite{donoghueetal:86}-\cite{lusignoli:89}
and it is desirable to update these analyses which
can be summarized by
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}=0.25\pm 0.08~.
\end{equation}
The uncertainty in $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ due to
$\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ alone is approximately $\pm 12\%$
and is slightly lower than the one
originating
from $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$.
\subsubsection{Sensitivity to $\hat B_K$}
As ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ extracted from $\varepsilon$ increases with
decreasing $\hat B_K$,
there is a possibility of increasing $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ by
decreasing $\hat B_K$ below the range considered
in table~\ref{tab:inputparams}.
It should be remarked that $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is not simply proportional
to $1/\hat B_K$ as the extraction of ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ from $\varepsilon$
involves also ${\rm Re}\lambda_t$ (see (\ref{epsm})). For the phase
$\delta$ in the first
quadrant as favoured by the analyses
of the unitarity triangle \cite{UT99}, the dependence
of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ on $\hat B_K$ is weaker than $1/\hat B_K$ \cite{PBE0}.
Now, the highest value of ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$
consistent with the unitarity of the CKM matrix is
$1.73\cdot 10^{-4}$. It is obtained from $\varepsilon$ for $\hat B_K=0.52$.
This increase of ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ beyond the range in (\ref{eq:imnew})
would increase the maximal values
in table~\ref{tab:31731} by approximately $6\%$. On the other hand it
should be emphasized that for $\hat B_K=0.8-0.9$, as indicated
by lattice calculations, $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is generally smaller than found
in our paper unless $B_6^{(1/2)}$ is substantially increased.
This is what happens in the chiral quark model \cite{BERT98}
where on the one hand $\hat B_K=1.1\pm 0.2$ and on the other
hand $B_6^{(1/2)}=1.6\pm0.3$.
\subsection{Impact on ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ and the Unitarity Triangle}
As we stressed at the beginning of this paper the main new
parameter to be fitted by means of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$.
Our analysis indicates that the Standard Model estimates of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ are
generally below the data. If the parameters $m_{\rm s}$, $B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$,
$\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ and $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ are such that ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ consistent
with $\varepsilon$ (see (\ref{eq:imnew})) cannot accomodate the
experimental value of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$, one has to conclude that new
contributions from new physics are required. On the other hand
if the data on $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ can be reproduced within the Standard Model,
then generally a lower bound on ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ excluding
a large fraction of the range (\ref{eq:imnew}) can be obtained.
Unfortunately, the strong dependence of the lower bound on
the parameters involved precludes any firm conclusions.
Similar comments apply to the possible impact of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ on
the analysis of the unitarity triangle: the presently allowed
area in the $(\bar\varrho,\bar\eta)$ plane \cite{UT99}
can be totally removed
or an improved lower limit on $\bar\eta$ from $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ will decrease
the allowed region
considerably.
As an illustration we show in table~\ref{tab:355}
the lower bound on ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ from
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ as a function of $B_8^{(3/2)}$ for
$m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})=105~\, {\rm MeV}$, $B_6^{(1/2)}=1.3$ and $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}=390~\, {\rm MeV}$.
To this end we have used
the formula (\ref{eq:epe1}) with $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon\ge 2.0\cdot 10^{-3}$.
Comparing with (\ref{eq:imnew}) we indeed observe that the lower
bound on ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ has been improved.
The impact of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$-data as given in (\ref{ga}) on ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$
can also be investigated by the method 1 which was used
to obtain (\ref{eq:imfinal}) and (\ref{eq:eperangefinal}). We
find
\begin{equation}
{\rm Im}\lambda_t =( 1.38\pm0.14) \cdot 10^{-4}.
\label{mfinal}
\end{equation}
The corresponding distribution is compared with the one without
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$-constraint in fig.~\ref{g3}.
We observe a very modest but visible shift
towards higher values for ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$.
\begin{table}[thb]
\caption[]{ Minimal values of ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$,
$Br(K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu)$ and
$Br(K_L\to\pi^0 e^+e^-)_{\rm dir}$
for $m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})=105~\, {\rm MeV}$, $B_6^{(1/2)}=1.3$ and $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}=390~\, {\rm MeV}$ and
specific values of $B_8^{(3/2)}$
assuming $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon\ge 2.0\cdot 10^{-3}$.
\label{tab:355}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline
$B^{(3/2)}_8$ &
$({\rm Im}\lambda_t)^{\rm min}$ & $Br(K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu)^{\rm min}$&
$Br(K_L\to\pi^0e^+e^-)_{\rm dir}^{\rm min}$ \\ \hline
0.6 & $ 1.14\cdot 10^{-4}$ &$1.8\cdot 10^{-11}$ &$3.0\cdot 10^{-12}$ \\
0.8 & $ 1.27\cdot 10^{-4}$ &$2.2\cdot 10^{-11}$ & $3.7\cdot 10^{-12}$\\
1.0 & $ 1.42\cdot 10^{-4}$ &$2.7\cdot 10^{-11}$ &$4.7\cdot 10^{-12}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Impact on $K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$ and $K_L\to\pi^0e^+e^-$}
The rare decay $K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$ is the cleanest decay in
the field of K-decays. It proceeds almost entirely through
direct CP violation \cite{littenberg:89} and after the inclusion
of NLO QCD corrections \cite{BB2}
the theoretical uncertainties in the branching ratio are
at the level of $1-2\%$. Similarly the contribution of
direct CP-violation to the decay $K_L\to\pi^0e^+e^-$ is very
clean. Using the known formulae for these decays \cite{AJBLH,BB2}
and scanning the parameters given in table~\ref{tab:inputparams}
we find:
\begin{equation}\label{KL0}
1.6\cdot 10^{-11}\le Br(K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu)\le 3.9\cdot 10^{-11}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{KLE}
2.8\cdot 10^{-12}\le Br(K_L\to\pi^0 e^+e^-)_{\rm dir}
\le 6.5\cdot 10^{-12}
\end{equation}
Since these branching ratios are proportional to $({\rm Im}\lambda_t)^2$
any impact of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ on the latter CKM factor will also
modify these estimates. We illustrate this in table~\ref{tab:355}
where an improved lower bound on ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$
implies improved lower bounds on the branching ratios in question.
With decreasing $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and increasing $m_{\rm s}$ these lower bounds
continue to improve excluding a large fraction of the
ranges in (\ref{KL0}) and (\ref{KLE}).
In obtaining the results in table~ \ref{tab:355} correlations
in $m_{\rm t}$ and the CKM parameters between $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$, $\varepsilon$ and
the branching ratios for the decays considered have been taken into
account.
Unfortunately, due to
large hadronic uncertainties in $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$, no strong conclusions
can be reached at present.
In the future the situation will be reversed.
As pointed out in \cite{BB96} the cleanest measurement
of ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ is offered by $Br(K_{\rm L}\rightarrow\pi^0\nu\bar\nu)$:
\begin{equation}\label{imlta}
{\rm Im}\lambda_t=1.41\cdot 10^{-4}
\left[\frac{165\, {\rm GeV}}{m_{\rm t} (m_{\rm t})}\right]^{1.15}
\left[\frac{Br(K_{\rm L}\rightarrow\pi^0\nu\bar\nu)}{3\cdot 10^{-11}}\right]^{1/2}\,.
\end{equation}
Once ${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ is extracted in this manner it can
be used in $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ thereby somewhat reducing the
uncertainties in the estimate of this ratio.
\section{Implications for Physics Beyond the Standard Model}
\subsection{General Comments}
We have seen that the Standard Model estimates of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ are
generally below the experimental results from NA31 and KTeV.
In view of the large theoretical uncertainties it is, however,
impossible
at present to conclude that new physics is signaled by the
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$-data.
Still, we can make a few general comments on the
extensions of the Standard Model with respect to $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$:
\begin{itemize}
\item
In models where the phase of the CKM matrix is the only
source of CP violation, the modifications with respect to
the Standard Model come through new loop contributions to
$\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$. If the new contributions to $\varepsilon$ are
positive and the contributions to $F_{\varepsilon'}$ are
negative, then ${\rm Im} \lambda_t$, $F_{\varepsilon'}$
and consequently $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ are smaller than in the Standard Model
putting these models into difficulties. An example of
this disfavoured situation is the two-Higgs doublet
model II in which $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ has been analysed a long time ago
\cite{BBHLS}. We will update this analysis below.
\item
In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, the
last analysis of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ after the top quark discovery has
been performed in \cite{GG95}. Here in addition to charged
Higgs exchanges in loop diagrams, also charginos contribute.
The chargino contribution to $\varepsilon$ has always the effect of decreasing
${\rm Im}\lambda_t$. However, depending on the choice of the
supersymmetric parameters, the chargino contribution
to $F_{\varepsilon'}$ can have either sign. Consequently,
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the MSSM can be enhanced with respect to the Standard
Model expectations for a suitable choice of parameters, low
values of chargino (stop) masses and high charged Higgs
masses. Yet, as stressed in \cite{GG95}, generally
$F_{\varepsilon'}$ is further suppressed by chargino
contributions and the most conspicuous effect of
minimal supersymmetry is a depletion of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$.
\item
The situation can be different in more general
models in which there are more parameters than
in the two Higgs doublet model II and in the MSSM, in particular
new CP violating phases.
As an example, in more general supersymmetric models
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ can be made consistent with experimental
findings \cite{MM99,GMS}. Unfortunately, in view of the large number
of free parameters
such models are not very predictive.
Similar comments apply to models with
anomalous gauge couplings \cite{HE} and models with additional
fermions and gauge bosons \cite{Frampton}
in which new positive contributions to $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ are in principle
possible. A recent discussion of new physics effects
in $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ can also be found in \cite{Nierste}.
In the past, there have of course been several other analyses of
$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
in the extensions of the Standard Model but a review of
these analyses is clearly beyond the scope of this paper.
\item
Finally, models with an enhanced $\bar s d Z$ vertex,
considered in \cite{ISI}, can give rise to large
contributions to $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ as pointed out in \cite{BSII}.
As analyzed in the latter paper, in these models there
exist interesting connections between $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ and rare K decays.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{An Update on $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the Two-Higgs Doublet Model II}
A detailed renormalization group analysis of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in
the Two-Higgs Doublet Model II \cite{Abbott}
has been presented in \cite{BBHLS}.
It has been found that due to additional {\it positive}
charged Higgs contributions to $\varepsilon$ and corresponding
{\it negative} contributions to $F_{\varepsilon'}$
through the increase of the importance of $Z^0$-penguin
diagrams, the ratio $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is suppressed with
respect to the Standard Model expectations. Since this
analysis goes back to 1990 and several input parameters,
in particular $m_{\rm t}$, have been modified we would like to
update this analysis.
We recall that the two new parameters relevant for our
analysis are the charged Higgs mass (${\rm M_H}$) and $\tan\beta$,
the ratio of the two vacuum expectation values.
The expressions for the new contributions with charged Higgs
exchanges to $\varepsilon$ are rather complicated and will not be
repeated here. They can be found in Section 3 of \cite{BBHLS}.
The QCD corrections to these contributions are given there
in the leading logarithmic approximation.
As of 1999 only NLO corrections to box diagram contributions
with internal top-quark exchanges to $B^0-\bar B^0$ mixing
are known \cite{Dresden}.
Unfortunately the NLO QCD analysis for $\varepsilon$ in
the 2HDMII is still lacking. For this reason we have
used the leading order expressions for the Higgs
contributions to $\varepsilon$ \cite{BBHLS} except for the
box diagram contributions with internal top-quark exchanges
where we took the NLO QCD factor obtained in the Standard Model.
While such a treatment is clearly an approximation,
it is sufficient for our purposes.
The analysis of $F_{\varepsilon'}$ on the other hand can be
done fully at the NLO level. We only have to add to the functions
$X_0(x_t)$, $Y_0(x_t)$, $Z_0(x_t)$ and $E_0(x_t)$ the contributions
from charged Higgs exchanges. They are given as follows:
\begin{equation}
\Delta X_0=\Delta Y_0 = \frac{x_t}{\tan^2\beta}
\left[\frac{y}{8(y-1)}-\frac{y}{8(x-1)^2}\log{y}\right]
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Delta Z_0= \Delta X_0 +\frac{1}{4} \frac{1}{\tan^2\beta}D_H(y)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_0 = \frac{1}{\tan^2\beta}
\left[\frac{y\left(7y^2-29y+16\right)}{36\left(y-1\right)^3}+
\frac{y\left(3y-2\right)}{6\left(y-1\right)^4}
\log{y}\right]
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
D_{H}(y)=\frac{y\left(47y^2-79y+38\right)}{108\left(y-1\right)^3}+
\frac{y\left(-3y^3+6y-4\right)}{18\left(y-1\right)^4}
\log{y}
\end{equation}
with $y=m_{\rm t}^2/{\rm M_H}^2$.
We observe that all new contributions to $F_{\varepsilon'}$
are inversely proportional
to $\tan^2 \beta$. In $\varepsilon$ they are inversely
proportional to $\tan^2 \beta$ and $\tan^4 \beta$.
This should be contrasted with the case of $B\to X_s\gamma$
where there are new contributions with charged Higgs
exchanges, which do not involve $\tan\beta$. Thus $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
is more sensitive to $\tan\beta$ than $B\to X_s\gamma$.
This implies that in principle a better constraint for
$\tan\beta$ could be obtained from $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ than from the
latter decay.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\input{tbmh.tex}
\end{center}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{Lower bound on $\tan\beta$ as a function of ${\rm M_H}$
consistent with $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon\ge 2.0\cdot 10^{-3}$.}
\label{higgs}
\end{figure}
It is obvious from this discussion that $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the 2HDMII
is lower than in the Standard Model for any choice of input
parameters. Consequently, for low $\rm{M_H}$ and $\tan\beta$,
the ratio $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is generally well below the experimental
data. On the other hand if the Standard Model is consistent with
the experimental value of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$, it is possible to put a lower
bound on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $\rm{M_H}$.
In fig.~\ref{higgs}
we show the result of such an analysis for $B_8^{(3/2)}=0.8$
and selected values of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $m_{\rm s}$.
The remaining parameters have been scanned in the ranges
given in table~\ref{tab:inputparams}.
We require $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon\ge 2.0\cdot 10^{-3}$.
We observe that for the
lowest values of ${\rm M_H}\approx 200\, {\rm GeV}$
allowed by the $B\to X_s\gamma$ decay \cite{GAMB}-\cite{strum},
$m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})=105\, {\rm MeV}$ and $B_6^{(1/2)}=1.3$ the lower
bound on $\tan\beta$ is similar to the one obtained from
$B\to X_s\gamma$. For higher values of $m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})$ and
lower values of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ the bound on $\tan\beta$
becomes stronger than from $B\to X_s\gamma$.
\section{Conclusions and Outlook}
We have presented a new analysis of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the Standard Model in view of
the recent KTeV measurement of this ratio, which together with
the previous NA31
result firmly establishes direct CP violation in nature.
Compared with our 1996 analysis \cite{BJL96a},
the present analysis uses improved
values of $|V_{ub}|$, $|V_{cb}|$, $m_{\rm t}$, $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$ and $m_{\rm s}$
as well as new insights in the hadronic parameters $B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$ and
$\hat B_K$. Our findings are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item
The estimates of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the Standard Model are typically below
the experimental data. Our Monte Carlo analysis gives
\begin{equation}\label{eperangefinal}
\varepsilon'/\varepsilon =\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
( 7.7^{~+6.0}_{~-3.5}) \cdot 10^{-4} & {\rm (NDR)} \\
( 5.2^{~+4.6}_{~-2.7}) \cdot 10^{-4} & {\rm (HV)} \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
The difference between these two results indicates the left over
renormalization scheme dependence.
\item
On the other hand a simple scanning of all input parameters
gives
\begin{equation}
1.05 \cdot 10^{-4} \le \varepsilon'/\varepsilon \le 28.8 \cdot 10^{-4}\qquad {\rm (NDR)}
\label{eper}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
0.26 \cdot 10^{-4} \le \varepsilon'/\varepsilon \le 22.0 \cdot 10^{-4}\qquad {\rm (HV)}
\label{eperh}
\end{equation}
This means that for suitably chosen parameters, $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the Standard
Model can be made consistent with data. However, this happens only if all
relevant parameters are simultaneously close to their extreme values.
This is clearly seen in table~\ref{tab:31731} and fig.~\ref{g2}.
Moreover, the probability density distributions for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in
fig.~\ref{g1} indicates that values of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the ball park of
NA31 and KTeV results are rather improbable.
\item
Unfortunately, in view of very large hadronic and substantial parametric
uncertainties, it
is impossible to conclude at present whether new physics contributions are
indeed required to fit the data.
Similarly it is difficult to conclude what is precisely the impact of
the $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$-data on the CKM matrix. However, there are indications as seen
in table~\ref{tab:355} that the lower limit on
${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ is improved. The same applies to the lower limits for the
branching ratios for $K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$ and
$K_L\to\pi^0 e^+ e^-$ decays.
\item
Finally, we have pointed out that the $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ data puts models in which there
are new positive contributions to $\varepsilon$ and negative contibutions to
$\varepsilon'$ in serious difficulties. In particular
we have analyzed $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the 2HDMII demonstrating that with improved
hadronic matrix elements this model can either be ruled out or a
powerful lower bound on $\tan\beta$ can
be obtained from $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$.
\end{itemize}
The fact that one cannot firmly conclude at present that the data
for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ requires new physics is rather unfortunate.
In an analogous situation in the very clean rare decays
$K\to\pi\nu\bar\nu$ a departure of the experimental
result from the Standard Model expectations by only
$30\%$ would give a clear signal for new physics.
This will indeed be the case if the
improved measurements of the $Br(K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu)$
from BNL787 collaboration at Brookhaven \cite{Adler}
find this branching ratio above $1.5 \cdot 10^{-10}$.
All efforts should be made to measure this branching
ratio and the branching ratio for $K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$,
which while being directly CP violating is almost
free of theoretical uncertainties.
The future of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in the Standard Model and in its extensions depends on
the progress in the reduction of parametric and hadronic uncertainties.
We have analyzed these uncertainties in
detail in Section 3 with the results given in table~\ref{tab:3}.
Concerning parametric uncertainties related to
$|V_{ub}|$, $|V_{cb}|$, $m_{\rm t}$ and $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$,
we expect that they should be reduced considerably in the coming years.
This will, however, result only in a modest reduction of the
total uncertainty in $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$. In this respect a measurement of
${\rm Im}\lambda_t$ in a very clean decay like $K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$ would
be very useful.
A real progress in estimating $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ will only be made if the
non-perturbative parameters $\hat B_K$, $B_6^{(1/2)}$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$ and $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ as
well as the strange quark mass $m_{\rm s}$ will be brought under control.
In particular the sensitivity of non-perturbative methods to
$\mu$ and renormalization scheme dependences of $B_6^{(1/2)}$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$
is clearly desirable.
We expect that considerable
progress on $\hat B_K$ and $B_8^{(3/2)}$ should be made in the coming years
through improved lattice calculations.
Progress on $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$ should also be possible in the near future.
Moreover, as various estimates of $\hat B_K$, $B_8^{(3/2)}$ and $\Omega_{\eta+\eta'}$
by means of
several non-perturbative methods are compatible with each other
we do not expect big surprises here. Similar comments
apply to $|V_{ub}|$, $|V_{cb}|$, $m_{\rm t}$ and $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(4)}$.
On the other hand, it appears that it will take
longer to obtain acceptable values for $m_{\rm s}$ and $B_6^{(1/2)}$.
In view of the bounds \cite{DERAF}-\cite{Dosch}, it is difficult
to imagine that $m_{\rm s}(m_{\rm c})\le 105\, {\rm MeV}$. Consequently we
expect that future improved estimates of $m_{\rm s}$ will most probably
exclude the lowest values of $m_{\rm s}$ considered in this paper.
This would simultaneously exclude the highest values for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
obtained
by us unless $B_6^{(1/2)}$ is found to be higher than used here.
In this respect improved estimates of $B_6^{(1/2)}$, if found
substantially higher than unity, could have considerable
impact on our analysis. Finally, it should be stressed that
future lattice calculations will give the full matrix
elements without the necessity to use separately
$(B_6^{(1/2)},B_8^{(3/2)})$ and $m_{\rm s}$.
In any case $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ already played a decisive role in establishing direct
CP violation in nature and its rather large value gives additional strong
motivation for searching for this phenomenon in
cleaner K decays like
$K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$ and
$K_L\to\pi^0 e^+ e^-$, in B decays, in D decays and elsewhere.
{\bf Acknowledgements}\\
We would like to thank S. Bertolini, G. Buchalla, M. Ciuchini,
E. Franco, P. Gambino,
T. Hambye, L. Littenberg, G. Martinelli, P. Soldan and J. Urban
for discussions.
This work has been supported by the German Bundesministerium f\"ur
Bildung und Forschung
under contract 06 TM 874 and DFG Project Li 519/2-2.
|
\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\zeta@}{3.ex plus 1ex minus
.2ex}{2.ex plus .2ex}{\large\bf}}
\def\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\zeta@}{2.75ex plus 1ex minus
.2ex}{1.5ex plus .2ex}{\bf}}
\def\subsect#1{\par\penalty1000{\noindent \bf #1}\par\penalty500}
\def |
\section{Introduction}
The Skyrme model presents an opportunity to understand nuclear physics as
a low energy limit of quantum chromodynamics (QCD).
The model was initially proposed as a
theory of strong interactions of hadrons
\cite{Skyr1}, but recently, it was shown to be the low energy limit of QCD
in the large $N_c$ limit \cite{Wit}.
Since then further work has suggested that topologically nontrivial
solutions of this model, known as
skyrmions, can be identified with classical ground states of light
nuclei.
However, a thorough understanding of the structure and dynamics of
multi-skyrmion configurations is required before a more qualitative
assessment of the validity of this application of the model can be made.
The $SU(N)$ Skyrme model involves fields which take values in $SU(N)$;
{\it ie } are described by $SU(N)$ valued functions of $\vec{x}$ and $t$.
Its static solutions correspond to field configurations describing
multi-skyrmions.
In this paper new solutions have been obtained
for fields whose energy density is spherically symmetric.
Multi-skyrmions are stationary points (maxima or saddle points) of the
static energy functional, which is given in topological charge units by
\begin{equation}
E=\frac{1}{12\pi^2}\int_{R^3}\left\{-\frac{1}{2}\mbox{tr}\left(\partial_iU\,
U^{-1}\right)^2-\frac{1}{16}\mbox{tr}\left[\partial_iU\,
U^{-1},\;\partial_j U\, U^{-1}\right]^2\right\}d^3\vec{x},
\label{gene}
\end{equation}
where $U(\vec{x})\in SU(N)$.
In this case multi-skyrmions are solutions of the equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_i\left(\partial_iU\, U^{-1}-\frac{1}{4}\,[\partial_jU\, U^{-1},[\partial_j U\, U^{-1},
\partial_iU\, U^{-1}]]\right)=0.
\label{geq}
\end{equation}
We have, for simplicity, set the mass terms to zero.
This has been done for convenience, since the conventional mass terms
introduce only small changes and, as we will see later, affect only
the profile functions.
Therefore, all our discussion can be easily generalised to
include such mass terms.
Finiteness of the energy functional requires that $U(\vec{ x})$ approaches
a constant matrix at spatial infinity, which can be chosen to be the
identity matrix by a global $SU(N)$ transformation.
So, without any loss of generality, we can impose
the following boundary condition on $U$: $U \rightarrow {\it
I}$ as $|\vec{ x}|\rightarrow \infty$.
Since $U \rightarrow {\it I}$ as $|\vec{ x}|\rightarrow \infty$ is a mapping from
$S^3\rightarrow SU(N)$, it can be classified by the third homotopy
group $\pi_3(SU(N))\equiv Z$ or, equivalently, by the integer valued winding
number
\begin{equation}
B=\frac{1}{24\pi^2}\int_{R^3} \varepsilon_{ijk}\,\mbox{tr}\left(\partial_i U\,
U^{-1}\partial_j U\, U^{-1}
\partial_k U\, U^{-1}\right)d^3\vec{x},\label{bar}
\end{equation}
which is a topological invariant.
This winding number classifies the solitonic sectors in the model,
and as Skyrme has argued \cite{Skyr1}, $B(U)$ may be
identified with the baryon number of the field configuration.
Up to now most of the studies involving the Skyrme model have concentrated
on the $SU(2)$ version of the model and its embeddings into $SU(N)$.
The simplest nontrivial classical {\it solution} involves a single
skyrmion ($B=1$) and has already been discussed by Skyrme \cite{Skyr1}.
The energy density of this solution is radially symmetric
and, as a result, using the so-called
hedgehog ansatz one can reduce (\ref{geq}) to an ordinary differential
equation, which then has to be solved numerically.
Many solutions with $B > 1$ of the $SU(2)$ model have also been computed
numerically and, in all cases, the solutions are very symmetrical (cf.
Battye et al. \cite{BS} and references therein).
However, since the model is not integrable, with few exceptions, explicit
solutions (even) for spherical symmetric $SU(N)$ skyrmions are not known.
The first example of a {\it non-embedded} solution for a higher
group was the $SO(3)$ soliton, corresponding to a bound system of
two skyrmions, which was found by Balachandran et al. \cite{BBLRS}.
Another solution, with a large $SU(3)$ strangeness content,
was found by Kopeliovich et al. \cite{Kop}.
However, all other known multi-skyrmion configurations seem to be
the embeddings of the solutions of the $SU(2)$ model.
Recently, we have showed in \cite{IPZ} how to construct low energy
states of the $SU(N)$ model by using $CP^{N-1}$ harmonic maps.
Our discussion involved only one projector.
In this paper, we extend our method to more projectors.
We show that, for the $SU(N)$
model, when we take $N-1$ projectors which lead to spherically symmetric
energy densities, the full equations of the model
separate and the problem
of finding exact solutions is reduced to having to solve $N-1$
coupled nonlinear ODE's for $N-1$ profile functions.
This way we obtain a whole family of new spherical symmetric
multi-baryon solutions of the $SU(N)$ models.
Our solutions include the $SU(3)$ dibaryon configuration of
Balachandran et al. \cite{BBLRS} and the non-topological $SU(3)$ four
baryon configuration of \cite{IPZ}.
\section{Harmonic Maps}
In \cite{IPZ} we generalised the $SU(2)$ ansatz of Houghton et al.
\cite{HMS} to $SU(N)$.
This generalisation involved re-writing the expression
of Houghton et al. as a projector from $S\sp2$ to $CP\sp{N-1}$.
It gave us a new way of interpreting old results
and of deriving expressions for the low energy $SU(N)$ field configurations
which are {\it not} simple embeddings of $SU(2)$ fields.
In particular, the energy distributions exhibit very different
symmetries from those of the embeddings.
The method also gave us a new solution of the $SU(3)$ model,
which lies in the topologically trivial sector of the model ({\it
ie} it has zero baryon number) and so, obviously, is not stable.
The method of \cite{IPZ} can be generalised further, to involve more
projectors.
In fact, we can exploit here some ideas taken from the theory of harmonic maps
of $S\sp2\rightarrow CP\sp{N-1}$ \cite{Zak, DinZak};
since they play an important role in our construction.
Recall (cf. \cite{DinZak}) that in $N$-dimensional space there
is a ``natural" set of projectors: $S\sp2\rightarrow CP\sp{N-1}$ maps,
which are constructed as follows:
Write each projector $P$ as
\begin{equation}
P(V)=\frac{V \otimes V^\dagger}{|V|^2},
\label{for}
\end{equation}
where $V$ is a $N$-component complex vector of two variables
$\xi$ and $\bar{\xi}$ which locally parametrise $S\sp2$.
In terms of the more familiar $\theta$ and $\varphi$, they are
given by $\xi=\tan(\theta/ 2)\,e\sp{i\varphi}$.
The first projector is obtained by taking $V=f(\xi)$, {{\it ie }} an analytic
vector of $\xi$; while the other projectors are obtained
from the original $V$ by differentiation and Gramm-Schmidt
orthogonalisation.
If we define an operator $P_+$ by its action on any vector $v \in {\rm C}^N$
\cite{DinZak} as
\begin{equation}
P_+ v=\partial_\xi v- v\,\frac{v^\dagger \,\partial_\xi v}{|v|^2},
\end{equation}
then the further vectors $P^k_+ v$ can be defined by induction:
$P^k_+ v=P_{+}(P^{k-1}_+ v)$.
Therefore, in general, we can consider projectors $P_k$ of the
form (\ref{for}) corresponding to the family of vectors
$V\equiv V_k=P\sp{k}_+f$
(for $f=f(\xi)$) as
\begin{equation}
P_k=P(P^k_+ f), \hspace{5mm} \hspace{5mm} k=0,\dots,N-1,
\label{maps}
\end{equation}
where, due to the orthogonality of the projectors, we have
$\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}P_k=1$.
The orthogonality properties of our projectors follow
from the following properties of vectors $P^k_+ f$
which hold when $f$ is holomorphic:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{bbb}
&&(P^k_+ f)^\dagger \,P^l_+ f=0, \hspace{5mm} \hspace{5mm} \hspace{5mm} k\neq l,\\[3mm]
&&\partial_{\bar{\xi}}\left(P^k_+ f\right)=-P^{k-1}_+ f \frac{|P^k_+
f|^2}{|P^{k-1}_+ f|^2},
\hspace{5mm} \hspace{5mm}
\partial_{\xi}\left(\frac{P^{k-1}_+ f}{|P^{k-1}_+ f|^2}\right)=\frac{P^k_+
f}{|P^{k-1}_+f|^2}.
\label{aaa}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that, for $SU(N)$, the last projector $P_{N-1}$ in the sequence
corresponds to an anti-analytic vector; ({{\it ie }} the
components of $V_{N-1}=P^{N-1}_+f$, up to an irrelevant
overall factor which cancels in the projector, are functions of only $\bar{\xi}$).
Our new $SU(N)$ generalisation of \cite{IPZ} involves the introduction of
$N-1$ projectors, {\it ie }
\begin{eqnarray}
U&=&\exp\{ig_0
(P_0-\frac{{\it I}}{N})+ig_1(P_1-\frac{{\it I}}{N})-\dots+ig_{N-2}(P_{N-2}-\frac{{\it I}}{N})\}
\nonumber\\
&=&e^{-ig_0/N}({\it I}+A_0P_0)\,\,e^{-ig_1/N}({\it I}+A_1P_1)\,\dots\,
\,e^{-ig_{N-2}/N}({\it I}+A_{N-1}P_{N-2}),
\label{SUN}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g_k=g_k(r)$, for $k=0, \dots, N-2$, are the profile functions and
$A_k=e^{ig_k}-1$.
Note that the projector $P_{N-1}$ is not included in the above formula
since it is the linear combination of the others.
[Our previous ansatz given in \cite{IPZ} corresponds to putting all the profile
functions, but the first one, equal to zero.]
The spherically symmetric maps into $CP^{N-1}$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f = (f_0, \,f_1, \dots, \, f_{N-1})^t, \hspace{5mm} \mbox{where} \hspace{5mm} f_k = \xi^k
\sqrt{C_{k+1}^{N-1}},
\label{vec1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_{k+1}^{N-1}$ denote the binomial coefficients.
Furthermore, as we prove in the appendix, the modulus of the corresponding
vector $P_+^k f$ for $f$ of the above form is
\begin{equation}
\vert P\sp{k}_+f\vert\sp2=\alpha(1+\vert \xi\vert\sp2)\sp{N-2k-1},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ depends on $N$ and $k$.
\section{Constructing the Skyrmion Solutions}
In this section we construct a family of exact spherical symmetric
solutions of the $SU(N)$ Skyrme models.
In fact, we show that for each $SU(N)$ model the Skyrme field
involving $N-1$ projectors leads to an exact solution involving $N-1$
profile functions.
\subsection{Skyrme Equations}
The Skyrme equations (\ref{geq}), when re-written in spherical
coordinates, take the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_r\!\left[r\sp2R_r+{1\over 4}\left(A_{\theta r \theta}+{1\over
\sin\sp2 \theta}A_{\varphi r\varphi}\right)\right]
\!\!+\!\!{1\over \sin\theta}\partial_{\theta}\!\left[\sin\theta\left\{R_\theta
+{1\over 4}\left(A_{r\theta r}+{1\over r\sp2\sin\sp2\theta}A_{\varphi
\theta\varphi}\right)\right\}\right]&&\nonumber \\
+{1\over \sin\sp2\theta} \partial_\varphi\!\left[R_\varphi+{1\over 4}
\left(A_{r\varphi r}+{1\over
r\sp2}A_{\theta\varphi\theta}\right)\right]=0,&&
\label{eqqq}
\end{eqnarray}
where $R_i=U\sp{-1}U_i$ and
$A_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\equiv [R_\alpha,\,[R_\beta,\,R_\gamma]].$
It is easy to see, using (\ref{SUN}), that
\begin{equation}
\label{rr}
R_r=i\sum_{j=0}\sp{N-2}\dot g_j\left(P_j-{{\it I}\over
N}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\dot g_j(r)$ denotes the derivative of $g_j(r)$ with respect to its
argument; and that, in terms of the holomorphic variables $\xi$ and $\bar \xi$,
\begin{eqnarray}
R_\xi&=&e^{(-i\sum_{k=0}\sp{N-2}g_kP_k)}\,
\partial_\xi\!\left[e^{(i\sum_{i=0}\sp{N-2}g_iP_i)}\right]\nonumber\\
&=&\left[1+\sum_{k=0}\sp{N-2}(e\sp{-ig_k}-1)P_k\right]
\left[\sum_{l=0}\sp{N-2}(e\sp{ig_l}-1)P_{l\xi}\right]\nonumber\\
&=&
\sum_{i=1}\sp{N-1}\left[e\sp{i(g_i-g_{i-1})}-1\right]{V_i\,V\sp{\dagger}_{i-1}
\over \vert V_{i-1}\vert\sp2},
\label{rxi}
\end{eqnarray}
where the last line follows from the identity
$e^{(-i\sum_{k=0}\sp{N-2}g_kP_k)}=1+\sum_{k=0}\sp{N-2}(e\sp{-ig_k}-1)P_k$.
Here, $g_{N-1}=0$ and $R_{\bar\xi}=-(R_\xi)\sp{\dagger}.$
Next we note that
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\theta}=\frac{1+|\xi|^2}{2\sqrt{|\xi|^2}}\left(\xi
\,\partial_\xi\,+\bar\xi\,\partial_{\bar\xi}\right),\hspace{5mm} \hspace{5mm}
\partial_{\varphi}=i\left(\xi \,\partial_\xi\,-\bar\xi\,\partial_{\bar\xi}\right),
\label{mig}
\end{equation}
and re-write all the terms in (\ref{eqqq}) in terms of
$R_\xi$, $R_{\bar \xi}$ and $R_r$ and their commutators, {\it ie}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace{-13mm}\partial_{\theta} \left(\sin \theta\, R_{\theta}\right)+\frac{1}{\sin
\theta}\partial_{\phi}
R_{\phi}=(1+|\xi|^2)\sqrt{|\xi|^2}\left((R_\xi)_{\bar{\xi}}
+(R_{\bar{\xi}})_{\xi}\right),\\
&&\label{En}\hspace{-13mm}A_{\theta r \theta}+{1\over
\sin\sp2\theta}A_{\varphi
r\varphi}
=\frac{(1+|\xi|^2)^2}{2}\left\{[R_{\bar\xi},[R_r,R_\xi]]
+[R_\xi,[R_r,R_{\bar\xi}]]\right\},\\[3mm]
&&\hspace{-13mm}\sin \theta \,\partial_{\theta} \left(\sin \theta\,A_{r\theta
r}\right)+\partial_{\phi}(A_{r\varphi r})=2|\xi|^2
\left([R_r,[R_{\xi},R_r]]_{\bar{\xi}}
+[R_r,[R_{\bar{\xi}},R_r]]_{\xi}\right),\\
&&\hspace{-13mm}\partial_{\theta}\!\!\left(\!\frac{A_{\varphi \theta\varphi}}{\sin
\theta}\!\right)\!\!+\!\!\frac{1}{\sin
\theta}\partial_{\phi}\!\!\left(A_{\theta\varphi\theta}\right)\!=\!
\frac{(1+|\xi|^2)\,\sqrt{|\xi|^2}}{2}\!\!\left[\partial_{\bar{\xi}}\left((1+|\xi|^2)^2
[R_\xi,[R_\xi,R_{\bar\xi}]]\right)\!\!-\!\!\partial_{\xi}\!\left((1+|\xi|^2)^2
[R_{\bar\xi},[R_{\xi},R_{\bar\xi}]]\right)\!\right].\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
Thus equation (\ref{eqqq}), when re-written in the holomorphic variables,
becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\partial_r\left[r\sp2R_r+
\frac{(1+|\xi|^2)^2}{8}\left([R_{\bar\xi},[R_r,R_\xi]]
+[R_\xi,[R_r,R_{\bar\xi}]]\right)\right]
+\frac{(1+|\xi|^2)^2}{2}\left((R_{\bar{\xi}})_\xi+
(R_{\xi})_{\bar{\xi}}\right)+\nonumber\\[1.5mm]
&&\frac{(1+\vert\xi\vert\sp2)\sp3}{8r^2}\left(\xi\,
[R_\xi,[R_\xi,R_{\bar\xi}]]-\bar\xi\,
[R_{\bar\xi},[R_\xi,R_{\bar\xi}]]\right)
+{(1+\vert \xi\vert\sp2)\sp4\over
16r\sp2}\left([R_\xi,[R_{\xi},R_{\bar\xi}]]_{\bar\xi}-[R_
{\bar\xi},[R_\xi,R_{\bar\xi}]]_{\xi}\right)\nonumber\\[1.5mm]
&&+{(1+\vert\xi\vert\sp2)\sp2\over 8}
\left([R_{r},[R_{\bar\xi},R_{r}]]_\xi
+[R_r,[R_\xi,R_{r}]]_{\bar\xi}\right)=0.
\label{Eqq}
\end{eqnarray}
Using (\ref{SUN}) we observe that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&[R_\xi,\,R_{\bar{\xi}}]=2\,P_0{\vert V_1\vert\sp2\over
\vert V_0\vert\sp2}\left(1-\cos(g_1-g_0)\right)\,-2\,P_{N-1}{\vert V_{N-1}
\vert\sp2\over \vert
V_{N-2}\vert\sp2}\left(1-\cos(g_{N-2})\right)+\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{20mm}\,2\,\sum_{i=1}\sp{N-2}\,P_i\,
\left[{\vert V_{i+1}\vert\sp2\over \vert
V_i\vert\sp2}\left(1-\cos(g_{i+1}-g_i)\right)
-{\vert V_i\vert\sp2\over \vert V_{i-1}\vert\sp2}
\left(1-\cos(g_i-g_{i-1})\right)\right]\!\!,\label{ncomm}\hspace{5mm}\\[3mm]
&&[R_{\xi},[R_\xi,\,R_{\bar{\xi}}]]=
\sum_{i=1}\sp{N-1}
\left(\mu_i{\vert V_{i+2}\vert\sp2\over \vert V_{i+1}\vert\sp2}
+\nu_i{\vert V_{i+1}\vert\sp2\over \vert V_{i}\vert\sp2}
+\rho_i{\vert V_{i}\vert\sp2\over \vert V_{i-1}\vert\sp2}\right)
{V_iV\sp{\dagger}_{i-1} \over \vert V_{i-1}\vert\sp2},\\[3mm]
&&[R_r,[R_{\bar\xi},R_r]]=\sum_{i=1}
\sp{N-1}s_i\,{V_{i-1}V\sp{\dagger}_i\over\vert V_{i-1}\vert\sp2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu$, $\nu$ and $\rho$ are functions of $g_k(r)$, only; while
$s_i$ are functions of $g_k(r)$ and their derivatives.
Since $V_k=P_+^k f$, one can show that ${\vert V_{i}\vert\sp2\over
\vert V_{i-1}\vert\sp2}\propto (1+\vert \xi\vert\sp2)^{-2}$; while
$\partial_\xi\,(1+\vert \xi\vert\sp2)^{-2}=-2\bar\xi
(1+\vert\xi\vert\sp2)^{-3}$ and thus, the derivative terms involving
$[R_\xi,[R_\xi,R_{\bar\xi}]]$ in (\ref{Eqq}) cancel
leaving us with
derivatives of ${V_iV\sp{\dagger}_{i-1} \over \vert V_{i-1}\vert\sp2}$ --
which are proportional to
$\sum_{i=1}\sp{N-1}(1+\vert\xi\vert\sp2)^{-2}(P_i-P_{i-1})\,h_i$,
where $h_i$ involve functions of $g_k(r)$ (due to (\ref{aaa})), multiplied
by terms of the form ${\vert V_{i}\vert\sp2\over\vert
V_{i-1}\vert\sp2}$.
So the factors $(1+\vert\xi\vert\sp2)^{-4}$ in ({\ref{Eqq}) cancel
-- leaving us with a sum of differences of two successive
projectors multiplied by functions dependent only on $r$.
Following the above argument and using the properties of $R_r$, {\it
etc } one can show that the terms $[R_r,[R_{\xi},R_r]]_{\bar\xi}$ in
(\ref{Eqq}), are proportional to $\sum_{i=1}\sp{N-1}S_i\,
(1+\vert\xi\vert\sp2)^{-2}(P_i-P_{i-1})$, where $S_i$ are functions
of $g_k(r)$ and their derivatives -- leaving us, once again, with a sum
of differences of two successive projectors multiplied by functions
dependent only on $r$.
Finally, the contribution of the terms
$(1+|\xi|^2)\,R_{\xi\bar\xi}$ is given by $\sum_{i=1}\sp{N-1}
(P_i-P_{i-1}) H_i,$ where $H_i$ are only functions of $g_k$; while
the commutators in (\ref{En}) are equal to a sum of
projectors mutlipied by $(1+\vert\xi\vert\sp2)^{-2}$, which
cancel out in (\ref{Eqq}).
In addition, $\partial_r( r\sp2 R_r)=i
\sum_{i=0}\sp{N-2}\left(P_i-{{\it I}\over N}\right)(2r\dot g_i+r\sp2\ddot
g_i).$
We note that, for our choice of the vectors $V_k$, all the dependence
on $\xi$ and $\bar\xi$ in (\ref{Eqq}) resides only in the
projectors (the rest of it cancels out).
The terms involving $\partial_r(r\sp2 R_r)$ give us expressions involving
${1\over N}-P_i$ while all the other terms give us expressions involving
$P_i-P_{i-1}$.
Although $N$ projectors arise in (\ref{Eqq}),
the projector $P_{N-1}$ can be re-expressed in terms
of the previous ones -- giving $N-1$ factors involving
the harmonic maps $P_i-{1\over N}$ (for $i=0,... N-2$).
To satisfy (\ref{Eqq}) the coefficients of such factors
have to vanish leaving us with $N-1$ equations for the $N-1$ profile
functions $g_i$.
Hence, if these equations have solutions then they correspond to exact
solutions of the $SU(N)$ Skyrme models.
Notice that (\ref{vec1}) implies that these solutions have a covariant axial
symmetry, {\it ie} any rotation by an angle $\alpha$ around the $z$-axis
is equivalent to the gauge transformation $U \rightarrow A^{\dagger}U A$
where $A = \mbox{diag}(1,e^{i\alpha}, e^{2 i \alpha}, ..
e^{(N-1)i\alpha})$.
On the other hand, as will be shown below, the energy density for these
solution is radially symmetric.
The $N-1$ equations for the profile functions can be obtained either from
(\ref{Eqq}) -- which is a hard task; or from the variation of the energy
(\ref{gene}) -- using (\ref{SUN}) and integrating out $\xi$ and $\bar\xi$
variables.
Clearly, the two methods give the same equations.
Let us stress that our procedure hinges on having $N-1$ profile functions
and on the very special form of our vectors $V_k$.
Had we taken other vectors $V_k$, we would have got some $\xi$
and $\bar\xi$ dependence outside the projectors; while had we taken less
than $N-1$ profile functions and projectors we would have got too many
equations for our functions.
It is only in the case of $N-1$ projectors that we get the right number
of equations.
\subsection{Energy Dependence on Profile Functions}
The energy (\ref{gene}), when written in the holomorphic variables, becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{energy}
E\!=\!-\frac{i}{12\pi^2}\!\!\int\! r^2 dr\,d\xi d\bar{\xi}
\,\mbox{tr}\left(\frac{1}{(1+\vert \xi\vert\sp2)\sp2}R\sp2_r+
\frac{1}{r\sp2} \vert R_\xi\vert\sp2
+\frac{1}{4r^2}[R_r,R_\xi][R_r, R_{\bar\xi}]-\frac{(1+\vert
\xi\vert\sp2)\sp2}{16r\sp4}[R_{\bar\xi},R_\xi]\sp2\right).
\label{pen}
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{rr}) and (\ref{rxi}) we find that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mbox{tr}\,R_r\sp2={1\over N}\left(\sum_{i=0}\sp{N-2}\dot
g_i\right)\sp2\,-\,\sum_{i=0}\sp{N-2}\dot g_i\sp2,\\
&&\mbox{tr}\vert R_\xi\vert\sp2\,=\,-2\sum_{i=1}\sp{N-1}
B_i,\\
&&\mbox{tr}[R_r,R_\xi][R_r,R_{\bar\xi}]=-2\sum_{k=1}\sp{N-1}
B_k(\dot g_k-\dot g_{k-1})\sp2,\\
&&\mbox{tr}[R_{\bar\xi},R_\xi]\sp2=4\left(B_1\sp2 +\sum_{i=1}\sp{N-2}
(B_i-B_{i+1})\sp2+B_{N-1}\sp2\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $B_i={\vert V_i\vert\sp2\over \vert
V_{i-1}\vert\sp2}(1-\cos(g_i-g_{i-1}))$
and $[R_{\bar\xi},R_\xi]=2\sum_{l=1}\sp{N-1}(P_{l-1}-P_l)B_l$.
Since ${\vert V_k\vert\sp2\over
\vert V_{k-1}\vert\sp2}=k(N-k)(1+\vert \xi\vert\sp2)^{-2}$ (see appendix)
all
terms in (\ref{pen}) have a factor
$(1+\vert \xi\vert\sp2)^{-2}$ and the integration over $\xi$ and $\bar\xi$
is a topological constant, {\it ie} $i\int d\xi d\bar{\xi} (1+\vert
\xi\vert\sp2)^{-2}\,=\,2\pi$.
Thus we get
\begin{eqnarray}
E\!\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\frac{1}{6\pi}\int\!\! r\sp2 dr\{-{1\over
N}\left(\sum_{i=0}\sp{N-2}
\dot g_i\right)\sp2+\sum_{i=0}\sp{N-2}\dot g_i\sp2 +{1\over
2r^2}\sum_{k=1}
\sp{N-1}\left(\dot g_k-\dot g_{k-1}\right)\sp2D_k
+{2\over r\sp2} \sum_{k=1}\sp{N-1}D_k\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{17mm}+{1\over 4r\sp4}
\left(D_1\sp2+\sum_{k=1}\sp{N-2}(D_k-D_{k+1})\sp2+D_{N-1}\sp2\right)\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $D_k=k(N-k)(1-\cos(g_k-g_{k-1}))$.
Let us, for simplicity, take $F_k=g_k-g_{k+1}$, ($k=0,..N-2)$
with $F_{N-2}=g_{N-2}$.
Then, the variation of the integrand of the energy $\tilde E$ with
respect to the functions $\dot F_l$ (for $l=0,..N-2$) is
\begin{equation}
{\partial \tilde E\over \partial \dot F_l}=\left[-{2(l+1)\over N}\sum_{i=
0}
\sp{N-2}(i+1)\dot F_i+2\sum_{k=0}\sp{l}\left(\sum_{i=k}\sp{N-2}\dot F_i\right)
+\frac{1}{r^2}\dot F_l D_{l+1}\right]r\sp2,
\end{equation}
where $D_k=k(N-k)\left(1-\cos F_{k-1}\right)$.
Therefore, the equations of motion for the functions $F_i$, and
thus for the profile functions, are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&-{2(l+1)\over N}\sum_{i=0}\sp{N-2}(i+1)\ddot F_i+2\sum_{k=0}\sp{l}
\sum_{i=k}\sp{N-2}\ddot F_i+\frac{1}{r^2}\ddot
F_l(l+1)(N\!-\!l\!-\!1)(1-\cos
F_l)+\nonumber\\
\label{profs}
&&{1\over 2r\sp2}\dot F_l\sp2(l\!+\!1)(N\!-\!l\!-\!1)\sin F_l\!+\!{2\over
r}\left(
\!-{2(l\!+\!1)\over N}\sum_{i=0}
\sp{N-2}(i+1)\dot F_i\!+\!2\sum_{k=0}\sp{l}\left(\sum_{i=k}\sp{N-2}\dot
F_i\right)\right)\nonumber\\
&&-{2\over r\sp2}\,(l+1)(N-l-1)\,\sin F_l-
{1\over r\sp4}\,(l+1)\sp2(N-l-1)\sp2\left(1-\cos F_l\right)\sin
F_l\nonumber\\
&&+{1\over 2r\sp4}(l\!+\!1)(N\!-\!l\!-\!1)\sin F_l\left[l(N\!-\!l)(1-\cos
F_{l-1})+(l\!+\!2)(N\!-\!l\!-\!2)(1-\cos F_{l+1})\right]=0.\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
These equations can be solved numerically by imposing the appropriate
boundary conditions on the profile functions.
To do this we have to specialise to a particular model, {\it ie } for specific
$N$ and diagonalise the terms involving the second derivatives.
The simplest cases: $N=2$, $N=3$ and $N=4$ involve $1$, $2$ or $3$
functions and will be discussed in the next sections.
\section{Topological Properties and Symmetries}
Before we discuss special cases, let us first investigate the
general topological properties of our fields.
The topological charge (\ref{bar}), which in many applications of the Skyrme
model is identified with the baryon number, is given by
\begin{equation}
B=\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\int dr\, d\xi d\bar{\xi}
\,\mbox{tr}\, \left(R_r\,[R_{\bar\xi},R_\xi]\right),
\end{equation}
when written in the complex coordinates.
Due to (\ref{ncomm}) and (\ref{rr}) the terms involving $\dot g_i/N$ in $R_r$
after taking the trace cancel and the expression for the
baryon number simplifies to
\begin{eqnarray}
B&=&-\frac{i}{4\pi^2}\int dr\, d\xi d\bar{\xi}
\,\sum_{i=0}\sp{N-2}\, \dot F_i\,(1-\cos F_i){\vert V_{i+1}\vert\sp2\over
\vert V_i\vert\sp2}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int dr \sum_{i=0}\sp{N-2}\dot F_i\,(1-\cos
F_i)(i+1)(N-i-1)\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{i=0}\sp{N-2}(i+1)(N-i-1)\,\left(F_i-\sin
F_i\right)_{r=0}\sp{r=\infty}.
\label{BofF}
\end{eqnarray}
As $g_i(\infty)=0$ (required for the finiteness
of the energy) the only contributions to the topological charge
come from $F_i(0)$.
The $N-1$ equations for the profile functions and their differences
given in (\ref{profs}) have many symmetries.
These symmetries can be used to derive special skyrmion solutions
which involve a smaller number of profile functions and projectors.
The main symmetry of our expressions, are the independent interchanges
\begin{equation}
F_k\,\leftrightarrow\,F_{N-k-2},\qquad \mbox{for}\hspace{5mm} k=0,\cdots, N-2.
\end{equation}
This symmetry follows from the fact the terms $D_k=k(N-k)(1-\cos
F_{k-1})$ which appear in the energy are symmetric under the interchange:
$D_k\leftrightarrow D_{N-k}$ when $F_{k-1}\leftrightarrow F_{N-k-1}$.
In addition, all the other terms in the energy also exhibit this
symmetry since they are combinations of $F_i$ and their derivatives.
\section{Spherical Skyrmions}
The simplest case corresponds to the $SU(2)$ spherically symmetric skyrmion.
This is the solution which was found thirty years ago by
Skyrme and is usually presented in terms of the well-known hedgehog ansatz.
\subsection{$SU(3)$ Skyrme Model}
In this case $N=3$ and we have two functions: $F_0$ and $F_1$.
The energy density ${\cal E}$, such that $E = (6\pi)^{-1}\int {\cal E}
r^2 dr$, is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal E}\!\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\!
{2\over 3}(\dot F_0\sp2+\dot F_1\sp2+\dot F_0\dot F_1) +
\frac{1}{r^2}\left[(\dot F_0\sp2+4)(1-\cos F_0)+
(\dot F_1\sp2+4)(1-\cos F_1)\right]+\nonumber\\
\!\!\!\!&&
\qquad\frac{2}{r^4}\left[(1-\cos F_0)^2-(1-\cos F_0)\,(1-\cos F_1)+
(1-\cos F_1)^2\right],\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
and the equations for the profile functions are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace{-10mm}
\ddot F_0 \left(\!1\!+\!\frac{3}{2r^2}(1\!-\!\cos F_0)\!\right)+
\frac{\ddot F_1}{2}\!+\!\frac{2\dot F_0\!+\!\dot F_1}{r}+
\frac{3\sin F_0}{4r^2}\left[\dot F_0^2\!-4\!-\!\frac{4(1\!-\!\cos F_0)}{r^2}\!+\!
\frac{2(1\!-\!\cos F_1)}{r^2}\right]\!\!=\!0,\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-10mm}
\ddot F_1 \left(\!1\!+\!\frac{3}{2r^2}(1\!-\!\cos F_1)\!\right)+
\frac{\ddot F_0}{2}+ \frac{2\dot F_1\!+\!\dot F_0}{r}\!+\!
\frac{3\sin F_1}{4r^2}\left[\dot F_1^2\!-4\!-\!\frac{4(1\!-\!\cos F_1)}{r^2}\!+\!
\frac{2(1\!-\!\cos F_0)}{r^2}\right]\!\!=\!0.\nonumber\\
\label{SU3}
\end{eqnarray}
These equations can be solved numerically when the right boundary
conditions have been imposed.
However, by letting $F_0=F_1=F$ ({\it ie} using the symmetry)
they reduce to
\begin{equation}
\ddot F \left(1+\frac{1-\cos
F}{r^2}\right)+\frac{2\dot F}{r}+
\frac{\sin F}{2r^2}\left[\dot F^2-4-\frac{2(1-\cos F)}{r^2}\right]=0.
\label{max}
\end{equation}
This equation coincides with the equation for the profile function
of a single $SU(2)$ skyrmion.
Here we note that as $F_0(0)=F_1(0)=2\pi$ the topological charge
of our solution is four.
Thus the energy of this configuration, which corresponds to four
skyrmions is $E_{B=4}=4\times\,1.232$, {\it ie} is exactly four times the
energy of one skyrmion.
We see that we have a static solution corresponding to four
non-interacting skyrmions, placed on top of each other in such a way
that their energy density is spherically symmetric.
In addition, there is a further symmetry which allows us to set $F_0=-F_1=G$.
In this case the equations reduce to
\begin{equation}
\ddot G \left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3}{2r^2}(1-\cos
G)\right)+\frac{\dot G}{r}+
\frac{3\sin G}{4r^2}\left[\dot G^2-4-\frac{2(1-\cos G)}{r^2}\right]=0.
\end{equation}
Let us note that, since $F_0=g_0-g_1$ and $F_1=g_1$,
this case corresponds to $g_0=0$ and thus, the field (\ref{SUN}) involves only
one projector, namely $P_1$.
This solution is the topologically trivial solution discussed
in \cite{IPZ} and its energy is $3.861$.
Finally, Balachandran et al. skyrmion solution can be obtained from
(\ref{SU3}) by imposing the following boundary conditions: $g_0(0)=2\pi$,
$g_1(0)=0$ and $g_0(\infty)=0$, $g_1(\infty)=0$; its energy is
$E_{B=2}=2.3764$.
\subsection{$SU(4)$ Skyrme Model}
In this case the energy density becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal E}=
{1\over 4}\left(3\dot F_0\sp2+4\dot F_1\sp2+3\dot F_2^2+4\dot F_0\dot F_1+
4\dot F_1\dot F_2+2\dot F_0\dot F_2\right)+\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{8mm}{1\over 2 r^2}\left[3(\dot F_0\sp2+4)(1\!-\!\cos F_0)\!+
\!4(\dot F_1\sp2+4)(1\!-\!\cos F_1)\!+
\!3(\dot F_2^2+4)(1\!-\!\cos F_2)\right]\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{8mm}+\frac{1}{2r^4}\,\{9\,(1-\cos F_0)^2+16\,(1-\cos F_1)^2+
9\,(1-\cos F_2)^2\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{8mm}
- 12 (1-\cos F_0) (1-\cos F_1)-12(1-\cos F_1)(1-\cos F_2)\},
\end{eqnarray}
while the equations for $F_0$, $F_1$ and $F_2$ are more complicated:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace{-20mm}
\ddot F_0\left(\!1\!\!+\!\!\frac{2(1-\cos F_0)}{r^2}\!\right)\!+
\!\frac{2 \ddot F_1\!+\!\ddot F_2}{3}\!+\!\frac{3\dot F_0\!+
\!4\dot F_1\!+\!2\dot F_2}{3r}\!+
\!\frac{\sin F_0}{r^2}
\left[\dot F_0^2\!-\!4\!-\!\frac{6(1\!\!-\!\!\cos F_0)}{r^2}\!+
\!\frac{4(1\!\!-\!\!\cos F_1)}{r^2}\right]\!\!=\!0,\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-20mm}
\ddot F_1\!\left(\!1\!\!+\!\!\frac{2(1\!\!-\!\!\cos F_1)}{r^2}\!\right)\!\!+
\!\frac{\ddot F_0\!+\!\ddot F_2}{2}\!+
\!\frac{2\dot F_1\!+\!\dot F_0\!+\!\dot F_2}{r}\!+
\!\frac{\sin F_1}{r^2}\!
\left[\!\dot F_1^2\!-\!4\!-\!\frac{8(1\!\!-\!\!\cos F_1)}{r^2}\!+
\!\frac{3(1\!\!-\!\!\cos F_0)}{r^2}\!+
\!\frac{3(1\!\!-\!\!\cos F_2)}{r^2}\!\right]\!\!=\!0,\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-20mm}
\ddot F_2\left(\!1\!\!+\!\!\frac{2(1\!\!-\!\!\cos F_2)}{r^2}\!\right)\!+
\!\frac{\ddot F_0\!+\!2\ddot F_1}{3}\!+
\!\frac{6\dot F_2\!+\!2\dot F_0\!+\!4\dot F_1}{3r}\!+
\!\frac{\sin F_2}{r^2}
\left[\dot F_2^2\!-\!4\!-\!\frac{6(1\!\!-\!\!\cos F_2)}{r^2}\!+
\!\frac{4(1\!\!-\!\!\cos F_1)}{r^2}\right]\!\!=\!0.\nonumber\\
\label{SU4eq}
\end{eqnarray}
These equations have the previously mentioned symmetry $F_k
\leftrightarrow F_{N-k-2}$ which allows us to set $F_0=F_2$ by keeping
$F_1$ arbitrary.
In addition, letting $F_0=F_1=F_2=F$ the above system reduces to equation
(\ref{max}) and therefore, the configuration which consists of ten skyrmions
(as $B={3F_0(0)+4F_1(0)+3F_2(0)\over 2\pi}=10$)
is $E_{B=10}=10\times\,1.232$, {\it ie } is exactly ten times the energy of one
skyrmion. Once again we have a solution describing
many skyrmions, which are
non-interacting and whose energy density is spherically symmetric.
In addition, letting $F_0=-F_2=G$ we spot that when
$F_1=0$, we have a solution of the form
\begin{equation}
\ddot G\left(1+\frac{3(1-\cos G)}{r^2}\right)+\frac{2\dot G}{r}
+\frac{3\sin G}{2r^2}\left[\dot G^2-4-\frac{6(1-\cos
G)}{r^2}\right]=0,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to a non-topological solution, {\it ie } its baryon number
is zero; however the corresponding configuration consists of three
skyrmions and three anti-skyrmions.
[Recall, that the profile functions are $g_0=0$ and $g_1=g_2$, {\it ie } the
field (\ref{SUN}) involves only one projector of rank two -- namely
$P_1+P_2$.]
In general, however, the solutions depend on more functions.
We can always assume that the functions $F_i$ go to zero at infinity, so
the topological
charge of a solution is determined, using (\ref{BofF}), by the boundary
value of each $F_i$ at the origin.
When each of these values is positive the solution is a mixture of
skyrmions.
When some $F_i$'s take positive and some $F_i$'s take negative values at
the origin the solution corresponds to a mixture of skyrmions and
anti-skyrmions.
This is very similar to what happens in the two-dimensional
Grasmannian sigma model \cite{Zak}.
We have solved numerically equations (\ref{SU4eq}) taking all combinations,
modulo the exchange of $F_0$ and $F_2$, of $0$, $2\pi$ and $-2\pi$ for
the value of $F_i$ at the origin. The results are summarised in the
Table below.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r|r|r|r|l|l|l}
\vbox to 5mm {}$F_0(0)$ & $F_1(0)$ & $F_2(0)$ &
B & Energy & E/baryon & SU(2) En \\
&&&&&&\\
\hline
\hline
\vbox to 4mm{}$2\pi$ & 0 & 0 & 3 & 3.518 & 1.173 & 3.429 \\
\vbox to 4mm{}0 & $2\pi$ & 0 & 4 & 4.788 & 1.197 & 4.464 \\
\vbox to 4mm{}$2\pi$ & 0 & $2\pi$ & 6 & 7.22553 & 1.204 & 6.654 \\
\vbox to 4mm{}$2\pi$ & 2$\pi$ & 0 & 7 & 8.45219 & 1.207 & 7.7693 \\
\vbox to 4mm{}$2\pi$ & $2\pi$ & $2\pi$ & 10 & 12.32 & 1.232 & - \\
&&&&&&\\
\hline
\vbox to 4mm{}$2\pi$ & $-2\pi$ & $2\pi$ & 6-4 & 8.852 & 0.8852 & - \\
\vbox to 4mm{}$2\pi$ & $2\pi$ & $-2\pi$ & 7-3 & 9.896 & 0.9896 & - \\
\vbox to 4mm{}$2\pi$ & 0 & $-2\pi$ & 3-3 & 6.63422 & 1.106 & - \\
\vbox to 4mm{}$-2\pi$ & $2\pi$ & 0 & 4-3 & 6.61478 & 0.945 & - \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The first five solutions are bound states of skyrmions with energies
larger than the energies of the corresponding $SU(2)$ solutions \cite{BS}.
Moreover, the excitation energy of the first two solutions is very small.
As mentioned above, the energy of the $B=10$ solution is exactly ten times
the energy of a single skyrmion solution.
These solutions are all axially symmetric (but their energy
densities are radially symmetric) and thus
they are all more symmetrical than the corresponding $SU(2)$ solutions.
The last four solutions are bound states of skyrmions and anti-skyrmions.
Although their energies are very small, we know that these solutions must be
unstable.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have shown how to construct radially symmetric solutions
of the $SU(N)$ Skyrme models.
In the general case these solutions depend on $N-1$ profile functions
which have to be determined numerically.
In some cases we can exploit symmetries of our expressions
and reduce the number of functions.
Thus in the case of $SU(3)$ we can recover the topologically trivial
solution discussed in \cite{IPZ}.
We have not discussed the derived solutions in much detail.
Their properties and their relation to physics deserve
further study and these topics are currently under investigation.
It is worth pointing out that there is a rather close connection
between $SU(N)$ BPS monopoles and skyrmions. Both monopole and skyrmion
fields can be constructed in terms of harmonic maps between Riemann spheres.
Thus, recently, it has been shown \cite{Sut} that the monopoles fields
can also be constructed using the projector ansatz.
Its generalisation to multi-projectors and the construction in
\cite{Sut} provide explicit examples of spherically symmetric $SU(N)$
monopoles with various symmetry breaking patterns.
In the monopole case, the Bogomolny equation is the analogue of our
Skyrme equation and the monopole number corresponds to our baryon number.
\section{ Acknowledgments}
We thank C. Houghton, V. Kopeliovich and P. Sutcliffe for their interest.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{introduction}
\PARstart{B}{ased} on vast experience watching the fruit of my hard
work fall apart time and again,
I feel highly qualified to discuss the manner in which
systems break. In particular, the goal of this paper is to define and
analyze systems which exhibit brittle behavior. This behavior is
characterized by a sudden and steep decline in performance as system
state changes as shown by point D along curve $P_h$ in Figure \ref{bintro}.
$P_h$ is the performance curve for a high performance system with
brittle characteristics, $P_l$ is a lower performance system with less
brittle characteristics. Clearly the slope from point $D$ along curve
$P_h$ is much steeper than that of point $E$ along curve $P_l$.
The steep decline of performance along $P_h$ can be due to input
parameters which exceed a specified tolerance,
or environmental conditions which exceed specified operating boundaries.
This is equivalent to material fracture. Materials science
provides a terminology which is apropos and flexible enough to describe
the characteristics of this work. A table of materials science terms and
their corresponding brittle system definitions is shown in Table
\ref{terms}. Toughness \cite{Vlack} is the amount of energy absorbed
by a material prior to failure. A brittle fracture occurs with very little
energy absorption while a ductile fracture is accompanied by much energy
absorption. Clearly toughness is the analog of the robustness of a system.
To carry the analogy further, ductility is quantified as the
amount of permanent strain prior to fracture. A system which does not
exhibit brittle behavior will be called ductile \cite{Vlack}.
Strain is unit-less and refers to the amount of deformation per unit length
of a material and is caused by stress which is the force per unit area.
Material deformation is analogous to degradation in a brittle system.
In our work, stress is the distance by which a parameter exceeds its
specified operating tolerance.
There are two forms of strain, reversible and permanent. Reversible
strain is called elastic strain and is characterized by Young's modulus:
the ratio of the stress over the strain. Permanent strain leaves the
shape of a material permanently changed and is known as plastic strain.
In a brittle system, plastic strain will be degradation from which the
system cannot recover, while a brittle system can recover from reversible
strain.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=figures/intro.eps,width=6.0in}}
\caption{A Brittle versus Ductile System.}
\label{bintro}
\end{figure*}
Increasing both hardness and ductility increases the toughness of a
material. Hardness is increased by deforming the crystal structure, either by
adding impurities to a homogeneous material or by rapid cooling of the
material after processing. In this work, increasing hardness of a
material is analogous to increasing the gain of the sub-components of a
system. Previous work has focused on the hardness of a system,
but relatively little on the ductility. For example, in choosing design
parameters for a system \cite{Montgomery}, one examines the effect of high
and low parameter values within the utility of normal operation of system
performance ($U(normalOperation)$) and chooses those
values which result in the best performance ($P_h$). However, the behavior and
utility of the system when tolerance is exceeded ($U(robust)$) have rarely
been examined. Certainly if time is considered,
then based on simple reliability theory the utility is shown in
Equation \ref{util} where $H$ and $D$ are shown in Figure \ref{bdef},
$x$ is a design parameter, $P[]$ is the probability of the event in the
brackets, and $U(normalOperation)$ is the utility to the user of the
system in normal operation, and $U(robust)$ is the utility to the user
of the system outside normal operation. As graceful degradation becomes a
more desirable feature, the utility of area $D$ increases.
Let us define brittleness as the ratio of the hardness over the ductility
which is the area H over D in Figure \ref{bdef}.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=figures/bdef.eps,width=6.0in}}
\caption{A Definition of System Brittleness.}
\label{bdef}
\end{figure*}
\begin{eqnarray}
Utility = P[x \in T] H U(normalOperation) + P[x \notin T] D U(robust)
\label{util}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{||l|l||} \hline
\textbf{Materials Science} & \textbf{Brittle Systems} \\ \hline
\hline
Stress & amount parameter exceeds its tolerance \\ \hline
Toughness & system robustness \\ \hline
Hardness & level of performance within tolerance \\ \hline
Ductility & level of performance outside tolerance \\ \hline
Plastic Strain & system cannot recover from degradation \\ \hline
Reversible Strain & system can recover from degradation \\ \hline
Brittle Fracture & sudden steep decline in performance \\ \hline
Ductile Fracture & graceful degradation in performance \\ \hline
Brittleness & ratio of hardness over ductility \\ \hline
Deformation & degradation in performance \\ \hline
Young's Modulus & amount tolerance exceeded over degradation \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{terms} Terminology.}
\end{table*}
At this point it must be mentioned that
some causes of brittle fracture may be more difficult to deal with than
others. For example the sudden loss of performance can be due to a
catastrophe \cite{Saunders,IB-D84160}. Catastrophe Theory is
essentially the study of singularities; in this work it would be
one of many causes for brittle behavior. The connection between
Catastrophe Theory and Brittle Systems is only one of the many
areas that need to be explored in this new research area.
\section{An Example of Ductility in a Communications Network}
\label{example}
The following applications which exhibit brittle behavior have
been chosen as simple examples so that the ideas presented in this work,
rather than the details of the applications, can be investigated. These
examples will be examined in more detail as this work progresses.
\subsection{Adaptive Multimedia}
Current network applications, especially multimedia applications, have
performance which degrades rapidly after bandwidth is reduced beyond a
certain point. In \cite{Lee} it is suggested that if applications can be
developed which degrade gracefully with respect to loss in bandwidth as
shown in Figure \ref{qbplot},
then the network can be designed to maintain bandwidth within the required
bounds on a best effort basis.
A solution recommended in \cite{Lee} is for the network
to keep a certain amount of bandwidth in reserve. However,
the more bandwidth kept in reserve, the less that remains to support
the network as a whole. Thus the amount of reserve bandwidth is
the greatest factor affecting ductility in this example. As the
value of reserve bandwidth increases, the number of
users which can be supported is reduced, but fewer calls in progress are
disconnected.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=figures/qbplot.eps,width=2.5in}}
\caption{Ductile Network Applications (Top Graph).}
\label{qbplot}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Packet Recovery: Stop And Wait System}
The second example is recovery from packet loss in an Automatic Repeat
Request (ARQ) link shown in Figure \ref{saw}.
We consider two types of packets: packets with a large delay and
packets which are lost. Setting a high time-out value results in
better performance for packets which have a high ratio of delay
to loss, but degrades rapidly as the ratio approaches zero.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=graphs/StopAndWaitDelay.ps,width=4.0in}}
\caption{Delay, Probability of Error, and Timeout in a Stop And Wait System.}
\label{saw}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{TDMA Reservation System}
Figure \ref{tdma} shows transmission rate versus probability of transmission
for two values of retransmission. The lower valued setting for retransmission
has higher performance, however, the higher valued retransmission
setting is slightly more robust around a probability of 0.013.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=graphs/TDMA.ps,width=4.0in}}
\caption{TDMA Probability of Transmission and Transmission Rate.}
\label{tdma}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Mobile Cellular Telephone System}
Figure \ref{mobile} shows grade of service versus channels per base station.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=graphs/Mobile.ps,width=4.0in}}
\caption{Grade of Service versus number of Channels per Base
Station.}
\label{mobile}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Buffer Capacity}
Another example of a brittle system involves choosing buffer
capacity in a data communications system.
\subsection{Backlogged Packets in Slotted ALOHA}
In Slotted ALOHA, data packet transmission occurs using equal sized
packets within equally divided time slots. If two or more users transmit
within a given time slot, a collision occurs; the packet will be
retransmitted in a following time slot with a given probability.
This example of a brittle system exhibits catastrophic behavior
\cite{Nelson:1987:SCT}. Let $p_0$ be the probability that a packet to
be transmitted finds an empty cell, and $p_1$ be the probability that
after a collision, the cell attempts retransmission. The design
parameters are $p_0$ and $p_1$ and the number of packets waiting for
retransmission is the state. A graph of $p_0$ and $p_1$
forms a cusp and all the classic symptoms of catastrophe are present,
namely, bifurcation, sudden jumps, hysteresis, inaccessibility, and
divergence.
\subsection{Variable Window Flow Control}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=graphs/VariableWindow.ps,width=4.0in}}
\caption{Variable Window Throughput Comparison.}
\label{varwin}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Flow Control}
Also in \cite{Nelson:1987:SCT}, it is suggested that flow control, shown
in Figure \ref{varwin}, in a
communications network exhibits not only brittle behavior, but
catastrophic behavior. The specific model of flow control considered in
\cite{Nelson:1987:SCT} is to divide available buffer space into classes
and allow packets which have passed through $i$ hops to occupy buffers
assigned to class $i$.
\section{Techniques for Handling Brittle Systems}
There are a variety of techniques for controlling and enhancing the
ductility of a system. The first is to assign values to design
parameters which influence ductility in a static manner, that is
before the system becomes operational.
The next involves dynamically changing the ductility as the system
operates. This would be analogous to a material which could automatically
trade-off hardness for ductility whenever necessary in order to maximize
its performance. The remaining techniques involve methods of attempting to
avoid brittle fracture, by design or by rolling back from a fracture.
\subsection{Ductility Setting of System Sub-Components}
Now that ductility has been defined and the design parameters
controlling ductility identified, a natural question to ask is how should the
sub-component parameters be set. Within normal operation, the
performance requirements must be met, and in addition we would like the
system to be tough (robust) outside the normal operating range as well.
Is there a benefit to how ductility is distributed among subsystem
components? As an example, in network and transport level
data communications systems, if the system is going to fail, it is beneficial
for low level system components to fail early in the transmission
process rather than transporting a packet close to its destination and
finding that the entire packet/frame has to be retransmitted later.
Thus, it would be better to set $X_1$, in Figure \ref{bnet}, so that
sub-component $S1$, which performs its processing early, has a lower
ductility than components later in the process.
A highly brittle component, as illustrated in Figure \ref{onoff}, would
appear to have the characteristics of an on-off constant bit rate
(on-off CBR) source. These types of sources have been used to model ATM
\cite{Prycker} traffic sources. Queue fill distribution
has been analyzed in \cite{Anick1982} for on-off CBR models. These results
could be used in a buffer solution for such highly brittle components.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=figures/onoff.eps,width=2.5in}}
\caption{An On-Off Brittle Sub-Component.}
\label{onoff}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Adaptation}
As mentioned previously, there are two forms of strain, reversible
and permanent. Reversible
strain is called elastic strain and is characterized by Young's modulus:
the ratio of the stress over the strain. Permanent strain leaves the
shape of a material permanently changed and is known as plastic strain.
In brittle systems, an analog to plastic strain is adaptation.
Once we know the parameters which affect ductility, that is,
having determined $\psi$, the
values of the parameters can be changed dynamically as stress causes the
system to approach a brittle fracture.
\subsection{Rollback}
Another possibility is that once the system approaches a brittle
fracture, the system has the capability to rollback to a safe state
and choose another gradient which attempts to remain
in a safe state of operation. Rollback techniques within a
communications network environment have been described in
\cite{BushThesis}.
\section{Brittle Sub-Components}
Consider a system whose sub-components exhibit various degrees of
ductility as defined above. Just as adding impurities to a pure metal causes
it to become stronger but more brittle, the addition of more efficient
but also more sensitive components to a system causes the system to
increase performance within its operating range, but become less
ductile. How do the effects of ductility propagate among the
sub-components to influence the ductility of the entire system? Assume
the performance response curve is known for each sub-component and that
the output from one component feeds into the input of the next component
as shown in Figure \ref{bnet}. Assume that the sub-component output
performance cannot be better than any of its inputs. Then the performance
curve for the output of each sub-component is the minimum of the input
sub-component performance curve and the current component performance curve.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=figures/bnet.eps,width=4.0in}}
\caption{Brittle Subsystem Components.}
\label{bnet}
\end{figure*}
The hardness component of the
brittleness enhances the performance when values are within tolerance
and low ductility degrades the performance when values are
out of tolerance. The amount of degradation depends on the amount by
which the tolerance was exceeded. This is illustrated in Figure
\ref{poutdiagram} and is stated in Equation \ref{pout},
where $b$ is the brittleness, $P_{in}$ is the input performance, $T$ is
the set of in-tolerance values, $x$ is a state parameter, $E[]$ is the
expected value, and $P_{out}$ is the output performance. The result of
Equation \ref{pout} is plotted in Figure \ref{analpcurve}.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=figures/pout.eps,width=6.0in}}
\caption{Distribution and Performance.}
\label{poutdiagram}
\end{figure*}
\begin{equation}
\label{pout}
P_{out} = (P_{in}+P_{in} b)Prob[x \in T] + (P_{in} - P_{in} b
E[x-max[T]])Prob[x \notin T]
\end{equation}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=graphs/analpcurve.ps,width=6.0in}}
\caption{Analytical Brittle Subcomponent Result.}
\label{analpcurve}
\end{figure*}
As $b$ decreases in a non-brittle system, $T$ increases. It is this
relationship between $b$ and $T$ which is the principal focus of brittle
systems analysis. Assume the simple case of a normally distributed
performance distribution, then Equation \ref{normpout} shows how
Equation \ref{pout} can be refined. $N(\eta,\sigma)$ is a normal
distribution with an average of $\eta$ and variance of $\sigma$ and
$R.V._{N(\eta,\sigma)}$ is a random variable with distribution
$N(\eta,\sigma)$.
\begin{equation}
\label{normpout}
P_{out} = (P_in +P_{in} b) Prob[R.V._{N(\eta,\sigma)} \le T] + (P_in - b \eta)
1.0 - Prob[R.V._{N(\eta,\sigma)} \le T]
\end{equation}
As $b$ decreases we assume that the system is non-brittle
so that $T$ increases. Assume that $b$ is linear, then $T$ increases as
shown in Figure \ref{linbfig} and Equation \ref{linbeq}.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=figures/linbfig.ps,width=6.0in}}
\caption{Relationship Between $b$ and $T$.}
\label{linbfig}
\end{figure*}
\begin{equation}
\label{linbeq}
T = p_x + {1 \over b} p_y
\end{equation}
A BONeS model has been developed to examine brittle sub-components as
shown in Figure \ref{bmodel} which models Figure \ref{bnet}. A
BONeS data structure contains the performance or
quality of the input to a component. A normal random number generator
produces a value with a specified mean and variance, in this case 10.0
and 3.0 respectively. The difference between the random number and the
upper limit (11.0) is computed. If the normal random number is greater
than the upper limit, then the performance value of the input data
structure is reduced by the brittleness multiplied by the amount by which the
tolerance was exceeded. If the normal random number is within
tolerance then the input data structure is increased by an amount
proportional to the brittleness.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=figures/Bsys2.ps,width=6.0in}}
\caption{BONeS Model.}
\label{bmodel}
\end{figure*}
The results are shown in Figure \ref{sysperf} for the normal random
number values, the upper limit, and the system performance as a function
of the consecutive order in which each of the values were sampled. The
brittleness is varied from zero to
0.8 and the results are averaged. Clearly the performance degrades when
the normal values exceed the upper limit. Figure \ref{pcurve} shows the
performance results for the sub-components and the entire system from
Figure \ref{bmodel}. Components 1 and 3
generate data structures with a performance value of one. An
intermediate component, Component 2, has a brittleness which varies
from zero to 0.8.
The final output component, Component 4, has a brittleness of 0.3. The
analytical results from Figure \ref{analpcurve} and the simulated
system performance curve from Figure \ref{pcurve} are in close
agreement. Although Component 2 performance
improves when the brittleness is between 0.2 and 0.5, Component 4, which
is the system performance, declines. This is because Component 4
performance depends on the minimum performance input which comes from
Component 3, an initial input component that always generates a
performance of one.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=graphs/bsys2.ps,width=6.0in}}
\caption{System Performance.}
\label{sysperf}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=graphs/pcurve.ps,width=6.0in}}
\caption{Performance Curve.}
\label{pcurve}
\end{figure*}
If the ductility of sub-components can be controlled, how should the
brittleness be adjusted among the sub-components? One line of reasoning
yields the result that in systems run near the maximum operating tolerance,
better performance will be achieved with highly brittle components placed
near the outputs of the system. This is because there is then less
chance for the highly brittle components to effect the other sub-components.
The next simulation, shown in Figure \ref{dloc} examines this question.
The brittleness of the first component is varied
from zero to one and the second component remains at a brittleness of
0.5. The results are shown in Figure \ref{fvss}. The results are also
shown in the same figure for the first component brittleness of 0.5 and the
second component brittleness varying from zero to one. Figure \ref{fvss}
indicates that the best performance curve results when the more highly
brittle component is the last component in the chain.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=figures/Bsys3.ps,width=6.0in}}
\caption{Brittleness Location Experiment.}
\label{dloc}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=graphs/bvsp.ps,width=6.0in}}
\caption{Brittleness Location Results.}
\label{fvss}
\end{figure*}
\section{Sensitivity}
As a first step, design parameters, $X_p$, which affect ductility
must be identified.
The sensitivity of ductility to a particular parameter is characterized
by $\psi$, as shown in Equation \ref{pdeff} and \ref{peff}.
In Equation \ref{pdeff}, $\gamma$ is the shaded area $A-B$ in Figure
\ref{bintro}, which is a function of two values, $x_1$ and $x_2$, of
a single design parameter, $X_p$.
In Equation \ref{peff}, the sensitivity of ductility is defined as the rate of
change of the difference of $A-B$. Figure \ref{esys} shows two
curves for the same system, one curve which is brittle, the other
robust. A function which returns the value of the ductile sensitivity
is implemented in Mathematica \cite{Wolfram:MSD91} in Figure \ref{ddef}.
In Figure \ref{ddef}, $\psi$ takes two arguments, $s1$ and $s2$ which
are two values of a single design parameter, $x_1$ and $x_2$. The
Mathematica module returns the partial
derivative of $\gamma$ as shown in the bottom of Figure \ref{ddef}.
In Figure \ref{duc}, the value of the ductility sensitivity is
shown for the system from Figure \ref{esys} as a function of the
difference between $x_1$ and $x_2$. In Figure \ref{duc}, $x_2$ is
constant and $x_1$ varies. As $x_1$ and $x_2$ become equal, $\Psi$
goes to zero. This is because the performance curves become the
same and the area $A-B$ disappears. Also, when the values of
$x_1$ and $x_2$ are far apart, the area $A-B$ becomes large and
the rate of change of the area becomes large. Note that because
of the implementation of the Mathematica module which computes
$\gamma$, the order of the arguments to the Mathematica function in
Figure \ref{ddef} is significant.
\begin{equation}
\label{pdeff}
\gamma(x_1,x_2) = {A - B}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi(x_1, x_2) = {{\partial \gamma(x_1,x_2)} \over {\partial x_1}} & &
\label{peff}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=graphs/examp.ps,width=6.0in}}
\caption{An Example System.}
\label{esys}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=figures/ductility.ps,width=6.0in}}
\caption{Ductility Sensitivity Definition.}
\label{ddef}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=graphs/phi2.ps,width=4.0in}}
\caption{Ductile Sensitivity.}
\label{duc}
\end{figure*}
\section{System Energy}
As a digital system approaches the edges of it operating tolerance the
energy required to maintain the performance increases as shown in Figure
\ref{energy}. Consider quality of service on a router in a communications
network. The energy required to forward a packet is routinely modeled as
directly proportional to the length of the packet.
As the load increases, input queues begin to fill to capacity
and packets are dropped because computational energy is not sufficient
to keep up with the load. In this case, performance is the probability of
not dropping a packet and energy is the processing power which is
directly proportional to the packet service rate, $\mu$. In an
M/M/1 queue, a direct relation between performance and
energy is shown in Equation \ref{perfprob} where $n$ is the expected queue
size, $N$ is the maximum queue capacity and
$\rho = {\lambda \over \mu}$. The result is graphed in Figure
\ref{epgraph}.
\begin{equation}
P[n<N] = \sum_0^{N-1} \rho^n(1-\rho)
\label{perfprob}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=figures/energy.eps,width=4.0in}}
\caption{System Performance and Energy.}
\label{energy}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centerline{\psfig{file=graphs/energy.ps,width=4.0in}}
\caption{Performance and Energy.}
\label{epgraph}
\end{figure*}
|
\section{Introduction}
\mbox{}\indent
The standard deep inelastic scattering picture applies when
the four-momentum transfer squared from the lepton line to
the hadron line ($Q^2$) is large. When virtual photon wave length
increases and reaches the size of the nucleon one may expect a transition
to another regime where the standard partonic model is no longer valid.
In this region a kinematical constraint \cite{BK_lowq2} guarantees
the vanishing of the $F_2(x,Q^2)$ structure function. This requirement
is not embodied in the perturbative parton distributions.
A phenomenological fit based on parton screening was proposed
in \cite{MRS_lowQ2} to satisfy this condition by introducing
an extra form factor.
The recent low-$Q^2$ data from HERA \cite{H1_lowQ2,ZEUS_lowQ2}
have triggered many phenomenological analyses. Especially interesting
is the unexplored transition region. At present there is no consensus
on the details of the transition mechanism. Here we concentrate
on the region of somewhat larger $x$ rather than the new HERA data.
We shall demonstrate that also at larger $x$ a similar transition due to
vanishing partonic components at small $Q^2$
takes place, although it is not directly seen from experimental data.
It is common wisdom that the vector dominance model applies
at low $Q^2$ while the parton model
describes the region of large $Q^2$, leading at lowest order to
Bjorken scaling, and to logarithmic scaling violation in higher orders
of QCD. A proposal was made in Ref.\cite{BK_model} to unify both
the limits in a consistent dispersion method approach.
In the traditional formulation of the VDM one is limited to large
lifetimes
of hadronic fluctuations of the virtual photon, i.e. small Bjorken
$x < 0.1$ for the existing data.
It is a purpose of this paper to generalize the model
to a full range of $Q^2$ and $x$ by introducing extra phenomenological
form factors to be adjusted to the experimental data.
Some authors believe that it is old-fashioned to talk about
VDM contribution in the QCD era.
However, VDM effects appear naturally in the time-like region in
the production of vector mesons in $e^+ e^-$ collisions.
These effects cannot be described in terms of perturbative
QCD, as in the production of resonances many complicated
nonperturbative effects take place. The physics must be similar in
the space-like region.
We shall demonstrate that it is essential to include this contribution
explicitly in order to describe the structure functions at low Q$^2$.
In the next section we outline our model and discuss how to
choose its basic parameters in a model independent way.
In section 3 we discuss a fit of the remaining parameters
to the fixed target data and present results of the fitting procedure
for the proton and deuteron structure functions.
In addition we compare the result of our model for
$F_2^p - F_2^n$ and some subtle isovector higher-twist effects
with another low-$Q^2$ model. Finally we discuss some interesting
predictions which could be verified in the future.
\section{The model}
\mbox{}\indent
As in Ref.\cite{BK_model} the total nucleon structure function is
represented as a sum
of the standard vector dominance part, important at small $Q^2$ and/or
small Bjorken $x$, and
partonic ({\it part}) piece which dominates over the vector dominance
(VDM) part at large $Q^2$:
\begin{equation}
F_2^N(x,Q^2) = F_2^{N,VDM}(x,Q^2) + F_2^{N,part}(x,Q^2) \; .
\label{F2_decomposition}
\end{equation}
The standard range of applicability of vector dominance contribution
is limited to large invariant masses of the
hadronic system ($W$), i.e. small values of $x$.
In the target (nucleon) reference frame the time of life of the hadronic
fluctuation is given according to the uncertainty principle
as $\tau \sim 1/\Delta E$ with
\begin{equation}
\Delta E = \sqrt{M_V^2 + |{\bf q}|^2 } - \sqrt{q^2 + |{\bf q}|^2 } \; ,
\end{equation}
where $M_V$ is the mass of the hadronic fluctuation (vector meson mass).
In terms of the photon virtuality and Bjorken $x$ this can be expressed
as
\begin{equation}
\Delta E = \frac{M_V^2 + Q^2}{Q^2} \cdot M_N x \; .
\end{equation}
As the energy transfer $\nu \rightarrow \infty$ the time of life
of the hadronic
fluctuaction becomes $\tau \sim \frac{Q^2}{M_V^2 m_N x}$.
It is natural to expect small VDM contribution when the time of
life of the hadronic fluctuation is small.
We shall model this fact by introducing a form factor
$\Omega(\tau) = \Omega(x,Q^2)$. Then the modified
vector dominance contribution can be written as:
\begin{equation}
F_2^{N,VDM}(x,Q^2) =
\frac{Q^2}{\pi} \sum_V
\frac{M_V^4 \cdot \sigma_{VN}^{tot}(s^{1/2})}
{\gamma_V^2 (Q^2 + M_V^2)^2}
\cdot \Omega_V(x,Q^2) \; .
\label{F2_VDM}
\end{equation}
In the present paper we take $\gamma$'s calculated from the leptonic
decays of vector mesons which include finite width corrections \cite{IKL}
$\gamma_{\rho}^2/4\pi$ = 2.54,
$\gamma_{\omega}^2/4\pi$ = 20.5,
$\gamma_{\phi}^2/4\pi$ = 11.7.
\footnote{Please note different normalization of $\gamma$'s
in comparison to \cite{BK_model}.}
In general one can try different functional forms for $\Omega$.
In the present analysis we shall use only exponential and Gaussian
form factors
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega(x,Q^2) = \exp(-\Delta E / \lambda_E) \;, \nonumber \\
\Omega(x,Q^2) = \exp(-(\Delta E / \lambda_G)^2) \; .
\label{time_formfactor}
\end{eqnarray}
As in Ref.\cite{BK_model} we take the partonic contribution as
\begin{equation}
F_2^{N,part}(x,Q^2) =
\frac{Q^2}{Q^2 + Q_0^2} \cdot F_2^{asymp}(\bar x,\bar Q^2) \; .
\label{F2_part}
\end{equation}
where $\bar x = \frac{Q^2 + Q_2^2}{W^2 - m_N^2 + Q^2 + Q_2^2}$
and $\bar Q^2 = Q^2 + Q_1^2$.
The $F_2^{asymp}(x,Q^2)$ above denotes the standard partonic
structure function which in the leading order can be expressed
in terms of the quark distributions:
\begin{center}
$F_2^{asymp}(x,Q^2) = x \cdot \sum_f \; e_f^2 \cdot
\left[ q_f(x,Q^2) + \bar q_f(x,Q^2) \right] $.
\end{center}
The extra factor in front of Eq.(\ref{F2_part}) assures a correct
kinematic beheviour in the limit $Q^2 \rightarrow 0$.
In general $Q_0^2$, $Q_1^2$ and $Q_2^2$ can be slightly different.
In the following section we shall consider different options.
At large Bjorken $x$ one has to include also the so-called target
mass corrections. Their origin is mainly kinematic \cite{GP76}.
In our approximate treatment we substitute the Bjorken variable $x$
in the partonic distributions by the Nachtmann variable $\xi$
\cite{Nachtmann}
given by:
\begin{equation}
\xi = \frac{2 x}
{1 + \sqrt{(1 + \frac{4 M_N^2 x^2}{Q^2})} } \; ,
\label{Nachtmann_variable}
\end{equation}
which is the dominant modification.
In principle $F_2^{asymp}(x,Q^2)$ could be obtained in any
realistic model of the nucleon combined with QCD evolution.
We leave the rather difficult problem of modeling the partonic
distributions for future studies.
We expect that at not too small $x >$ 0.01, the region of the interest
of the present paper, the leading order Gl\"uck-Reya-Vogt (GRV)
parametrization of
$F_2^{p,asymp}(x,Q^2)$ and $F_2^{n,asymp}(x,Q^2)$ should be
adequate. Furthermore in our opinion the parametrization \cite{GRV95}
with the valence-like input for the sea quark distributions and
$\bar d$ - $\bar u$ asymmetry built in incorporates in a
phenomenological way nonperturbative effects caused by the meson cloud
in the nucleon \cite{meson_cloud}.
The total cross section for (vector meson) -- (nucleon) collision
is not well known.
Above meson-nucleon resonances, one may expect
the following approximation to hold:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\rho N}^{tot} &=& \sigma_{\omega N}^{tot}
= \frac{1}{2} \left[
\sigma_{\pi^{+} p}^{tot} + \sigma_{\pi^{-} p}^{tot} \right]
\; , \nonumber \\
\sigma_{\phi N}^{tot} &=&
\sigma_{K^+ p}^{tot} + \sigma_{K^- p}^{tot} -
\frac{1}{2} \left[
\sigma_{\pi^{+} p}^{tot} + \sigma_{\pi^{-} p}^{tot} \right] \; .
\end{eqnarray}
Using a simple Regge-inspired parametrizations
by Donnachie-Landshoff \cite{DL92}
of the total $\pi N$ and $K N$ cross sections we get simple
and economic parametrizations
for energies above nucleon resonances
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\rho N}^{tot} &=& \sigma_{\omega N}^{tot}
= 13.63 \cdot s^{0.0808} + 31.79 \cdot s^{-0.4525} \; , \nonumber \\
\sigma_{\phi N}^{tot} &=&
10.01 \cdot s^{0.0808} + 2.72 \cdot s^{-0.4525} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the resulting cross sections are in mb.
We expect that our model should be valid in a broad range of
$x$ and $Q^2$ except for very small $x < 0.001$, where genuine effects
of BFKL pomeron physics could show up, and except for very large $x$,
where the energy ($s^{1/2}$ in Eq.(\ref{F2_VDM})) is small and
the behaviour of the total $VN$ cross section is
essentially unknown. Because our main interest is in the transition
region, the large $Q^2$ data were not taken into account
in the fit. There the partonic contribution is by far dominant and
the GRV parametrization \cite{GRV95} is known to provide a reliable
description of the data.
\section{Comparison to experimental data}
\mbox{}\indent
Most of the previous parametrizations in the literature
centered on the proton structure function.
In the present analysis we are equally interested in both proton
and neutron structure functions. Achieving this goal requires
special selection of the experimental data with similar statistics
and similar range in ($x$,$Q^2$) for proton and deuteron structure
function.
In Fig.1 we display the experimental data for proton (left panel)
and deuteron (right panel) structure functions chosen in our fit.
We have selected only NMC, E665 and SLAC sets of data \cite{F2_data}
for both proton and deuteron structure functions,
together amounting to 1833 experimental points:
901 for the proton structure function and
932 for the deuteron structure function.
According to the arguments presented above, we have
omitted BCDMS and HERA data in the fitting procedure but these will
be compared to our parametrization when discussing the quality of the
fit.
The deuteron structure function has been calculated as
\begin{equation}
F_2^d(x,Q^2) = {1 \over 2} [ F_2^p(x,Q^2) + F_2^n(x,Q^2) ] \; ,
\label{F2d}
\end{equation}
i.e. we have neglected all nuclear effects such as shadowing,
antishadowing due to excess mesons, Fermi motion, binding, etc,
which are known to be relatively small for the structure function
of the deuteron \cite{BK92,Z92,MT93}, one of the most
loosely bound nuclear systems.
In addition we have assumed isospin symmetry for the proton and
neutron quark distributions, i.e.
$u_n(x,Q^2) = d_p(x,Q^2)$, $d_n(x,Q^2) = u_p(x,Q^2)$ and
$s_n(x,Q^2) = s_p(x,Q^2)$. The charm contribution, which in the GRV
parametrization \cite{GRV95} is due to the photon-gluon fusion, is in
practice negligible in the region of $x$ and $Q^2$ taken in the fit,
and therefore is omitted throughout the present analysis.
The results of the fit are summarised in Table 1.
Because in general $Q_0^2$, $Q_1^2$ and $Q_2^2$ can be
different, there are 4 independent free parameters of the model.
In order to limit the number of parameters we have imposed extra
conditions as specified in Table 1. A series of seven fits
has been performed. In all cases considered the number
of free parameters has been reduced to two: the cut-off parameter of
the form factor and $Q_0^2$.
Statistical and systematic errors were added in quadrature when
calculating $\chi^2$. Only data with $Q^2 >$ 0.25 GeV$^2$ were
taken in the fit which is connected with the domain of applicability
of the GRV parametrization. The values of the parameters found
are given in each case in parentheses below the value of
$\chi^2$ per degree of freedom. In addition to the combined
fit, which includes both proton $F_2^p$ and deuteron $F_2^d$ structure
function data, we show the result of the fit separately for proton
and deuteron structure functions. As can be seen from the table
fairly similar values of parameters are found for the proton and
deuteron structure function and the $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom is
slightly worse in the latter case which can be due to the omission
of nuclear effects as mentioned above. The best fit (No 1 in the table)
is obtained with $Q_1^2 = Q_2^2 = 0$ (fits of similar quality can
be obtained with very small values of $Q_1^2 \sim$ 0.1 GeV$^2$
and $Q_2^2 \sim$ 0.1 GeV$^2$). While the value of $\chi^2$
does not practically depend on the type of the form factor
(exponential vs. Gaussian), much larger value of $Q_0^2$
is found for the Gaussian ($Q_0^2$ = 0.84 GeV$^2$) than for
the exponential ($Q_0^2$ = 0.52 GeV$^2$) parametrization.
The value of $Q_0^2$ found here is smaller than in the original
Bade{\l}ek-Kwieci\'nski model \cite{BK_model} but larger than that
found by H1 collaboration in the fit to low-$x$ data \cite{H1_lowQ2}.
Although the resulting $\chi^2$
is similar in both cases, the $F_2^n(x) / F_2^p(x)$ ratio for $x
\rightarrow 1$ prefers the Gaussian form factor.
While the vector meson contribution with the exponential form factor
survives up to relatively large $x$,
with the Gaussian form factor it is negligible at large $x$..
For comparison the GRV parametrization of quark distributions alone
yields:\\
$\chi^2/N_{dof}$ = 9.74 (21.48) (proton structure functions),\\
$\chi^2/N_{dof}$ = 13.73 (32.99) (deuteron structure functions),\\
$\chi^2/N_{dof}$ = 11.77 (27.33) (combined data),\\
where the first numbers include target mass corrections and
for illustration in parentheses their counterparts without target
mass corrections are given. Clearly the inclusion of
the target mass effects is essential and only such results will be
discussed in the course of the present paper.
The agreement of the CKMT parametrization is comparable to that
obtained in our model. For instance for parametrization (b) in Table 2
in the second paper \cite{CKMT}, which includes new HERA data:\\
$\chi^2/N_{dof}$ = 2.22 (1.00) (proton structure functions),\\
$\chi^2/N_{dof}$ = 3.54 (3.59) (deuteron structure functions),\\
$\chi^2/N_{dof}$ = 2.89 (2.33) (combined data),\\
where in the parentheses we present $\chi^2$ for $Q^2 <$ 4 GeV$^2$
i.e. in the region of applicability of the CKMT parametrization.
\footnote{The number of experimental points is reduced then to
354 and 373 for proton and deuteron structure functions, respectively}
We note much better description of the proton data in
comparison to the deuteron data.
The agreement of the Donnachie-Landshoff parametrization \cite{DL94}
with the proton structure function data is of similar quality.
In Fig.2 we present for completeness a map of $\chi^2$ for our best fit
as a function of model parameters $Q_0^2$ and $\lambda$.
A well defined minimum of $\chi^2$ for $\lambda_G \approx$ 0.5 GeV
and $Q_0^2 \approx$ 0.85 GeV$^2$ can be seen.
The experimental statistical uncertainty of the obtained parameters
$\lambda_G$ and $Q_0^2$ is less than 1 \%.
Some examples of the fit quality can be seen in Fig.3
(x-dependence for different values of $Q^2$ = 0.585, 1.1, 2.0, 3.5
GeV$^2$) and in Figs.4, 5 ($Q^2$-dependence for different values of
Bjorken $x$ = 0.00127, 0.0125, 0.05, 0.10, 0.18, 0.35, 0.55, 0.75).
Shown are experimental data \cite{F2_data} which differ from
the nominal $Q^2$ or Bjorken $x$ specified in Fig.3, 4, 5 by less
than $\pm$ 3 \%. An excellent fit is obtained for $Q^2 >$ 4 GeV$^2$
(not shown in Fig.3), although the VDM contribution stays large
up to 10 GeV$^2$.
In comparison to the GRV parametrization (dashed line)
our model describes much better the region of small $Q^2 <$ 3 GeV$^2$,
especially at intermediate Bjorken $x$: 0.05 $< x <$ 0.4.
The CKMT model (long-dashed line), shown according to the philosophy
in \cite{CKMT} for $Q^2 <$ 10 GeV$^2$ gives a better fit at very
small Bjorken $x$. However, one may expect here a few more effects
which will be discussed below.
\footnote{The use of the
next-to-leading order structure functions \cite{GRV95} in our model
would improve the description of low-$x$ data, discussion of which
is left for a separate analysis.}
It is however slightly worse as far as
isovector quantities are considered, as will be discussed later.
There seems to be a systematically small (up to about 5 \%) discrepancy
between our model and the data for $Q^2 <$ 2 GeV$^2$ and $x$ = 0.1 - 0.3.
This is caused by some higher-twist effects due to
the production of the $\pi N$ \cite{S72} and $\pi \Delta$ exclusive
channels and will be discussed elsewhere.
A fit of similar quality is obtained in our model for the proton (left
panels) and deuteron (right panels) structure functions.
Rather good agreement of our model with the BCDMS data can be observed
in Figs.4 and 5 in spite of the fact that the data were not used in
the fitting procedure.
At very small $x <$ 0.01 the description of the data becomes
worse. This is partially due to the use of the leading order
approximation. The fit to the fixed-target data prefers
$\bar x \approx x$ and $\bar Q^2 \approx Q^2$
(see Table 1 and the discussion therein).
On the other hand, the HERA data would prefer
$Q_1^2 \ne $ 0 and $Q_2^2 \ne $ 0. If we included
the HERA data in the fit the description of the fixed target data
would become worse. There are no fundamental reasons for
the parameters in both regions to be identical.
In addition at very small $x$ other effects of
isoscalar character,
not included here, such as heavy long-lived fluctuactions of the incoming
photon \cite{Shaw} and/or BFKL pomeron effects \cite{BFKL},
may become important.
For illustration a VDM contribution modified by a form factor
(\ref{time_formfactor}) is shown separately by the short-dashed line.
The partonic component can be obtained as a difference between the solid
and VDM line. It can be seen
from Figs.3-5 that the partonic component decreases towards small
$Q^2$. This decrease is faster than one could
directly infer from the failure of the GRV parametrization at low $Q^2$
because in our model a part of the strength resides in the
VDM contribution.
The modified VDM contribution is sizeable for small values
of Bjorken $x$ and not too large $Q^2$ and survives up to relatively
large $Q^2$. At $Q^2 >$ 3.5 GeV$^2$ the structure functions in our model
almost coincide with those in the GRV parametrization despite that the
VDM term is still not small.
For $Q^2 \rightarrow \infty$ only
the partonic contribution survives and
$F_2(x,Q^2) \rightarrow F_2^{part}(x,Q^2) \rightarrow F_2^{GRV}(x,Q^2)$.
The deviations from the partonic model can be also studied in
the language of higher-twist corrections. Then
the structure function can be written formally as
\begin{equation}
F_2^{p/n}(x,Q^2) = F_2^{p/n,LT}(x,Q^2)
\left[ 1 + \frac{ c_2^{p/n}(x) }{Q^2} + \frac{c_4^{p/n}(x)}{Q^4} + ...
\right]
\; .
\label{ht_expansion}
\end{equation}
However, in empirical analyses one usually includes only one term
in (\ref{ht_expansion})
\begin{equation}
F_2^{p/n}(x,Q^2) = F_2^{p/n,LT}(x,Q^2)
\left[ 1 + \frac{c^{p/n}(x) }{Q^2} \right] \; .
\label{ht_trunc}
\end{equation}
In our model for $Q^2 \sim M_V^2, Q_0^2$ there are an infinite number
of active terms in the expansion of the structure function
(\ref{ht_expansion}). Therefore the coefficient $c^{p/n}$ (the same is
true for the deuteron counterpart $c^d$) in (\ref{ht_trunc}) becomes
effectively $Q^2$-dependent $c^{p/n}(x) = c^{p/n}(x,Q^2)$.
As an example in Fig.6 we show $c^p$ and $c^d$ as a function of
Bjorken $x$ for three different values of $Q^2$ = 2, 4, 8 GeV$^2$
in the range relevant for the analysis in \cite{VM92}.
In order to correctly compare our results for $c^p$ and $c^d$ with the
results of the analysis in \cite{VM92} the structure function
$F_2^{p/n,LT}(x,Q^2)$ in Eq.(\ref{ht_trunc}) will include complete
target mass corrections calculated according to Ref.\cite{GP76}.
A fairly similar pattern is obtained for $c^p$ and $c^d$ especially
at small $x$.
The rise of $c^p$ or $c^d$ for $x \rightarrow$ 1 is caused by
our treatment of the target mass corrections and partially by the VDM
contribution which survives in our model up to relatively large x.
We obtain small negative $c^p$ and $c^d$ for $x <$ 0.3 in agreement
with \cite{VM92}. The smallnest of $c^p$ and $c^d$ in our model
for x $<$ 0.3 is due to the cancellation of the positive VDM contribution
and a negative contribution caused by the external damping factor
$\frac{Q^2}{Q^2+Q_0^2}$ of the partonic contribution in
Eq.(\ref{F2_part}).
The CKMT parametrization \cite{CKMT}
(shown only in its applicability range for $Q^2$ = 2, 4 GeV$^2$)
provides a very good explanation of $c^{p}$. It predicts, however,
somewhat larger negative $c^{d}$ for x $<$ 0.3. This will have
some unwanted consequences for $c^p - c^n$ discussed below.
In Fig.7 we show $c^p-c^n$ for $Q^2$ = 2, 4 GeV$^2$
together with empirical results from \cite{NMC_ht}. Rather strong
$Q^2$-dependence of $c^p-c^n$ is observed.
Our model correctly describes the trend of the experimental data.
For comparison we show also the result obtained by means of
the CKMT parametrization (long-dashed lines) of the
structure functions which somewhat fails to reproduce the details of
the empirical results from \cite{NMC_ht}, especially for small
Bjorken $x$.
To our best knowledge no other model in the
literature is able to describe quantitatively this subtle higher-twist
effect.
Our model seems to provide a very good description
of some isovector quantities. As an example in Fig.8 we present
$F_2^p(x,Q^2) - F_2^n(x,Q^2)$ at $Q^2$ = 4 GeV$^2$ obtained
in our model (solid lines for different form factors), as well as the
results obtained with the GRV parametrization (dashed line) and
in the CKMT model (long-dashed line).\footnote{
No evolution of the CKMT quark distributions was done, but it is
negligible between 2 $\rightarrow$ 4 GeV$^2$
for the nonsinglet quantity.
}
The NMC data \cite{NMC} prefer rather our model.
As a consequence of the imperfect description of the deuteron data
the CKMT model fails to describe the difference $F_2^p(x) - F_2^n(x)$
for $x <$ 0.3. The success of our model is related to the violation of
the Gottfried Sum Rule and/or $\bar d - \bar u$ asymmetry
which is included in our model explicitly. In contrast to our model
in the CKMT model for $Q^2 >$ 2 GeV$^2$ the Gottfried Sum Rule
$S_G = {1 \over 3}$.
\section{Conclusions and discussion}
\mbox{}\indent
We have constructed a simple model incorporating nonperturbative
structure of the nucleon and photon. Our model is a generalization of
the well known and successful Bade{\l}ek-Kwieci\'nski model
\cite{BK_model}. While the original Bade{\l}ek-Kwieci\'nski model
is by construction limited to a small-$x$ region, our model is intended
to be valid in much broader range. The original VDM model assumes
implicitly a large coherence length for the photon-hadron fluctuation,
i.e. assumes that the hadronic fluctuation is formed far upstreem of
the target.
When the fluctuation length becomes small the VDM is expected to
break-down.
This effect has been modelled by introducing an extra form factor.
As a result we have succeeded in constructing a physically motivated
parametrization of both proton and deuteron structure functions.
In comparison to the pure partonic models with QCD evolution our model
leads to a much better agreement at low $Q^2$ in a broad range of $x$.
With only two free parameters we have managed to describe well the
transition from the high- to low-$Q^2$ region simultaneously for the
proton and deuteron structure functions. Our analysis of
the experimental data indicates that the QCD parton model
begins to fail already at $Q^2$ as high as about 3 GeV$^2$.
This value is larger than commonly believed.
In our discussion we have omitted the region of the HERA data.
In our opinion the physics there may be slightly more complicated.
Other effects of isoscalar character,
not included in our analysis,
for example the BFKL pomeron effects \cite{BFKL},
may become important.
In contrast to other models in the literature we obtain a very good
description of the NMC $F_2^p - F_2^n$ data \cite{NMC} where the
previously mentioned isoscalar effects cancel.
Recently an intriguing, although small, difference between
$\bar d - \bar u$ asymmetry obtained from recent E866 Drell-Yan data
\cite{E866} and muon DIS NMC data \cite{NMC} has been observed.
At least part of the difference can be understood in our model.
We expect for $Q^2$ smaller than about 4 GeV$^2$ an
extra $Q^2$ dependence of some parton model sum rules.
We predict a rather strong $Q^2$ effect for the integrand of the
Gottfried Sum Rule where in the first approximation the VDM contribution
cancels.
Recently in the literature there has been sizeable activity towards
a better understanding of higher-twist effects.
Some were estimated within the operator product expansion,
some in terms of the QCD sum rules. It is, however,
rather difficult to predict the absolute normalization of the
higher-twist effects.
Our model leads to relatively large higher-twist contributions.
For some observables, like structure functions, they almost cancel.
For other observables, like $F_2^p - F_2^n$, the cancellation is not
so effective. Our model provides specific higher-twist effects not
discussed to date in the literature. This will be a subject of a
future separate analysis.
\vskip 1cm
{\bf Acknowledgments:} \\
We are especially indebted to J. Kwieci\'nski for valuable
discussions and suggestions and J. Outhwaite for careful reading
of the manuscript. We would also like to thank C. Merino
for the discussion of the details of the CKMT model.
This work was supported partly by the German-Polish exchange program,
grant No. POL-81-97.
\newpage
|
\section*{Acknowledgments}
U.T. is a TUBITAK M\"{u}nir Birsel Foundation Fellow and acknowledges
partial support from Ege University Research Fund under the Project Number
97 FEN 025. During the course of this research,
D.F.T. was a Chevening
Scholar of the British Council Foundation
and acknowledges partial support from
CONICET and Fundaci\'on Antorchas.
|
\section{Introduction}
The old problem of magnetic structure of rare-earth metals and their
compounds is still a subject of experimental and theoretical investigations.
These substances have complicated phase diagrams and demonstrate a number of
orientational phase transitions. In particular, such transitions take place
in the orthoferrites and practically important intermetallic compounds RCo$%
_5 $ (R=Pr,Nd,Tb,Dy,Ho), see, e.g., Ref. \cite{Levitin}. Qualitative
explanation of these transitions has been obtained many years ago within the
Heisenberg model with inclusion of magnetic anisotropy \cite{Coqblin}. In a
number of systems, lattice (magnetoelastic) effects are important. The
standard description is usually performed within mean-field approaches.
However, quantitative comparison with experimental data requires a more
detailed treatment.
Provided that the orientational transition temperature is low (in comparison
with the magnetic ordering point), spin-wave theory is applicable \cite
{Coqblin}. In the simplest case of the second-order anisotropy the
magnetization lies either along the easy axis or in the easy plane.
Inclusion of higher-order anisotropy constants can lead to cone phases where
magnetization makes the angle $\theta $ with the $z$-axis. The case $\theta
=\pi /2$ was considered in Refs. \cite{Tb,TbDy1,GdTbDy,TbDy2} where the
temperature renormalization of anisotropy constants and the spin-wave
spectrum in Tb and Dy within the standard spin-wave theory were calculated.
In the present paper we consider the cone phase with arbitrary $0\leq \theta
\leq \pi /2$. The situation here is analogous to that for the field-induced
orientational phase transitions, e.g., in the transverse-field Ising model
(see Ref.\cite{OurITF} and references therein). Unlike the latter model, one
can expect that at low enough temperatures and small value of anisotropy the
spin-wave theory is applicable for an arbitrary relation between anisotropy
parameters, not only close to the orientational phase transition. Even for
the second-order easy-plane anisotropy, the Holstein-Primakoff
representation for spin operators used in Refs. \cite{Tb,GdTbDy,TbDy2} leads
to so-called kinematical inconsistencies because of incorrect treating
on-site kinematical relations. To avoid this difficulty, we use the
technique of spin coherent states. Our approach is to some extent similar to
the operator approach used in Ref. \cite{TbDy1}, but gives a possibility to
treat more simply higher-order anisotropy constants, as well as to calculate
higher-order terms of $1/S$-expansion.
The anisotropic Heisenberg model used is formulated in Sect 2. In Sect 3 we
develop a special form of the $1/S$-expansion which gives a possibility to
take into account exactly on-site kinematical relations. In Sect 4 we treat
the cone-plane transition owing to the temperature dependence of the cone
angle $\theta $ and discuss experimental data on the rare earth metals.
\section{The model and mean-field approximation}
We start from the Hamiltonian of the Heisenberg model with inclusion of
single-site anisotropy
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}=-\frac J2\sum_{\langle ij\rangle }{\bf S}_i{\bf S}%
_j+B_2^0\sum_i(O_2^0)_i+B_4^0\sum_i(O_4^0)_i \label{H}
\end{equation}
where $J>0$ is the exchange parameter,
\begin{eqnarray}
O_2^0 &=&3(S^z)^2-S(S+1) \nonumber \\
O_4^0 &=&35(S^z)^4-30S(S+1)(S^z)^2+25(S^z)^2 \nonumber \\
&&\ +3S^2(S+1)^2-6S(S+1) \label{Tens}
\end{eqnarray}
are the irreducible tensor operators of second and fourth orders, $B_l^m$
are the corresponding anisotropy constants.
Up to unimportant constant we can rewrite the Hamiltonian (\ref{H}) in the
form
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}=-\frac J2\sum_{\langle ij\rangle }{\bf S}_i{\bf S}%
_j+D\sum_i(S_i^z)^2+D^{\prime }\sum_i(S_i^z)^4
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
D &=&3B_2^0-[30S(S+1)-25]B_4^0 \label{rel} \\
D^{\prime } &=&35B_4^0 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
For $D,D^{\prime }>0$ spins of magnetic ions lie in the easy plane $xy$,
while for $D,D^{\prime }<0$ we have the easy axis $z.$ For $D>0,\;D^{\prime
}<0$ a first-order transition takes place between the easy plane (which is
favored by second-order anisotropy) and easy axis (which is favoured by
large $|D^{\prime }|$). We consider only the case $D<0,\;D^{\prime }>0$
where the cone phase occurs at intermediate values of $D/(2D^{\prime }S^2)$,
so that spin orientation direction makes the angle $\theta $ with the $z$%
-axis and the orientational phase transitions are of the second order. This
is the case for Gd and also for Ho, Er in low-temperature phases.
In the phenomenological approach it is supposed (see, e.g., Refs. \cite
{Levitin,Coqblin})
\begin{equation}
F=F_{\text{is}}+D(T)(S\cos \theta )^2+D^{\prime }(T)(S\cos \theta )^4
\end{equation}
where $F_{\text{is}}$ is the isotropic ($\theta $-independent) part of the
free energy. Then we obtain by minimization of $F$%
\begin{equation}
\cos ^2\theta (T)=-\frac{D(T)}{2D^{\prime }(T)S^2} \label{ct}
\end{equation}
so that at the point where $D(T)=0$ the spins become directed in the $xy$
plane while at $|D(T)|\geq 2D^{\prime }(T)S^2$ they are aligned along the $z$%
-axis. The temperature dependence of $D(T)$ is supposed to have the form
\begin{equation}
D(T)=2D^{\prime }S^2(T_1-T)/(T_2-T_1) \label{PhT}
\end{equation}
with $D^{\prime }(T)>0.$ Thus at $T=T_1$ the transition from the easy-plane
to cone structure takes place, while at $T=T_2$ the transition from the cone
to easy-axis structure occurs. At the same time, Zener's \cite{Zener} resut
for the temperature dependence of anisotropy constants in an axially
symmetric state with $\theta =0$ has the form
\begin{equation}
B_l^0(T)=B_l^0M^{l(l+1)/2} \label{Zener}
\end{equation}
where $M=\langle \widetilde{S}^z\rangle /S$ is the relative magnetization,
and $D(T),$ $D^{\prime }(T)$ are determined by the same relations (\ref{rel}%
) with $B_l^0\rightarrow B_l^0(T)$. As pointed in Refs. \cite
{Tb,TbDy1,GdTbDy,TbDy2}, the temperature dependences of anisotropy constants
have a more complicated form for the cone structures with $\theta >0$ (in
fact, only the case $\theta =\pi /2$ is discussed in Refs. \cite
{Tb,TbDy1,GdTbDy,TbDy2}).
A systematic way of calculating temperature dependences of anisotropy
constants is the $1/S$-expansion which is considered in the next section.
\section{The $1/S$ expansion of the partition function}
The $1/S$-expansion developed here is slightly different from the standard
scheme of $1/S$-expansion \cite{Tb,GdTbDy,TbDy2} since it gives a
possibility to take into account exactly the kinematical relations between
powers of spin operators on each site. We use the coherent state approach
(see, e.g., Ref. \cite{Arovas}) to write down the partition function in the
form
\begin{equation}
{\cal Z}=\int D\mbox {\boldmath $\pi $}\exp \left\{ iS\int\limits_0^\beta
d\tau (1-\cos \vartheta )\frac{\partial \varphi }{\partial \tau }-\langle
\pi |{\cal H}|\pi \rangle \right\} \label{Zp}
\end{equation}
where $\mbox {\boldmath $\pi $}$ is the unit-length vector, $\vartheta $ and
$\varphi $ are its polar and azimuthal angles respectively, $|\pi \rangle
=\exp (i\vartheta S^y+i\varphi S^z)|S\rangle $ are the coherent states ($%
S^z|S\rangle =S|S\rangle $). To construct the $1/S$-expansion we rotate the
coordinate system around the $y$-axis through the angle $\theta .$ The
Hamiltonian (\ref{H}) takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H} &=&-\frac J2\sum_{\langle ij\rangle }{\bf S}_i{\bf S}_j \\
&&\ \ \ +\sum_i\sum_{l,m}\sum_{m^{\prime }=-l}^lB_l^m\sqrt{\frac{%
(l+m)!(l-|m^{\prime }|)!}{(l-m)!(l+|m^{\prime }|)!}}\frac{A_l^m}{%
A_l^{|m^{\prime }|}}d_{mm^{\prime }}^l(\theta )(\widetilde{O}_l^{|m^{\prime
}|})_i \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $d_{mm^{\prime }}^l(\theta )$ are the Wigner matrices of the rotation
group irreducible representation,
\begin{equation}
A_l^m=\frac{(l-m)!}{(l+[m]-1)!!}\frac 1{K_l^m}
\end{equation}
($[m]=m$ for $m$ even and $[m]=m+1$ for $m$ odd), for $l\leq 4$ we have $%
K_l^m=1,$ and the tilde sign here and hereafter is referred to the rotated
coordinate system. Since the partition function (\ref{Zp}) is invariant
under rotation of the states $|\pi \rangle ,$ it is convenient to use the
coherent states defined in the same coordinate system, i.e., $|\widetilde{%
\pi }\rangle =\exp (i\vartheta \widetilde{S}^y+i\varphi \widetilde{S}^z)|%
\widetilde{S}\rangle \;$with $\widetilde{S}^z|\widetilde{S}\rangle =S|%
\widetilde{S}\rangle .$ The advantage of using the coherent states is the
simple form of the averages of the tensor operators (\ref{Tens}) over $|%
\widetilde{\pi }\rangle .$ By direct calculation we obtain
\begin{equation}
\langle \widetilde{\pi }|\widetilde{O}_l^m|\widetilde{\pi }\rangle
=S_lA_l^mP_l^m(\cos \vartheta )\cos m\varphi \label{Av}
\end{equation}
where $P_l^m(x)$ are the associated Legendre polynomials, the factors $%
S_l=S(S-1/2)...[S-(l-1)/2]$ take into account properly the kinematical
relations on each site. In particular, the second-order anisotropy term
vanishes for $S=1/2,$ and the fourth-order for $S=1/2,1,3/2,$ as it should
be (unlike the results of boson representations in Refs.\cite
{Tb,GdTbDy,TbDy2}). Using (\ref{Av}) we obtain for the case $%
B_l^m=B_l^0\delta _{m0}$ under consideration the result
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \widetilde{\pi }|{\cal H}|\widetilde{\pi }\rangle &=&-\frac{JS^2}%
2\sum_{\langle ij\rangle }\widetilde{\mbox {\boldmath $\pi $}}_i\widetilde{%
\mbox {\boldmath $\pi $}}_j \label{Cs} \\
&&\ \ \ +\sum_i\sum_{l=2,4}\sum_{m=-l}^lS_lB_l^0A_l^0\frac{(l-|m|)!}{(l+|m|)!%
}P_l^{|m|}(\cos \theta )P_l^{|m|}(\cos \vartheta )\cos m\varphi \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Further calculations are performed in the same line as in Ref. \cite{OurITF}%
. Representing $\cos \vartheta =\sqrt{1-\sin ^2\vartheta }$ and expanding in
$\sin \vartheta $ we obtain the $1/S$-expansion of the partition function.
It should be stressed that we retain the factors $S_l,$ as well as $S$%
-dependences in (\ref{rel}), non-expanded. By performing decouplings, terms
of third order are reduced to linear ones, and terms of fourth order to
quadratic ones. The requirement of absence of $\sin \vartheta $-linear terms
leads to the result for the cone angle $\theta $
\begin{equation}
\cos ^2\theta =\frac 37\left[ 1-X+Y-\frac 1{10}\frac{B_2^0S_2}{B_4^0S_4}%
\left( 1-\frac 7{2S}+6X+Y\right) \right] \label{Teta}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
X &=&\langle \pi _{xi}^2\rangle \equiv \langle \sin ^2\vartheta \cos
^2\varphi \rangle =\sum_{{\bf q}}\frac{J_0-J_{{\bf q}}}{2E_{{\bf q}}}\coth
\frac{E_{{\bf q}}}{2T}, \nonumber \\
\;Y &=&\langle \pi _{yi}^2\rangle \equiv \langle \sin ^2\vartheta \sin
^2\varphi \rangle =\sum_{{\bf q}}\frac{J_0-J_{{\bf q}}+\Delta _0/S}{2E_{{\bf %
q}}}\coth \frac{E_{{\bf q}}}{2T},
\end{eqnarray}
and the ``bare'' magnon spectrum reads
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{{\bf q}} &=&S\sqrt{(J_0-J_{{\bf q}})(J_0-J_{{\bf q}}+\Delta _0/S)}
\label{Eq} \\
\Delta _0 &=&2\left[ 3B_2^0S_2\cos 2\theta -10B_4^0S_4(28\cos ^4\theta
-27\cos ^2\theta +3)\right] , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
$\Delta _0$ being the energy gap. The corrections in (\ref{Teta}) can be
collected into powers in the same way as in Refs.\cite{Rast2,OurSSWT} to
obtain the correct description of thermodynamics at not too low
temperatures. (In the presence of higher-order anisotropy this is essential
since the coefficients at $X,Y$ increase as $\sim l^2/2$ with anisotropy
order.) Then we have
\begin{equation}
\cos ^2\theta =\frac 37\frac{Z_X}{Z_Y}\left[ 1-\frac 1{10}\frac{B_2^0(T)S_2}{%
B_4^0(T)S_4}\right] \label{Teta1}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
B_2^0(T)=Z_X^2Z_YB_2^0,\;B_4^0(T)=Z_X^9Z_YB_4^0 \label{AnisRen}
\end{equation}
are the temperature-renormalized anisotropy constants,
\begin{equation}
Z_X=1+\frac 1{2S}-X,\;Z_Y=1+\frac 1{2S}-Y
\end{equation}
The relations (\ref{AnisRen}) extend the results of Refs. (\cite
{Tb,TbDy1,GdTbDy,TbDy2}) to the case where spins make a non-zero angle with
the $z$-axis. The renormalized gap has the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta &=&6\cos 2\theta \,B_2^0S_2-20B_4^0S_4\left[ 3(1-7\widetilde{X}%
)-3\,\cos ^2\theta \,\left( 9-56\widetilde{X}-7\widetilde{Y}\right) \right.
\nonumber \\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \left. +28\,\cos ^4\theta \,\left( 1-6\widetilde{X}-\widetilde{%
Y}\right) \right] -196\sin ^2\theta \cos ^2\theta \nonumber \\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times \sum_{k,\omega _n}\left[ \frac{3B_2^0S_2(J_0-J_{{\bf k%
}})-10B_4^0(S_4/S)\Delta _0\cos ^2\theta }{\omega _n^2+S^2(J_0-J_{{\bf k}%
})(J_0-J_{{\bf k}}+\Delta _0/S)}\right] ^2 \label{SpRen}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\widetilde{X}=X-1/(2S),$ $\widetilde{Y}=Y-1/(2S)$. After introducing
the temperature-renormalized second- and fourth order anisotropy parameters $%
D(T)$ and $D^{\prime }(T),$
\begin{eqnarray}
D(T)S^2 &=&3B_2^0(T)S_2-30B_4^0(T)S_4, \label{rel1} \\
D^{\prime }(T)S^4 &=&35B_4^0(T)S_4\left( Z_Y/Z_X\right) , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
the expression for $\cos \theta $ coincides with that of the
phenomenological theory (\ref{ct}). Collecting again corrections in (\ref
{SpRen}) into powers, we obtain for the renormalized gap in the notations (%
\ref{rel1}) the expression
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta &=&2D(T)S^2\cos 2\theta +2D^{\prime }(T)S^4\cos ^4\theta +6D^{\prime
}(T)S^4\sin ^2\theta \cos ^2\theta \nonumber \\
&&\ \ \ \ -196\sin ^2\theta \cos ^2\theta \sum_{k,\omega _n}\left[ \frac{%
3B_2^0S_2(J_0-J_{{\bf k}})-10B_4^0(S_4/S)\Delta _0\cos ^2\theta }{\omega
_n^2+S^2(J_0-J_{{\bf k}})(J_0-J_{{\bf k}}+\Delta _0/S)}\right] ^2
\end{eqnarray}
which also coincides with that obtained in the phenomenological theory
except for the last term. Note that at $\theta >0$ the renormalizations (\ref
{rel1}) are present even at $T=0,$ which should be taken into account when
treating experimental data.
\section{Orientational phase transitions}
Now we can pass to description of possible orientational phase transitions.
Consider first the case of a small enough constant $B_4^0$ (or,
equivalently, $D^{\prime }$), so that $\cos ^2\theta (0)\;$ is close to
unity. Then $\cos ^2\theta (T)$ increases with temperature and there occurs
a transition to the easy-axis phase at the point determined by
\begin{equation}
\frac 37\frac{Z_X}{Z_Y}\left[ 1-\frac 1{10}\frac{B_2^0(T)S_2}{B_4^0(T)S_4}%
\right] =1 \label{PhT1}
\end{equation}
In the opposite case of a large enough $B_4^0,$ $\cos ^2\theta (0)$ is
small, and $\cos ^2\theta (T)$ decreases with temperature, so that at the
point where
\begin{equation}
B_2^0(T)S_2=10B_4^0(T)S_4 \label{PhT2}
\end{equation}
a phase transition to the easy-plane phase occurs. Thus one can expect that
there exists the critical value $\theta _c$: for $\theta _0=\theta
(0)<\theta _c$ we have a decrease of $\theta (T)$ with $T$ and the phase
transition from cone to easy-axis phase, while for $\pi /2>\theta _0>\theta
_c$ we have an increase of $\theta (T)$ with $T$ and the phase transition
from cone to easy-plane phase. The numerical computations for the simple
cubic lattice (see Fig.1) yield $\theta _c\simeq 50^{\circ }$. Fig.2 shows
the corresponding temperature dependences of the anisotropy constants $D(T),$
$D^{\prime }(T)$. For simplicity, $J_{{\bf q}}$ is taken for the simple
cubic lattice.
The phase transitions described by Eqs. (\ref{PhT1}) and (\ref{PhT2}) are
analogous to those in the phenomenological theory of Ref. \cite{Levitin}
that occur at $D(T)=0$ and $D(T)=-2D^{\prime }(T)S^2,$ respectively.
However, unlike the phenomenological approach, microscopical consideration
leads to either cone to easy-axis or cone to easy-plane transition with
increasing temperature, depending on the zero-temperature value of $\theta .$
At the same time, the transition from the easy-plane to easy-axis structure
(through the intermediate cone phase) cannot be explained by purely magnetic
renormalizations of anisotropy constants.
The result (\ref{Teta}) gives the mean-field values of the critical
exponents (e.g., $\beta =1/2$) for both the ground-state and temperature
orientational phase transitions. Unlike the systems discussed in Ref. \cite
{OurITF}, the system under consideration has the dynamical critical exponent
$z=2$ (i.e., single excitation mode with nearly quadratic dispersion is
present). Thus the upper critical dimensionality for the ground-state QPT is
$d_c^{+}=4-z=2.$ In this respect, the system is analogous to $XY$ model in
the transverse magnetic field \cite{XY-TF}. A characteristic feature of such
systems is the mean-field behavior of critical exponents both above and
below the critical dimensionality. For (hypothetical) systems with $d=2$
logarithmic corrections to ground-state properties near QPT are present
(see, e.g., Ref. \cite{Sachdev}). At the same time, the upper critical
dimensionality for the temperature phase transition is $d_{cT}^{+}=4,$ and
at $d<d_{cT}^{+}$ the temperature-transition critical exponents differ from
their mean-field values.
Now we discuss the experimental situation. In Gd (see, e.g., Refs. \cite
{Coqblin,JensenBook}) the orientational phase transition from cone-phase to
easy-axis phase is observed at $T_c=240$K. The temperature dependence of the
cone angle at $T<T_c$ (and also of magnetic anisotropy constants) is
non-monotonous, unlike the results obtained in Sect 2. This complicated
situation is connected with the absence of orbital momentum and smallness of
anisotropy in gadolinium.
In holmium the low-temperature phase is conical spiral one, the angle of the
cone changing from $\approx 80^{\circ }$ to $90^{\circ }$ in the temperature
interval $0-20K.$ The spiral angle makes up about $30^{\circ }.$ Since the
sixth-order anisotropy is important, we use the Hamiltonian \cite{Jensen}
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_{\text{Ho}}={\cal H}+B_6^0\sum_i(O_6^0)_i+B_6^6\sum_i(O_6^6)_i
\label{HHo}
\end{equation}
The hcp lattice is not of a Bravais type. However, if we neglect the optical
mode (which is possible at $T\ll T_N=133$ K) one can put (see, e.g., Ref.
\cite{Coqblin})
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{{\bf q}} &=&2J\left[ \cos q_x+2\cos (q_x/2)\cos (\sqrt{3}q_y/2)\right]
\nonumber \\
&&\ \ \ \ +2J^{\prime }\cos \frac{q_z}2\left| \exp (iq_y/\sqrt{3})+2\cos
\frac{q_x}2\exp (-iq_y/2\sqrt{3})\right|
\end{eqnarray}
The parameters of the Hamiltonian were taken from Ref. \cite{Jensen}: $%
J=0.65 $K$,$ $J^{\prime }=0.6J,\;B_2^0=0.35$K,\ $B_4^0=0,\;B_6^0=-1.1\cdot
10^{-5}$K, $B_6^6=1.07\cdot 10^{-4}$K (note that our value of $B_2^0$
includes also renormalization due to dipolar anisotropy). For simplicity, we
restrict ourselves to a collinear magnetic structure (this is justified by
that the spiral angle in the rare earths is small, especially at low
temperatures). The calculations with the Hamiltonian (\ref{HHo})\ are
completely analogous to those in the previous Section. Calculated dependence
of the cone angle is compared with the result of the mean-field
approximation and experimental data in Fig.3. One can see that our results
improve somewhat those of the mean-field theory where the temperature
dependence of the anisotropy constants is given by (\ref{Zener}).
To conclude, we have formulated a consistent spin-wave approach to
description of thermodynamic properties of anisotropic magnets at low
temperatures. The renormalizations of the anisotropy constants and spin-wave
spectrum for an arbitrary cone angle are calculated. This gives a
possibility to describe the orientational phase transition between the cone
and plane phases.
We are grateful to J.Jensen for comments concerning the experimental
situation in holmium.
{\sc Figure captions}
Fig.1. The theoretical temperature dependences of the cone angle $\theta (T)$
for $S=7/2$ and different values of second-order anisotropy: $D/J=0.004;$ $%
0.005;$ $0.006$ from upper to lower curve. The value of $D^{\prime }/J$ is $%
3.7\cdot 10^{-4}.$
Fig.2. The temperature dependences of the anisotropy constants $D(T),$ $%
D^{\prime }(T)$ corresponding to Fig.1.
Fig.3. Calculated dependences of the cone angle in the mean-field
approximation (short-dashed line) and renormalized spin-wave theory (RSWT,
long-dashed line) as compared with experimental points for holmium (Refs.
\cite{Coqblin,HoEx1}).
|
\section{Introduction}
Semiconductor superlattices continue
to attract substantial interest both among fundamental and applied
researchers.
One motivating factor is the possibility of tailoring the miniband
structure\cite{ESA70,SHI75,GRA95a} for device purposes. Furthermore,
a large variety of other physical phenomena such as the formation of
Wannier-Stark ladders \cite{MEN90}, negative differential
conductance \cite{SIB90}, and Bloch oscillations\cite{LEO96}
can be observed in superlattices.
The presence of minibands has been probed directly
by investigating the transmission of ballistic electrons
through short semiconductor superlattices \cite{KUA92,RAU97}.
In recent experiments the quenching of the miniband structure
by an applied electric field was also demonstrated \cite{RAU97a}.
Comparison of further experiments with theoretical
calculations indicated a strong influence of scattering on the transmission,
and it was argued that interface roughness might cause significant
deviations from pure ballistic transmission through the
sample\cite{RAU98,WAC99a}.
A good understanding of the transmission characteristics through
short superlattices is important as these structures are used as energy filters.
For example, in quantum cascade lasers, superlattice filters are used to
selectively populate the upper energy level of the active region \cite{CAP97}.
The most straightforward way to calculate the transmission through
a superlattice is the transfer matrix method \cite{TSU73}.
Alternatively, the Schr{\"o}dinger equation of
the superlattice can be solved directly.
These methods typically assume homogeneity in the direction
perpendicular [the $(x,y)$-plane] to the superlattice. The momenta
in the $(x,y)$-plane are then good quantum numbers and decouple from the
superlattice direction, reducing the problem to a one-dimensional calculation;
see, {\it e.g.}, Ref.~\cite{GLY91}. The one-dimensional calculation
can handle fluctuations \cite{DIE94} in the well or barrier thickness.
However, real samples also exhibit
a lack of periodicity in the $(x,y)$-plane due to the presence of
impurities and interface roughness. This can change the transport properties
essentially, as the states with different parallel momenta couple
to each other. This $(x,y)$-plane inhomogeneity can be tackled by solving the
Schr{\"o}dinger equation on a mesh for the full three dimensional
structure \cite{TIN95}. Alternatively, the method of Green-functions,
based on Ref.~\cite{CAR71}, may be used (see Ref.~\cite{DAT95}
for an easily accessible presentation of the method). Recently such an approach
has been presented for a full calculation of the current through
a resonant tunneling diode where both interface roughness and
phonon scattering have been taken into account \cite{LAK97}.
However, these simulations use a fine grid and are hence unsuitable
for longer structures such as superlattices consisting of many wells,
since the number of grid points increases dramatically.
In this paper we propose a new method for such calculations which
significantly reduces the computational complexity.
We treat the inhomogeneity in the $(x,y)$-plane by averaging over
disorder configurations. The number of grid points
in the $z$-direction is reduced significantly by restricting to the basis set to the
Wannier functions localized in the wells. This Wannier approximation is shown
to be valid near the resonance condition if the energy gap between the minibands
is large compared to the bias and the widths of the minibands
themselves. We compare our results to calculations on a finite grid
and find good agreement. Our method has the advantage that it corresponds
to infinitely large cross-sections and hence, unlike the finite-grid
calculations, does not show configuration dependent fluctuations.
The paper is organized as follows.
We present the general model within which
our calculations are performed in section \ref{SecGenformal}. In section
\ref{SecApplication}, we describe the
approximations which allow us to perform practical calculations of extended
superlattice structures. Our results are presented in section \ref{Secresults}
and we conclude with a summary. Appendix \ref{SecImpurityav}
shows the equivalence of the Landauer-B\"uttiker transmission formalism
with the approach by
nonequilibrium Green functions for the case of impurity averaging.
In appendix \ref{SecAccuracy}
we justify the approximations used in section \ref{SecApplication}.
As many different symbols appear in this paper, for easy reference
we display the frequently used ones in Table 1.
\section{General formalism}
\label{SecGenformal}
In this paper, we study transport through a superlattice contacted
to external voltage sources via leads.
We model the superlattice as an active central region
coupled to noninteracting lead regions. This is the general
approach described in Refs.~\onlinecite{CAR71,DAT95,MEI92,JAU94} and
\onlinecite{HAU96}.
In this section we briefly review this approach, introduce our notation,
and discuss the issue of impurity averaging.
We divide the sample into a central region C and
lead regions, indexed by $\ell$. The Hamiltonian is
\begin{equation}
\hat H = \hat H_C + \sum_{\ell} \hat H_\ell +
\hat H_{{\ell}C} + \hat H_{{\ell}C}^\dagger
\end{equation}
Here $\hat H_C$ and $\hat H_\ell$ are the terms for the
central structure and leads, respectively, and
$\hat H_{{\ell}C}$ is the coupling term from the center to the lead
$\ell$.
In this paper, we ignore electron--electron interactions beyond Hartree
so all the above terms are single-particle-like.
The central structure has states with the wave function
$\phi_{C,j}(\vec{r})$, where $j$ is the eigenstate index.
We assume that each lead $\ell$ is disorder-free so that the eigenstates
can be separated into transverse and longitudinal parts,
$\phi_{{\ell}\alpha q}(\vec{r})=\chi_{{\ell}\alpha}({\bf r})
\varphi^{\ell}_{q}(z)$,
where $z$ is the spatial coordinate in the direction towards the central
structure and ${\bf r}$ is a two-dimensional vector perpendicular to $z$.
The index $\alpha$ numbers the modes within a given lead. The index
$q$ denotes the behavior far away from the central region where
$\varphi^{\ell}_q(z) \sim e^{iqz}$ is assumed.
\subsection{Green functions and current through structure}
The current through a structure can be determined by
the Green function of the structure {\sl in the presence of
coupling to the leads}, given by a matrix {\bf G} with matrix elements
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
G^{<}_{ij}(t,t')&=& i\langle \hat{c}_j^\dagger(t') \hat{c}_i(t)\rangle\\
G^{\rm ret\atop adv}_{ij}(t,t') &=& \mp i \langle\{\hat{c}_i(t),
\hat c_j^\dagger(t')\}\rangle\ \theta(\pm (t-t')\;) .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
Here $\hat{c}_i^\dagger\;(\hat{c}_i)$ are fermion creation
(annihilation) operators of states $\phi_{C,i}$ in the central
region, and $\{\cdots,\cdots\}$ denote anticommutators.
In the following we consider time-independent problems, so that
${\bf G}$ only depends on $t-t'$, and we work in energy-space by Fourier
transforming ${\bf G}$ with respect to $t-t'$.
The net current from mode $\alpha$ in lead $\ell$ into the structure
is given by\cite{MEI92,HAU96}
\begin{equation} \begin{split}
J_{\ell\alpha} =2 \frac{ie}{\hbar}\int\frac{dE}{2\pi}
{\rm Tr}\big\{&\boldsymbol{\Gamma}_{\ell\alpha}(E) \left[{\bf G}^{<}(E)\right.\\
&\left. +f_{\ell\alpha}(E)\left({\bf G}^{\rm ret}(E)-{\bf G}^{\rm adv}(E)\right)
\right]\big\} \, .\label{EqCurrentalpha}
\end{split}\end{equation}
Here $f_{\ell\alpha}(E)$ gives the occupation of a state with
energy $E$ in lead $\ell$ for the mode $\alpha$,
$e<0$ is the charge of the electron, and $\boldsymbol{\Gamma}_{l,\alpha}$
is a parameter
describing the coupling between the states in the central region and the
leads [see Eq.\ (\ref{Eqdefine-Gamma}) below]. The factor of 2 is for
spin.
To describe transmission through the superlattice, we need to
obtain expressions for the right hand side of
Eq.\ (\ref{EqCurrentalpha}). We do so as follows.
We first define $\hat H_{C,0}$ and $\hat H_{C}'$,
as the ordered, solvable part and the disordered part of the central
region Hamiltonian, respectively, and $\hat H_C = \hat H_{C,0} + \hat H_{C}'$.
The retarded Green function for the structure is determined by the equation
(see Ref.~\cite{HAU96}, chapter 12)
\begin{equation}
\left( E-{\bf H}_{C,0}-\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{C}^{\rm ret} -
\sum_{\ell\alpha}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{\rm ret}_{\ell\alpha}(E)\right)
{\bf G}^{\rm ret}(E)=\boldsymbol{1}\,. \label{EqGret}
\end{equation}
The term $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{\rm ret}_C$ is the irreducible self-energy
due to $\hat H_{C}'$. In cases where $\hat H_C'$ contains interparticle
interactions, $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{\rm ret}_C$ is often very difficult to calculate;
however, for static disorder, simply
$\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{\rm ret}_C = {\bf H}_C'$.
The term $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{\rm ret}_{\ell\alpha}(E)$
gives the self-energy contributions due to the coupling of the central region
to lead $\ell$ and mode $\alpha$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma^{\rm ret}_{\ell\alpha,ij}(E)&=&
\sum_q \langle \phi_{C,i}|\hat{H}_{\ell C}^\dagger|\phi_{\ell\alpha q}\rangle
\langle \phi_{\ell\alpha q}|\hat{H}_{\ell C}|\phi_{C,j}\rangle\;
g^{\rm ret}_{\ell\alpha q}(E)\nonumber \\
&=&\frac{L_{\ell}}{2\pi}\int_0^{\infty} dE_q\ \frac{2}{\hbar v_q}
\langle \phi_{C,i}|\hat{H}_{\ell C}^\dagger|\phi_{\ell\alpha q}\rangle
\nonumber \\
&&\phantom{\frac{L_{\ell}}{2\pi}\int_0^{\infty} dE_q}
\langle \phi_{\ell\alpha q}|\hat{H}_{\ell C}|\phi_{C,j}\rangle\;
g^{\rm ret}_{\ell\alpha q}(E)
\label{Eqsigmaalpha}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have taken the continuum limit
$\sum_q\to L_{\ell}/2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dq$ ($L_\ell$ is the
length of lead $\ell$).
The factor $2$ results from the two possible
values $\pm q$ for a given energy $E_q$,
$g^{\rm ret}_{\ell\alpha q}(E)=1/(E-E_q-E_{\ell\alpha}+i0^+)$ is the
free-particle Green function of the lead in absence of the central
region, $E_q=\hbar^2q^2/2m^*$, $v_q=\hbar q/m^*$ and
$E_{{\ell},\alpha}$ is the lateral energy of the mode $\alpha$. Here $m^*$
is the effective electron mass.
Note that $G_{ij}^{\rm adv}(E) = [G_{ji}^{\rm ret}(E)]^*$, since
we have a time-independent system.
The coupling parameter $\boldsymbol{\Gamma}_{\ell\alpha}$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\Gamma}_{\ell\alpha,ij}(E)
&=&i\left[{\Sigma}^{\rm ret}_{\ell\alpha,ij}(E)-
{\Sigma}_{\ell\alpha,ij}^{\rm adv}(E)\right]\nonumber \\
&\equiv&\frac{2 L_{\ell}\langle \phi_{C,i}|\hat{H}^\dagger_{\ell C}|
\phi_{\ell\alpha\; q(E-E_{\ell\alpha})}\rangle}
{\hbar v_{q(E-E_{\ell\alpha})}}\nonumber\\
&&\times
\langle \phi_{\ell\alpha\; q(E-E_{\ell\alpha})}|
\hat{H}_{\ell C}|\phi_{C,j}\rangle \;
\Theta(E-E_{{\ell}\alpha})
\label{Eqdefine-Gamma}
\end{eqnarray}
where $q({\cal E})=\sqrt{2m^*{\cal E}}/\hbar$. $\Theta(x)$ is the
Heavyside function with $\Theta(x)=1$ for $x\ge 0$ and
$\Theta(x)=0$ for $x< 0$.
Note that $\Gamma_{\ell\alpha,ij}(E)=0$ for $E<E_{\ell\alpha}$
since there are no propagating states into
which the central-region states can tunnel.
${\bf G}^{<}(E)$ can be obtained by the Keldysh relation\cite{KEL65}
\begin{equation}
{\bf G}^{<}(E)={\bf G}^{\rm ret}(E)
\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^<(E){\bf G}^{\rm adv}(E)\label{EqKeldysh}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^<(E)=\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{<}_{C}(E)+\sum_{{\ell}\alpha}
\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\ell\alpha}^{<}(E).
\label{EqSigmaless}
\end{equation}
Here, $\boldsymbol\Sigma_C^<$ is the self-energy resulting from
scattering inside the
structure. For a fixed disorder potential, this term is identically zero.
The term $\boldsymbol\Sigma_{\ell\alpha}^<(E)$ is the self-energy due to
the presence of the coupling to the leads,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma_{\ell\alpha,ij}^<(E)&=&
\sum_q \langle \phi_{C,i}|\hat{H}_{\ell C}^\dagger|\phi_{\ell\alpha q}\rangle
\langle \phi_{\ell\alpha q}|\hat{H}_{{\ell}C}|\phi_{C,j}\rangle
g^{<}_{\ell\alpha q}(E)\nonumber \\
&=&i\,\Gamma_{\ell\alpha,ij}(E)\, f_{\ell\alpha}(E)\label{EqSigmalessL}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used $g^{<}_{\ell\alpha q}(E)=
-2if_{\ell\alpha}(E)\,{\rm Im}\left\{g^{\rm ret}_{\ell\alpha q}(E)\right\}$.
The occupation function $f_{\ell\alpha}(E)$ in lead $\ell$
and is given by the externally imposed conditions.
Usually, the leads are assumed to be in
thermal equilibrium and hence a Fermi distribution with chemical potential
$\mu_{\ell}$, independent of $\alpha$, is used. In contrast, the
different modes can be populated individually by injection, as discussed
later, so that we want to keep the full function $f_{\ell\alpha}(E)$.
\subsection{Relation to the Landauer-B{\"u}ttiker approach}
The Landauer-B\"uttiker approach has been used extensively to
study transmission through mesoscopic structures, and consequently
many people are familiar with the formalism.
As the Keldysh formulation is not as widely known,
in this subsection we demonstrate the equivalence of the
two approaches for transport through a system with static disorder.
The retarded and advanced Green functions can be expressed in terms
of $\Gamma$ via
\begin{equation}
{\bf G}^{\rm ret}(E)-{\bf G}^{\rm adv}(E)=-i{\bf G}^{\rm ret}(E)
\boldsymbol{\Gamma}(E){\bf G}^{\rm adv}(E)\label{Eqspectral}
\end{equation}
where the total scattering rate $\boldsymbol{\Gamma}$ has two contributions
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Gamma}(E)=
i\left[\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{{\rm ret}}_{C}(E)
-\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{{\rm adv}}_{C}(E)\right]+
\sum_{\ell\alpha}\boldsymbol{\Gamma}_{\ell\alpha}(E)
\end{equation}
resulting from scattering inside the structure and transitions into the leads.
If the scattering within the structure itself is purely elastic and
is treated in a particular fixed configuration as a potential in
Eq.~(\ref{EqGret}),
then $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{\rm ret}_C = {\bf H}_C'$
and $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{<}_C(E)=0$; hence we may insert
Eqs.~(\ref{EqKeldysh}) and (\ref{Eqspectral}) into
Eq.~(\ref{EqCurrentalpha}) and find the Landauer-B{\"u}ttiker
expression \cite{MEI92,BUE90}
\begin{equation}
J_{\ell\alpha}=2 \frac{e}{\hbar}\int\frac{dE}{2\pi}
\sum_{\ell'\beta} T_{\ell\alpha\leftarrow \ell'\beta}(E)
\left[f_{\ell\alpha}(E)-f_{\ell'\beta}(E)\right]
\label{EqBuett}
\end{equation}
(factor of 2 for spin) with the transmission matrix
\begin{equation}
T_{\ell\alpha\leftarrow \ell'\beta}(E)=
{\rm Tr}\left\{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}_{\ell\alpha}(E)
{\bf G}^{\rm ret}(E)
\boldsymbol{\Gamma}_{\ell'\beta}(E){\bf G}^{\rm adv}(E)\right\}.
\label{Eqtransmat}
\end{equation}
(There are several alternate ways to derive this result; {\it e.g.},
Ref.~\cite{DAT95} uses spatial discretization.) Note that
Eq.~(\ref{Eqtransmat}) does
{\sl not} hold if the scattering process is inelastic or the
elastic scattering by static disorder is
described by a self-energy obtained by configuration averaging.
In both cases
$\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{<}_C(E)\neq 0$ in contrast to the assumption leading to
Eq.~(\ref{EqBuett}).
\subsection{Impurity Averaging}
\label{SubsecImpav}
Eq.\ (\ref{Eqtransmat}) is exact for a given configuration of impurities
and roughness, {\it i.e.}, for a specific ${\bf H}_C'$. However,
obtaining the transmission by simulating individual configurations is not
computationally efficient, and hence it is advantageous to average over
impurity configurations. In particular, such a procedure reestablishes
symmetries which are broken by specific impurity configurations, thus
simplifying the calculation significantly.
After impurity averaging, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\overline{\bf G}^{\rm ret}(E) =
[E + i0^+ - {\bf H}_{C,0} - {\boldsymbol{\overline\Sigma}}_C^{\rm ret}
(E) - \sum_{\ell}
{\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}_{\ell}^{\rm ret}(E)]^{-1},
\label{EqGretav}
\end{equation}
where the overlines indicate averages over disorder configurations in
the central region. Note that the disorder averaging introduces
non-zero self-energies $\overline{\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}_C^{\rm ret}(E)$ and
$\overline{\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}_C^{<}(E)$.
As $\overline{\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}_C^{<}(E)\neq 0$ one
cannot simply use Eq.\ (\ref{Eqtransmat}) with the $G$'s replaced
by $\overline{G}$.
In order to describe configuration-averaged elastic scattering within the
transmission formalism, the averaging must be performed for the total
transmission matrix in Eq.~(\ref{Eqtransmat}), and not just on the
individual $G^{\rm ret}$ and $G^{\rm adv}$.
This procedure is similar to the calculation of bulk conductivities
using the Kubo formula, where it is crucial to include vertex corrections
which fulfill the Ward-identity (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{DON74}).
We perform such a calculation in appendix \ref{SecImpurityav}
for the superlattice structure discussed in section \ref{SecApplication}.
We use the self-consistent Born-approximation for the scattering
and therefore the appropriate vertex function is the so-called ladder approximation.
The application of the more general Keldysh approach to calculate the current in
the configuration averaged case is more straightforward, in that one {\em can} replace
the $G$ by $\overline{G}$ in Eq.~(\ref{EqCurrentalpha}).
Therefore, in order to evaluate the current,
we need $\overline{\bf G}^<(E)$ and $\overline{\bf G}^{\rm ret}(E)$.
The general iterative procedure for computing these is as follows.\label{Secprocedure}
First the self-energies $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\ell}^{\rm ret}(E)$
and $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\ell}^<(E)$ due to the
leads are evaluated by Eqs.~(\ref{Eqsigmaalpha})
and (\ref{EqSigmalessL}). As these terms are independent
of disorder configuration,
these need only be evaluated once and then stored.
With $\boldsymbol{\overline{\Sigma}}_C^{{\rm ret},<}$ initially set equal to zero,
$\overline{\bf G}^<$ and $\overline{\bf G}^{\rm ret}$ are calculated.
These $\overline{\bf G}$'s are
used to calculate the $\boldsymbol{\overline{\Sigma}}_C$'s,
via an appropriate approximation scheme.
The updated $\boldsymbol{\overline{\Sigma}}_C$'s are used to generate new
$\overline{\bf G}$'s via
Eqs.~(\ref{EqKeldysh}) and (\ref{EqGretav}), and the
process is iterated until convergence is achieved.
Finally, the current is evaluated with
Eq.~(\ref{EqCurrentalpha}).
In Appendix \ref{SecImpurityav} we show explicitly that the
ladder approximation for the vertex function in the transmission formulation
yields the same equations as the Keldysh approach within the self-consistent
Born approximation, demonstrating the equivalence of the two methods for
impurity scattering. Nevertheless the Keldysh approach
seems to be conceptually easier as there is only one place within this formulation
where an approximation is made; {\em i.e.}, in the self-energy. In contrast, with
the transmission formalism, errors can occur if the vertex function does not fulfill
the Ward identity, providing a pitfall to trap the uninitiated and unwary.
\section{Application to a superlattice structure}
\label{SecApplication}
Let us consider the superlattice structure sketched
schematically in Fig.~\ref{Figstruktur}.
The superlattice consists of $N$ identical wells
embedded in $N+1$ barriers. A bias $U$ is applied to the structure
yielding constant
potentials $U_L$ and $U_R=U_L+eU$ at the left and right contact,
respectively.
In order to perform calculations we now specify the
basis states $\phi_{C,j}(\vec{r})$ and $\chi_{\ell\alpha}({\bf r})$ for our
superlattice structure.
The lead index $\ell$ takes two different values $L$ and $R$,
for the left and right contact region, respectively.
For superlattices with a large cross section $A$ it
is natural to use a basis of plane waves
$e^{i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf r}}/\sqrt{A}$
for the transverse coordinates $(x,y)$ both in the lead regions
and in the superlattice itself.
Then the index $\alpha$ of the
states in the leads is
replaced by ${\bf k}$ and we have
$E_{(L/R,{\bf k})}=E_k+U_{L/R}$, where $E_k=\hbar^2k^2/2m$.
\subsection{Wannier approximation for a superlattice\label{SecWA}}
Let us now consider the central region; {\it i.e.,} the superlattice structure
itself.
In order to make a calculation tractable, we restrict ourselves
to a subset of the basis functions of total Hilbert space,
ignoring irrelevant high energy states.
With respect to the $z$-direction inside the superlattice
we use a basis of Wannier-functions
$\Psi_n(z)$ ($n=1,\ldots N$) from the lowest miniband
which are maximally localized in well $n$\cite{KOH59}.
Such a basis has been successfully applied to superlattice transport
\cite{WAC98}. This approximation, which we call the Wannier
approximation (WA), neglects higher mini-bands, and
its validity is discussed in the Appendix \ref{SecAccuracy}.
There we demonstrate that this approximation gives good results
for the transmission probability provided that the miniband width
is smaller than the energy of the center of the miniband and
the energy range of interest is sufficiently below the
levels corresponding to the higher miniband states.
The states $\phi_{C,j}$ within the superlattice are, within the WA,
given by products $\Psi_n(z)e^{i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf r}}/\sqrt{A}$, which can be
labeled by $(n,{\bf k})$.
Within the superlattice, the Green-function is determined by Eq.~(\ref{EqGret})
which in the WA basis reads
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sum_{n'{\bf k}'}
\left[(E-E^a-E_k-U_n)\delta_{{\bf k},{\bf k}'}\delta_{n,n'}
-H_{n{\bf k},n'{\bf k}'}\right.\\
-T_1\delta_{{\bf k},{\bf k}'}\left(\delta_{n,n'+1}+\delta_{n,n'-1}\right)
\left.-\sum_{\ell\alpha}\Sigma^{\rm ret}_{\ell\alpha;\;n{\bf k},\,n'{\bf k}'}(E)
\right]\\
G^{\rm ret}_{n'{\bf k}',m{\bf k}_1}(E)=\delta_{{\bf k},{\bf k}_1}\delta_{n,m}
\label{EqGreenWannk}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here, $U_n$ denotes the potential in the well $n$ (see Fig.~\ref{Figstruktur})
which is due to an external bias.
(The mean-field potential induced by the carriers in the structure can be
added as well.)
$T_1$ is the coupling between the wells and $E^a$ is the level energy of the
Wannier state relative to the bottom of the well.
For a given structure, we calculate $T_1$ and $E^a$ as follows.
We consider first an infinite superlattice of the same composition.
The eigenstates in the infinite superlattice are Bloch functions with the
miniband dispersion $E^a(q)$. $E^a$ is then identified as the center of the
miniband
$d/(2\pi)\int dq E^a(q)$ and $T_1= d/(2\pi) \int dq E^a(q)\cos(qd)$, where
$d$ is the period of the superlattice \cite{WAC98}; {\it i.e.}, $|T_1|$
is about a fourth of the miniband width.
Finally, $H_{n{\bf k},n'{\bf k}'}$
is the disorder scattering matrix element.
If we average over disorder configurations the
translational invariance in the $(x,y)$-plane is restored,
and consequently, all impurity-averaged
quantities are diagonal in ${\bf k}$ parallel to the $(x,y)$-plane.
Therefore we are able to use the notation
$\overline{G}_{n{\bf k},\, m{\bf k}}(E) \equiv \overline{G}_{nm}({\bf k},E)$
and matrices ${\bf G}({\bf k},E)$ and $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}({\bf k},E)$
have the components $G_{nm}({\bf k},E)$ and $\Sigma_{nm}({\bf k},E)$,
respectively.
\subsection{Estimating the coupling and wide band limit}
\label{SecCoupling}
The coupling with the mode ${\bf k}$ in the left contact yields,
from Eq.~(\ref{Eqsigmaalpha}), the self energy
\begin{equation}\begin{split}
&\Sigma^{\rm ret}_{L{\bf k};\;n{\bf k}_1,\, n'{\bf k}_2}(E)=
\delta_{n,1}\delta_{n',1}
\delta_{{\bf k}_1,{\bf k}}\delta_{{\bf k}_2,{\bf k}} \\
&\phantom{\Sigma}\times \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{\infty} dE_q\
\frac{2L_L|V_q|^2}{\hbar v_q}
\frac{1}{E-E_q-E_{\bf k}-U_L+i0^+}
\label{EqSigmawannierk}
\end{split}\end{equation}
where $V_q=\langle \varphi_{q}^L(z)|\hat{H}_{LC}|\Psi_1(z)\rangle$
is the $z$-dependent part
of the matrix element for the coupling to the leads.
Here we neglect the coupling to the inner wells $(n\neq 1)$, which should
be small.
The right contact gives the same term except with replacements
$\delta_{n,1}\rightarrow \delta_{n,N}$ and $U_L,L_L\rightarrow U_R,L_R$.
If the transmission function is strongly
determined by resonances, only a small energy range of $E\approx E^a+U_L+E_k$
contributes to the transmission. In this range we neglect the
$q$ dependence of the coupling and extend the lower limit of the
integration in Eq.~(\ref{EqSigmawannierk}) to $-\infty$.
Then we obtain for the left lead
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma^{\rm ret}_{L{\bf k};\; n{\bf k}_1,\,n',{\bf k}_2}(E)&=&
\delta_{n,1}\delta_{n',1}
\delta_{{\bf k}_1,{\bf k}}\delta_{{\bf k}_2,{\bf k}}
\frac{-i}{2} \Gamma_L
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_L=\frac{2L_L|V_{q(E^a)}|^2}{\hbar v_{q(E^a)}}.
\end{equation}
This approximation is often referred to as wide band limit.
Note that this limit becomes problematic if the voltage drop
across the first barrier becomes large, as this changes the
relevant values of $E$ and it cannot be regarded as constant
[see also Appendix \ref{SecAccuracy}].
Now we want to estimate the value of $|V_q|^2$.
For $E_q\approx E^a$ the wavefunction $\varphi_{q}^L(z)$ in the left lead
behaves like the Wannier function $\Psi_0(z)=\Psi_1(z+d)$
which is localized in a fictitious additional well on the left side
of the structure.
Now $\varphi_{q}^L(z)$ is normalized to $L_L$ while the spatial extension of
the Wannier function is given by $w_{\rm eff}$, which should be slightly larger
than the well width, as the function penetrates into the barriers.
Therefore we may set $\varphi_{q}^L(z)\sim \sqrt{w_{\rm eff}/L_L}\Psi_0(z)$.
Then we can estimate the matrix element
\begin{equation}
\langle \varphi_q^L|H|\Psi_1\rangle\approx
\sqrt{\frac{w_{\rm eff}}{L_L}}\langle \Psi_0|H|\Psi_1\rangle=
\sqrt{\frac{w_{\rm eff}}{L_L}}T_1,
\end{equation}
yielding
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_L\approx \frac{2w_{\rm eff}T_1^2}{\hbar v_{q(E^a)}}.
\end{equation}
For the right contact, $\Gamma_R$ is given by the same value.
\subsection{Interface Roughness}
For ideal structures the potential $H_{n{\bf k},n'{\bf k}'}$
in Eq.~(\ref{EqGreenWannk}) is zero due to the translational
invariance within the $(x,y)$-plane.
However, interface fluctuations leading to well
width fluctuations $\xi_n({\bf r})$ in real samples
break this translational invariance. If interwell
scattering and well-width correlations between
different wells can be neglected,
the averaged square of the scattering matrix element is given
by \cite{GOO85,RID98}
\begin{equation}
\langle |H_{n{\bf k}+{\bf p},n'{\bf k}}|^2\rangle=
\frac{K^2}{A}S({\bf p}) \delta_{n,n'}
\end{equation}
where $K$ is equal to the change of energy
$dE^a/dw$ per well width fluctuation \cite{RefTES} and
$S({\bf p})$ is the Fourier
transformation of the well width correlation function
$\langle \xi_n({\bf r})\,\xi_n({\bf r'})\rangle=f({\bf r}-{\bf r'})$ which
is assumed to be independent of the well index. The theory can be
extended to accommodate interwell scattering and well-width
correlations between different wells (which may result from a
repetition of the microscopic interface structure over several
superlattice periods)
by the inclusion of the appropriate correlation functions
$\langle H_{n_1{\bf k}-{\bf p},n_1'{\bf k}}
H_{n_2{\bf k}+{\bf p},n_2'{\bf k}}\rangle $.
We use an isotropic exponential distribution
$f(r)=\eta^2 \exp(-r/\lambda)$ yielding
\begin{equation}
S({\bf p})= \eta^2 \lambda^2
\frac{2\pi}{\left(1+(p\lambda)^2\right)^{3/2}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\eta$ denotes the standard deviation
and $\lambda$ the in-plane correlation length
of the well-width fluctuation. It is straightforward to implement more
sophisticated distribution functions, which might be obtained
from Monte-Carlo simulations of the growth conditions (see, {\it e.g.,}
Ref.~\cite{GRO95}) or X-ray characterizations of the superlattice structure
(see, {\it e.g.,} Ref.~\cite{GRE98a}).
Within the self-consistent Born approximation we obtain the
self energy $\overline{\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}_{C}$
\begin{equation}
\overline{\Sigma}^{</{\rm ret}}_{C;\; nn}({\bf k},E)=\sum_{\bf k'}
\langle |H_{{\bf k}',{\bf k}}|^2\rangle
\overline{G}^{</{\rm ret}}_{nn}({\bf k}',E)
\end{equation}
which provides the functional needed in the procedure scetched in
section \ref{Secprocedure}.
\section{Results}\label{Secresults}
Let us consider the transmission of ballistic electrons through the
superlattices considered in recent experiments by Rauch {\it et al.}
\cite{RAU97}.
The structure consists of $N$ wells of $6.5$ nm GaAs
and $N+1$ barriers of $2.5$ nm Al$_{0.3}$Ga$_{0.7}$As. We obtain
the band parameters
$E^a=54.5$ meV, $T_1=-5.84$ meV, $K=13.25$ meV/nm and use
$w_{\rm eff}=10.7$ nm, where we obtained the best agreement with
``exact'' calculations; see appendix \ref{SecAccuracy}.
This value is somewhat larger than the well width in good agreement
with the discussion in Section~\ref{SecCoupling}. We assume
thickness fluctuations of half a monolayer $\eta=0.14$ nm around the
nominal value and a correlation length
$\lambda=5$ nm, unless otherwise stated.
Motivated by the relatively sharp electron distribution injected into
the structure, we assume that the electrons occupy the mode ${\bf k}=0$ of the
left contact at an energy $E=E_{in}$; {\it i.e.},
we have $f_{L{\bf k}}(E)=\delta_{{\bf k},0}
\delta(E-E_{in})$ and $f_{R{\bf k}}(E)=0$.
The total current through the right contact is then given by
\begin{equation}
J_R=\sum_{\bf k} J_{R\,{\bf k}}=-\frac{e}{\pi \hbar}
\sum_{\bf k}\int dE\
{\rm Tr}\left\{-i\boldsymbol{\Gamma}_{R{\bf k}}(E) \, {\bf G}^{<}(E)\right\}.
\label{EqJGless}
\end{equation}
This can be expressed via Eq.~(\ref{EqBuett}) by
\begin{equation}
J_R=-\frac{e}{\pi \hbar}
\sum_{\bf k} T_{(R,{\bf k})\leftarrow (L,{\bf 0})}(E_{\rm in}).
\label{EqJtrans}
\end{equation}
For illustrative purpose we calculate the
effective transmission $T(E_{\rm in})=-J_R\pi \hbar/e$ in the following.
Regarding the applied bias we assume a homogeneous
electric field $F$ inside the superlattice and set
$U_L=0$, $U_n=-(n-1/2)eFd-eFb/2$ and $U_R=-NeFd-eFb=eU$ where $b$ is
the barrier width.
In the experiments considered, there is no charge accumulation inside
the structure as there is on average less than one electron inside
the structure at a given time. If necessary such effects can be
easily taken into account by solving the Poisson equation for the
electron density given by
\begin{equation}
N_n=\frac{-i}{2\pi A}\sum_{\bf k}\int dE\ \overline{G}^<_{nn}({\bf k},E)\, .
\end{equation}
In Fig.~\ref{FigTrough} we show the effective transmission with and without
scattering. In both cases we find a series of peaks, equal to the number
of quantum wells, which reflect the eigenstates of the superlattice
structure. For $U= 0$
the peak maxima reach the value 1 for the ideal
superlattice. The broadening of these peaks results from the
coupling to the leads and is of the order $(\Gamma_R+\Gamma_L)/N$.
In contrast the maxima are lower and the widths are wider for the
calculation including scattering. These effects becomes more pronounced
with increasing superlattice length as the broadening due to scattering
dominates with respect to the lead induced broadening.
An important quantity is the integrated transmission for a given
potential drop $U$
\begin{equation}
T_{\rm int}(U)=\int dE_{\rm in}\ T(E_{\rm in}; U),
\label{EqTint}
\end{equation}
where the integration is extended over the whole energy range of the band.
This quantity was measured in Ref.~\cite{RAU97,RAU98}. Results are shown
in Fig.~\ref{FigTintrough}. Let us compare the result of the
calculations with (full line) and without
roughness (dotted line) first.
Without interface roughness, the function $T_{\rm int}(U)$ is always
symmetric with respect to $U$. This can be understood from the
symmetry property
of the transmission matrix $T_{\ell\alpha\leftarrow \ell'\beta}(E)=
T_{\ell'\beta \leftarrow \ell\alpha }(E)$
(see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{DAT95}). For an ideal structure, ${\bf k}$
is conserved within the structure and we find
according to Eq.~(\ref{EqJtrans}):
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{\rm int}(U)&=&
\int dE_{\rm in}\sum_{\bf k}\; T_{(R,{\bf k})\leftarrow (L,{\bf 0})}(E_{\rm in}; U)
\nonumber\\
&=&\int dE_{\rm in}\ T_{(R,{\bf 0})\leftarrow (L,{\bf 0})}(E_{\rm in};U)
\nonumber\\
&=&\int dE_{\rm in}\ T_{(L,{\bf 0})\leftarrow (R,{\bf 0})}(E_{\rm in};U)
\end{eqnarray}
Now $T_{(L,{\bf 0})\leftarrow (R,{\bf 0})}(E_{in};U)=
T_{(R,{\bf 0})\leftarrow (L,{\bf 0})}(E_{in}+eU;-U)$ due to the symmetry
of the structure and so we find
$T_{\rm int}(U)=T_{\rm int}(-U)$.
This argument does not hold for a superlattice with interface roughness
as the scattering is able to transfer electrons from state ${\bf k}={\bf 0}$,
where they are injected to a finite value of ${\bf k}$. In this case
kinetic energy $E_k$ is transferred to the $(x,y)$-direction and the electrons
leave the superlattice with a lower $z$-component of the
energy $E_q$. This opens up new channels
for new processes if $U>0$; see also the discussion in Ref.~\cite{WAC99a}.
Therefore the function $T_{int}(U)$ is asymmetric with respect to the bias $U$
as can be clearly seen in Figure~\ref{FigTintrough} (full line).
These findings are in excellent agreement with recent measurements\cite{RAU98}.
In Fig.~\ref{FigTintrough} we have also shown the transmission due
to electrons traversing
the superlattice without scattering (dashed line). This curve is obtained
by neglecting the term $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{<}_{C}(E)$
in Eq.~(\ref{EqSigmaless}). It can be clearly seen that
this curve is symmetric with respect to the bias and its
magnitude is decreasing with increasing sample length.
An alternative way of calculating the transmission has been performed
in Refs.~\cite{WAC99a}. There the Green functions were calculated for
a fixed interface potential following Ref.~\cite{TIN95}. For practical reasons
the size of the samples is relatively small. The diamonds and crosses
refer to two different random interface potentials as shown in
Fig.~\ref{FigInterface} which both have approximately the
same statistical features. The data obtained for the transmission
are not smooth for $U>0$ and exhibit differences between each other.
This indicates that significantly larger areas than $10\times 10$ or
$15\times 15$ grid points must be used for reliable calculations
utilizing this method, which is not practicable. In contrast the method using impurity
averaging presented here gives
a smooth behavior which, in effect, averages the scattered data points
obtained from the previous calculations.
In Fig.~\ref{Fig10ges}(a) we have shown the integrated transmission for different
values of the correlation length for the roughness distributions.
In the range considered we find that the
asymmetry increases with the correlation length of the interface roughness.
This indicates that larger islands lead to an enhancement of scattering
even if the average coverage is identical. The reason is that
scattering events with low momentum transfer is enhanced. Such scattering
events dominate the transport characteristics of the superlattice
due to the energy scales involved in the system. Fig.~\ref{Fig10ges}(b)
shows the increase of the asymmetry with the fluctuation height.
The strong dependence allows for an estimation of the interface quality by
analyzing the experimental transmission data.
\section{Summary and conclusions}
We have presented a formalism to calculate the transmission
of electrons through a finite superlattice in the presence
of scattering processes. Due to impurity averaging
the results are applicable to samples with large
cross-sections. We have also shown that
reasonable results can be obtained by restricting the calculation
to a basis of Wannier-functions. Within this Wannier approximation
all couplings are well defined and can be easily calculated from
the superlattice parameters, with the only slight ambiguity being
the effective normalization width $w_{\rm eff}$, which is
typically a few nanometers larger than the well width.
Although we have only presented results for interface roughness
scattering, the formalism is easily applicable to other elastic scattering
processes, such as impurity scattering, as well. With regard to inelastic
phonon scattering, the formalism holds as well if
Langreth rules \cite{LAN76a,HAU96} are taken into account, which
provide the more complicated functionals for the retarded
and lesser self-energies, see also Ref.~\cite{WAC99b}.
Nevertheless, one encounters the problem
that the Green functions at different energies couple to each other.
Therefore the set of equations which has to be solved self-consistently
becomes significantly larger. The inclusion of electron-electron interaction
within the mean-field model is straightforward.
Our results show that interface roughness gives an enhancement of the electron
transmission for positive biases applied to the superlattice.
The shape of the integrated transmissions depends strongly on the distribution
of the well width fluctuations and allows us to study interface roughness
in semiconductor heterostructures. This provides a
a complementary approach to the usual method of characterization
by luminescence spectra.
\acknowledgements
Helpful discussions with S. Bose, W. Boxleitner, F. Elsholz, E. Gornik,
A.-P. Jauho, G. Kie{\ss}lich, and C. Rauch are acknowledged.
This work has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in
the framework of SFB 296.
|
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank B. Ivanyi for lively and helpful discussions.
We gratefully acknowledge financial support by DFG, BMBF and GSI.
|
\section{Introduction}
It was long ago suggested that black holes should be treated as elementary particles \cite{tHooft}, because both are parametrized only by their mass, angular momentum (or spin) and gauge charges. String theory has made a significant contribution towards putting this assertion on a firm basis. A common feature of black holes and elementary string states is that the degeneracy of states with a given mass increases with it. Unfortunately, for elementary string states the logarithm of the degeneracy of states increases linearly with mass, whereas the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole increases as the square of the mass. There are some cases in which the discrepancy between the two entropies can be removed appealing to the large renormalization of the mass of a black hole\cite{Sus1}.
There are, however, some particular states in string theory, called BPS states, which do not receive any mass renormalization\cite{Witten}. Whereas the logarithm of the degeneracy of BPS states grows linearly with the mass, the area of the event horizon of a BPS or extremal black hole actually vanishes. This motivates the argument\cite{sen} that the entropy of an extremal black hole is not exactly equal to the area of the event horizon, but to the area of a surface close to the event horizon called ``stretched horizon''. By carefully defining the location of the stretched horizon in a consistent way, the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for the black hole entropy can receive corrections in such a way that it correctly reproduces the logarithm of the density of elementary string states.
The stretched horizon of a black hole is defined as the surface where the space-time curvature (in the string metric) becomes large.
It is also the surface where the local Unruh temperature for a stationary observer (constant $r$) is the Hagedorn temperature of the string theory. (The local Unruh temperature becomes infinite at the event horizon).
Specifically, we define the stretched horizon as the surface where the scalar curvature $C=($Riemann$)^2$ is equal to one in Planck's units.
\section{Stretched horizon for the classical solutions}
Throughout, we shall be thinking of black holes as the classical description of a quantum object. The nature of this object is well approximated by (classical) general relativity far away from the horizon. At any rate, we should not expect the metric which solves Einstein's equations to make any sense at distances to the origin smaller than the de Broglie wavelength $\lambda_B= M^{-1}$ for a black hole of mass $M$.
Since we are stringy, it is perhaps more appropriate to use Veneziano's generalized uncertainty principle\cite{Veneziano} $\Delta x \geq \frac{\ell_s^2}{2\hbar} \Delta p + \frac{\hbar}{ \Delta p}$, where $ \ell_s$ is the string scale, $g$ is the string coupling constant and $\ell_p= g \ell_s$ is Planck's length.
So, in Planck units, the metric certainly is not expected to make any sense at radii smaller than
\begin{equation}{\label {veneciano} }
\lambda_V = {\frac1 2} M + {\frac1 M}
\end{equation}
Where is the stretched horizon? If the place where the curvature becomes big (unity in Planck units) is inside the event horizon, then clearly there is no need to stretch it at all. Similarly, if it falls at a radius smaller than $\lambda_V$, there is no point in talking about it. We are interested in finding under what circumstances the stretched horizon is a meaningful and useful concept for non-supersymmetric four-dimensional black holes. In other words, we must find when the stretched horizon is bigger than the event horizon and also bigger than $\lambda_V$ (or $\lambda_B$).
Consider the general solution to the Einstein-Maxwell equations
\begin{eqnarray}\label{metric}
ds^2 = -\left (\frac { {\Delta} - a^2{\sin^2{\theta}}} {\Sigma}\right) dt^2 - \frac{2a \sin^2{\theta}\left( r^2 + a^2 - {\Delta} \right)}{\Sigma} dtd{\phi}\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \nonumber \\
+ \left[ \frac {{\left( r^2 + a^2 \right)}^2 - {\Delta}a^2 \sin^2{\theta}}{\Sigma}\right] \sin^2 {\theta} d{\phi}^2 + \frac {\Sigma}{\Delta} dr^2 + {\Sigma}{d{\theta}}^2,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
A_{\mu} = - \frac {er}{\Sigma} \left[ {(dt)}_{\mu} - a\sin^2 {\theta}({d{\phi}}_{\mu}) \right],
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\Sigma} = r^2 + a^2cos^2{\theta}, \,\,\,\,\,\, {\Delta} = r^2 + a^2 + e^2 - 2Mr,
\end{equation}
Using Mathematica, we have computed the square of the Riemann tensor for this solution, $C$, and evaluated where it becomes one.
For the Schwarszchild black hole ($e=a=0 $) the scalar curvature is simply
\begin{equation}{\label {sch} }
C = \frac{48 M^2}{r^6}
\end{equation}
whereby the stretched horizon radius is
\begin{equation}{\label {rsch} }
r_s = 48^{\frac{1}{6}} M^{\frac{1}{3}}
\end{equation}
Thus, the stretched horizon is always inside the event horizon, except for such ridiculously small masses that the de Broglie wavelength is actually bigger than both.
This continues to be the case for any charged static black hole: in Fig.~1 we plot the critical mass (in Planck units) at which the stretched horizon crosses the event horizon in terms of the charge $e$. Only for masses below the line is the stretched horizon bigger than the event horizon. The curve is essentially flat just below $M\sim 0.95$ when it begins to grow. When $e$ reaches its extremal value $e=1$, $M_c$ reaches 1.09.
So both for Schwarzschild and for Reissner-Nordstr\"om black holes, the stretched horizon is useless.
When $a\ne0$, i.e. for rotating black holes, the situation doesn't change much. The stretched horizon is again bigger than the event horizon only for small masses, but the critical mass below which the stretched horizon is relevant (bigger than the event horizon) is now a few times bigger and grows with $a$. Fig.~2 shows this critical mass when $e=0$ (the plot was computed in the axial direction $\theta=\pi$). In the extremal limit $a\to1$, the critical mass approaches the value $5.5$ corresponding to a stretched horizon radius of $11.0$, which is $3.7$ times bigger than Veneziano's wavelength and $63.9$ times bigger than de Broglie's wavelength.
The charge, in the general Kerr-Newman case, remains rather irrelevant.
\section{Conclusions}
In this work we have shown two things. First, that outside the event horizon of a static black hole, the curvature is always small. Secondly, we have found numerically the critical mass above which the event horizon is bigger than the stretched horizon for a four dimensional black hole. In the extremal limit, it ranges from 1.09 when $a=0$, to $5.5$ when $e=0$. This results are in general consistent, since the temperature near the horizon of a classical black hole is always much smaller than the corresponding temperature of an extremal supersymmetric black hole. Since the critical mass is of order unity in all cases this mean that the stretched horizon is not a very useful concept for four-dimensional non-supersymmetric black holes. Physically, this indicates that only the massless modes of the string can be seen by an outside observer.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=acero.eps,height=2.0in,width=2.5in}}
\vspace{10pt}
\caption{Critical mass $Mc$ for a nonrotating charged black hole.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
\bigskip
\bigskip
\bigskip
\qquad
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centerline{\epsfig{file=ecero.eps,height=2.0in,width=2.5in}}
\vspace{10pt}
\caption{Critical mass $Mc$ for a rotating black hole.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
\bigskip
\bigskip
\bigskip
{\bf Acknowledgements}. This work is supported in part by CONACYT 25504E, DGAPA-UNAM IN103997. C.E. enjoys a scholarship from DGEP-UNAM.
|
\section{Introduction and Motivation}
In \cite {Z1} we proposed a Lagrangian density for the topological part of the
non-sypersymmetric M-theory using Polyakov's flat bundle description
of non-linear $\sigma $ models. The new key ingredient from the geometric
point of view was "characteristic classes for flat bundles". This idea
about using characteristic classes of flat bundles came from the
definition of a new invariant for Haefliger structures \cite{Z2}.
This invariant can be defined for \emph{any} foliation in general; as far as
physics is concerned however (and this includes the case of M-theory
treated in \cite {Z1}), we are primarily concerned with a special kind of folia
tions, called \emph{flat foliations of bundles}. This is due to the fact that a
s Polyakov had noticed in \cite {polyakov},
$\sigma $ models can be thought of as flat principal bundles (se
e \cite{Z1} for more details). Thus, hopefully, our invariant might be of some
relevance whenever $\sigma $ models are met in physics.
We organise this paper as follows: in section 2 we explain the strategy of the
construction; in section 3 we provide all the details; in section 4 we
give the invariant formula; in section 5 we calculate this invariant for the si
mplest case of a principal bundle and in sections 6 and 7
we discuss some possible applications in physics. In section 3 we
review some of the techniques from non-commutative topology which we
shall use for defining the invariant. All other sections contain new
original material.
\section{Strategy}
\subsection{Instantons}
Let us recall some facts about instantons. We would like to think of our
invariant as an \emph{analogue of the instanton number for foliations}.
We consider a principal bundle $(P,\pi,M,G)$, where $M$ is the base
manifold assumed to be compact and 4-dim for brevity, $G$ is SU(2) for simplici
ty, $P$ is the
total space of the bundle and $\pi$ is the projection. Assuming we have a
connection $A$ on $P$ with curvature $F$, then the instanton number
ignoring constants is simply $\int _{M}F\wedge F$, i.e. the second Chern
number $c_2$ of the
bundle $P$.
We would like to think of this number slightly differently: moreorless by
definition, any principal bundle $P$ over $M$ defines an element (K-class)
of the group $K^0(M)$ (we forget equivariant K-theory for simplicity).
Using the Chern-Weil homomorphism we get the Chern classes of $P$ which
belong to the \emph{cohomology} groups $H^{2*}(M)$. Considering the
(top dimensional) fundamental class $[M]$ of $M$ in the
\emph{homology} group $H_*(M)$ of $M$ and taking the \emph{pairing}
between homology and cohomology, which in this case is just integration
over $M$, we get the instanton number. We can consider the Chern-Weil
homomorphism from $K^0(M)\rightarrow H^{2*}(M)$ as a "black box" and
forget
all about cohomology for the moment; then the instanton number will be the
result from pairings between K-theory and (singular) homology $H_*(M)$.
Our construction since we are dealing with foliations (more
accurately with the space of leaves of foliations) which provide a
good example of non-commutative topological spaces, immitates the above
picture: to each foliation we can associate a homology class which will be
the analogue of the fundamental class $[M]$ above; this class however will
belong to an appropriate homology theory called \emph{cyclic homology} and
it is called \emph{transverse fundamental class} of the foliation.
Moreover one can also construct a class in \emph{K-homology}, being the
analogue
of K-theory for our purpose. Then we use a formula for pairings between
cyclic homology and K-homology to get our result.
\subsection{Non-commutative Topology}
In this subsection we would like to mention briefly what non-commutative
topology is about. As its name suggests, this is one aspect of
non-commutative geometry. Non-commutative geometry has appeared in physics
literature some years ago mainly through the so called "quantised
calculus". Anyway, the starting point of non-commutative topology is the
fact that given any compact Hausdorff space $X$ say, the commutative
($C^*$)-algebra $C(X)$ of complex valued functions defined on $X$ can
capture all the toplogical information of the space $X$ itself; in fact
$X$ and $C(X)$ are completely equivalent, one can be uniquely constructed
by the other. Conversely, given any commutative algebra $A$, say, there
exists a compact Hausdorff space $X$ say, (called the spectrum of $A$)
"realising" the commutative algebra $A$. Realising means that the
commutative algebra $C(X)$ of complex valued functions on $X$ is
essentially the algebra $A$. In mathematics terminology one says that the
categories of compact Hausdorff spaces and commutative $C^*$-algebras are
equivalent. This is the so called \emph{Gelfand's theorem}.
We know however that there exist non-commutative $C^*$-algebras as well.
The natural question then is whether one can find a "topological"
realisation for them just like for the commutative ones. We are looking
for a non-commutative analogue of Gelfand's theorem. This question is not
fully answered in mathematics, it is related to the famous Boum-Connes
conjecture. There are some things already known in mathematics and these
are related to foliations. This is what we shall be using extensively in
this paper. The appropriate framework is that of K-theory and various
homology theories.
During the '70s mathematicians (Baum, Douglas, Kasparov and others)
developed a K-theory for arbitrary $C^*$-algebras (commutative or not)
and it is a well-known theorem due to Serre and Swan that in the
commutative
case this K-theory reduces to Atiyah's original topological K-theory.
Moreover in the 80's mathematicians (Connes, Loday, Quillen and others)
developed a homology theory called \emph{cyclic homology} for arbitrary
algebras which again in the commutative case gives in the limit the usual
simplicial homology. So non-commutative topology, in terms of K-theory and
various homology theories gives a generalisation of ordinary topology
through Gelfand's theorem. A good example of a non-commutative topological
space is the space of leaves of a foliation (see below for definitions).
In general quotients of ordinary topological spaces by discrete groups
give non-commutative (abreviated to \emph{"nc"} in the sequel) spaces.
Good textbooks are \cite{wegge} and \cite{loday} for an
introduction on K-theory of $C^*$-algebras and cyclic homology
respectively.
\subsection{The Invariant}
In order to construct our invariant for \emph{any} foliation \cite{Z2},
we use
some
ideas from non-commutative geometry \cite{connes1},
\cite{connes2}, \cite{connes3}, \cite{conness}. The strategy is as
follows: given any foliation
$F$
of a manifold $V$, namely an integrable subbundle $F$ of $TV$, one can
associate to it another manifold $\Gamma (F)$, called the \emph{graph} (or
\emph{holonomy groupoid}) of the foliation introduced in \cite{win}. This is of
dimension
$dimV+dimF$. Using the complex line bundle $\Omega ^{1/2}(\Gamma (F))$
of $1/2$-densities defined
on $\Gamma (F)$, we consider the set (actually vector space) of smooth
sections of this line
bundle equipped with a $*$ product, thus obtaining an algebra. We then
complete this algebra in a "minimal" manner (in standard $C^*$-algebra
theory this is called the \emph{reduced} $C^*$-algebra completion),
thus we obtain a $C^*$-algebra denoted $C^{*}(F)$ which is naturally
associated to our original
foliation $F$. From now on one can forget the original foliation $F$ of
$V$
alltogether and concentrate on its corresponding $C^*$-algebra $C^{*}(F)$.
We are
interested in the $K_0$ group of $C^{*}(F)$ and in its cyclic homology
groups. If
we pick a metric $g$ on the transverse bundle $t$ of
$F$ we can construct in a natural way a $C^{*}(F)$-module $E(F)$,
thus obtaining a class $[E(F)]$ in $K_0(C^{*}(F))$. Moreover to our
foliation one can associate in a natural way a cyclic cocycle $[F]$ in the
q-th cyclic homology group of the $C^*$-algebra $C^*(F)$, called the
\emph{fundamental transverse cyclic cocycle} of the foliation, where $q$
is the codimension of the foliation $F$. Then we use the even
pairing between K-homology and cyclic homology in this case, namely we
consider the pairing
$$\langle [E(F)],[F]\rangle :=(m!)^{-1}(F \# Tr)(E(F),...,E(F))$$
as was firstly introduced in the abstract algebraic context in \cite{connes3}. Hence we
obtain a \emph{complex number} as a result from the above pairing and
this complex number characterises our original foliation $F$.
\section{The constructions in detail:}
\subsection{Foliations}
Let $V$ be a smooth manifold and $TV$ its tangent bundle. A smooth
subbundle $F$ of $TV$ is called \emph{integrable} iff one of the following
equivalent conditions is satisfied:
1. Every $x\in V $ is contained in a submanifold $W$ of $V$ such that
$$T_y(W)=F_y$$
where $T_y$ denotes the tangent space over $y$.
2. Every $x\in V$ is in the domain $U\subset V$ of a submersion
$p:U\rightarrow {\bf R}^q$ (q=codim $F$) with $F_y=ker(p_*)_y\forall y\in U$.
3. $C^{\infty }(V,F)={X\in C^{\infty }(V,TV); X_x\in F_x \forall x\in
V}$ is a Lie subalgebra of the Lie algebra of vector fields on $V$.
4. The ideal $J(F)$ of smooth differential forms which vanish on $F$ is
stable under differentiation:$d(J)\subset J$\\
The condition 3. is simply Frobenius' Theorem and 4. its dual.\\
\emph{Example:}
Any 1-dimensional subbundle $F$ of $TV$ is integrable, but for $dimF\geq
2$ the condition is non-trivial; for instance if $V$ is the total space
of a principal bundle with compact structure group, then we know that
the subbundle of \emph{vertical} vectors is always integrable, but the
\emph{horizontal} subbundle is integrable iff the connection is \textbf{flat}.\\
We shall make extensive use of this fact in this piece of work.
A \emph{foliation} of $V$ is given by an integrable subbundle $F$ of $V$. The
\emph{leaves} of the foliation are the maximal connected submanifolds
$L$ of $V$ with $T_x(L)=F_x \forall x\in L$, and the partition of $V$ into
leaves $V=\cup L_a$ where $a\in A$ is characterised geometrically by
its "local triviality": every point $x\in V$ has a neighborhood $U$ and
a system of local coordinates $(x^j)$, j=1,...,dimV which is called
\emph{foliation chart} , so that the partition of $U$ into connected
components of leaves, called \emph{plaques} (they are the leaves of
the restriction of the foliation on $U$), corresponds to the partition
of ${\bf R}^{dimV}={\bf R}^{dimF}\times {\bf R}^{codimF}$ into the parallel affine
subspaces ${\bf R}^{dimF}\times pt$.
Very simple examples indicate that the leaves $L$ may \textbf{not} be compact even
if the manifold $V$ is and that the space of leaves $X:=V/F$ may \textbf{not} be
Hausdorff for the quotient topology. The "rational torus" is such an example.\\
Throughout this paper we would mainly restrict our attention to \emph{two
special kinds of
foliations:}
we consider a principal bundle $P$ with structure (Lie) group $G$
(assumed compact and connected) over a compact manifold $M$. The total space $P
$ has automatically a foliation
induced by the fibration: the leaves are the fibers which are
isomorphic to the structure group $G$ and the space of leaves is just
the base space $M$ with its manifold topology. We shall be refering to
this foliation as the
\emph{vertical} foliation of the principal bundle and it will be denoted
$P_V$. Clearly, the
dimension of this foliation is equal to the dimension of the group $G$,
the integrable subbundle of $TP$ being in this case the vertical
subbundle. The codimension is equal to the dimension of the
base space $M$.
Now if in addition a flat connection is given on our principal bundle,
we have another foliation of the total space which we
shall be referring to as the \emph{horizontal} or \emph{flat}
foliation and it will be denoted $P_H$.. We shall study this foliation
extensively in the following subsection. The dimension
of this foliation equals the dimension of the base space and the
codimension equals the dimension of the group. From this one can see
that the vertical and the horizontal foliations of a principal bundle
are \emph{transverse} to each other.
Now the vertical foliation behaves very well; everything is compact
and Hausdorff, as were the spaces we started with to build our
bundle. In this case the general theory of foliations gives
nothing more than the well-known theory of principal bundles. However, the
horizontal foliation can suffer
from various "pathological" deffects and for this reason it is interesting
from the ncg point of view. Let us study it in greater detail.
\subsection{Flat foliation of a principal bundle}
To begin with, a flat connection on a principal bundle $P$ with
structure group $G$ and base space $M$, corresponds to
reduction of the structure group from $G$ to a subgroup isomorphic to
a normal subgroup of the fundamental group of
the base space $\pi_1(M)$. Moreover a (gauge equivalence class of a) flat conne
ction
also defines a (conjugacy class of a) representation
$$H:\pi _1(M)\rightarrow G$$
If we identify the fundamental group with the group of covering
translations of the universal covering $\tilde{M}$ of $M$ we get an action
$\varkappa$ of $\pi _1(M)$ on $\tilde{M}\times G$ defined as follows:
$$\varkappa :\pi _1(M)\times (\tilde{M}\times G)\rightarrow
(\tilde{M}\times G)$$
$$(\gamma ,(\tilde{m},g))\mapsto (\gamma (\tilde{m}),H(\gamma )(g))$$
where we use the obvious notation $\gamma\in\pi _1(M), g\in G, \tilde{m}\in M$.
This action gives a commutative diagram:
\begin{equation}
\begin{CD}
\tilde{M}\times G@>pr>>\tilde{M}\\
@V\pi VV @VVqV\\
P'=(\tilde{M}\times G)/\varkappa @>>p>M\\
\end{CD}
\end{equation}
where $pr$ is the canonical projection, $\pi $ is the quotient map by
$\varkappa$, $p$ is uniquely induced by $pr$ and $q$ is just the map from the universal
covering space to the original space.
This construction is called \emph{suspension of the representation
$H$}. One can prove that the map $\pi $ is a covering map and that if
$\digamma :=ImH$ is endowed with the induced topology, then $\xi _H=(P',p,M)$ is
a fiber bundle with fiber $G$, total space $P'$, base $M$, projection $p$ and
structure group $\digamma $.
To study the geometric properties of suspensions we introduce a new
topology on the total space $P'$ of $\xi _H$. We denote by $G^{\delta }$
the set $G$ supplied with the \textit{discrete} topology. Then the action $\varkappa$ of
$\pi _1(M)$ on $\tilde{M}\times G^{\delta }$ remains continuous and the map
$\pi :\tilde{M}\times G^{\delta }\rightarrow P'$ induces on $P'$ a new topology
which is \textbf{finer} than its manifold topology. We denote by $P^{\delta }$
the set $P'$ supplied with this topology. The topology on $\tilde{M}\times
G^{\delta }$ and the topology $P^{\delta }$ are called the \emph{leaf
topologies}. Then the suspension diagram below is a commutative
diagram of covering maps:
\begin{equation}
\begin{CD}
\tilde{M}\times G^{\delta }@>pr>>\tilde{M}\\
@V\pi VV @VVqV\\
P^{\delta }@>>p>M\\
\end{CD}
\end{equation}
The topological space $P^{\delta }$ is not connected unless the fiber
is contractible. A connected component of $P^{\delta }$ is called a
leaf of $\xi _H$. Each point $x=\pi (\tilde{m},g)\in P'$ belongs to exactly
one leaf which is denoted $L_x$ and equals $\pi (\tilde{M}\times {g})$. The
leaves are injectively immersed submanifolds of $P'$ but in general not
embedded. They are transverse to the fibers of $\xi _H$. Conjugate
representations $H$ and $H'$ give suspension bundles $\xi _H$ and $\xi
_{H'}$ which are isomorphic.
Let now $x=\pi (\tilde{m},g)$. Then the representation
$$H_x :\pi _1(L_x)\rightarrow G$$
with image $\digamma _g$, is called the \emph{holonomy} representation of
the leaf $L_x$ at the point $x$. The group $\digamma _g$ is the
\emph{holonomy group} of the leaf $L_x$ at the point $x$. $\digamma
_g$ is the isotropy group of $\digamma $ in $g\in G$. Moreover $\pi
_1(L_x)$ is isomorphic to the isotropy group of $\pi _1(M)$ in the
point $g\in G$, namely $\pi _1(L_x)\cong \{\gamma\in\pi _1(M)|H(\gamma
)g=g\}$. See also \cite{hirsch}.\\
There is a topological way to characterise these flat bundles which is by
using \emph{classifying spaces
for flat bundles} in a fashion analogous for ordinary bundles, namely:\\
Let $G$ be a connected Lie group and let $G^{\delta }$ denote the
same group with the discrete topology. The \textit{Milnor join construction}
for $G$ defines a connected space $BG$ which is the classifying space for principal
G-bundles. The same construction applied to $G^{\delta }$ yields a
connected topological space $BG^{\delta }$ which is an
\emph{Eilenberg-Maclane space} $K(G,1)$, namely $\pi _1(BG)=G$ and
$\pi _j(BG)=0$ for $j>1$. The inclusion $i:G^{\delta }\rightarrow G$
induces a continuous map $Bi:BG^{\delta }\rightarrow BG$. As sets
these two spaces are the same with the source having \emph{finer}
topology than the range. The difference in these two topologies is
measured by introducing the homotopy fiber $BG'$. This is defined by
first replacing $Bi$ with a homotopy equivalent weak fibration over
$BG$, then take for $BG'$ the (homotopy class of the) fiber. The
description then is just the construction of the \emph{Puppe Sequence}
for $Bi$ (cf \cite{jcw}).
Choose a base point in $BG^{\delta }$ and consider its image in
$BG$. Then let $\Omega (BG)$ and $P(BG)$ denote the space of based
loops and paths with initial point of $BG$ respectively. Let $e$ be
the end point map of a path. Then one has a fibration
$$\Omega (BG)\hookrightarrow P(BG)\rightarrow BG$$
where the second map is $e$. Then define $BG'$ via the homotopy
pull-back diagram:
\begin{equation}
\begin{CD}
\Omega (BG)@>>>\Omega (BG)\\
@VVV @VVV\\
BG'@>>>P(BG)\\
@VVV @VVeV\\
BG^{\delta }@>>Bi>BG\\
\end{CD}
\end{equation}
A principal G-bundle $P$ over a manifold $M$ is equivalent to giving
an open covering for $M$ and the transition functions. This data
defines a continuous map $g_P:M\rightarrow BG$. If the transition
functions are locally constant, namely if the bundle $P$ is flat, then $g_P$ can be factored through
$BG^{\delta }$ as a continuous map.
A choice of transition functions which are locally constant is
equivalent to specifying a flat G-structure on $P$. Hence $P$ has a
horizontal foliation whose holonomy map $a:\pi _1(M)\rightarrow G$
defines the classifying map $Ba:M\rightarrow BG^{\delta
}$. Conversely, given a continuous map $Ba:M\rightarrow BG^{\delta }$,
there is induced a representation $a:\pi _1(M)\rightarrow G$ and a
corresponding flat principal G-bundle $P_a=\tilde{M}\times _{\pi _1(M)}G$,
where $\tilde{M}$ is the universal covering of $M$. The topological type of
the G-bundle $P_a$ is determined by the composition
$$g_a:M\rightarrow BG^{\delta }\rightarrow BG$$
The principal bundle is trivial iff $g_a$ is homotopic to the constant
map $M\rightarrow pt$. The choice of the homotopy is equivalent to
specifying a global section on $P_a$.
\subsection{Groupoids and $C^{*}$-algebras associated to Foliations}
The next step is to associate the \emph{holonomy groupoid} to any
foliation. In general a groupoid is roughly speaking a small category with
inverses, or more precisely
\textbf{Definition 1:}
A groupoid consists of a set $\Gamma $, a distinguished subset $\Gamma
^{(0)}$ of $\Gamma $,
two maps $r,s:\Gamma \rightarrow \Gamma ^{(0)}$ and a law of composition
$$\circ :\Gamma ^{(2)}:={(\gamma _1,\gamma _2)\in \Gamma \times
\Gamma ; s(\gamma
_1)=r(\gamma _2)}\rightarrow \Gamma $$
such that:\\
1.$s(\gamma _1\circ \gamma _2)=s(\gamma _2)$, $r(\gamma _1\circ
\gamma _2)=r(\gamma _1)$ $\forall (\gamma _1,\gamma _2)\in \Gamma ^{(2)}$
2. $s(x)=r(x)=x \forall x\in \Gamma ^{(0)}$
3.$\gamma \circ s(\gamma )=\gamma$, $r(\gamma )\circ \gamma =\gamma
\forall \gamma \in \Gamma $
4. $(\gamma _1\circ\gamma _2)\circ\gamma _3=\gamma _1\circ (\gamma
_2\circ\gamma _3)$
5. Each $\gamma $ has a two sided inverse $\gamma ^{-1}$, with
$\gamma\gamma ^{-1}=r(\gamma )$ and $\gamma ^{-1}\gamma =s(\gamma )$\\
The maps $r$, $s$ are called \emph{range} and \emph{source} maps.\\
In the category theory terminology, $\Gamma ^{(0)}$ is the space of objects
and $\Gamma ^{(2)}$ is the space of morphisms.
\textbf{Definition 2:}
A \emph{smooth} groupoid $\Gamma $ is a groupoid together with a
differentiable structure on $\Gamma $ and $\Gamma ^{(0)}$ such that the maps $r$, $s$
are submersions and the object inclusion map $\Gamma ^{(0)}\rightarrow
\Gamma $ is
smooth, as is the composition map $\Gamma ^{(2)}\rightarrow \Gamma $.\\
The notion of a $\frac{1}{2}$-\emph{density} on a smooth manifold
allows one to define in a canonical manner the \emph{convolution algebra}
of
a smooth groupoid $\Gamma $.\\
Specifically, given $\Gamma $, let $\Omega
^{1/2}$ be the
line bundle over $\Gamma $ whose fiber $\Omega _{\gamma }^{1/2}$ at $\gamma\in
\Gamma , r(\gamma )=x, s(\gamma )=y$, is the linear space of maps
$$\rho :\wedge ^{k}T_{\gamma }(\Gamma ^x)\otimes \wedge ^{k}T_{\gamma
}(\Gamma _y)\rightarrow \bf{C}$$
such that
$$\rho (\lambda\nu )=|\lambda |^{1/2}\rho
(\nu)\forall\lambda\in \bf{R}$$
Here $\Gamma _y={\gamma\in \Gamma ;s(\gamma )=y}, \Gamma ^x={\gamma\in
\Gamma ;r(\gamma )=x}$,
and $k=dimT_{\gamma }(\Gamma ^x)=dimT_{\gamma }(\Gamma _y)$ are the dimensions of
the fibers of the submersions $r:\Gamma \rightarrow \Gamma ^{(0)}$ and
$s:\Gamma \rightarrow \Gamma ^{(0)}$.\\
Then we endow the linear space $C_c^{\infty}(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2})$ of
smooth compactly supported sections of $\Omega ^{1/2}$ with the
convolution product
$$(a*b)(\gamma )=\int _{\gamma _1\circ\gamma _2=\gamma }a(\gamma
_1)b(\gamma _2)$$
$\forall a,b\in C_c^{\infty }(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2})$ where the integral on the RHS makes sense since it is the integral of
a 1-density, namely $a(\gamma _1)b(\gamma _1^{-1}\gamma )$, on the
manifold $\Gamma ^x$, $x=r(\gamma )$.\\
One then can prove that if $\Gamma $ is a smooth groupoid and $C_c^{\infty
}(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2})$ is the convolution algebra of smooth compactly
supported $\frac{1}{2}$-densities with involution *, $f^*(\gamma
)=\overline{f(\gamma ^{-1})}$. Then for each $x\in \Gamma ^{(0)}$, the
following defines an involutive representation $\pi _x$ of
$C_c^{\infty }(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2})$ in the Hilbert space
$L^2(\Gamma _x)$:
$$(\pi _x(f)\xi )(\gamma )=\int f(\gamma _1)\xi (\gamma _1^{-1}\gamma
)$$
$\forall\gamma\in \Gamma _x, \xi\in L^2(\Gamma _x)$
\\
The completion of $C_c^{\infty }(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2})$ for the norm
$||f||=sup_{x\in \Gamma ^{(0)}}||\pi _x(f)||$ is a $C^*$-algebra denoted
$C^*_r(\Gamma )$.
Moreover one defines the $C^*$-algebra $C^*(\Gamma )$ as the completion of
the involutive algebra $C_c^{\infty }(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2})$ for the norm
\\
\\
$||f||_{max}=sup||\pi (f)||$; \{$\pi $ involutive Hilbert space
representation of $C_c^{\infty }(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2})$\}
\\
\\
After this general introduction to groupoids and to $C^*$-algebras
associated to them, now we pass to
groupoids and $C^*$-algebras associated to foliations.\\
Let $(V,F)$ be a foliated manifold of codim $q$. Given any $x\in V$ and a
small enough open set $W$ in $V$ containing $x$, the restriction of the
foliation $F$ to $W$ has as its leaf space an open set of $\bf{R}^q$ which we
shall call a transverse neighborhood of $x$. In other words, this open
set $W/F$ is the set of plaques around $x$. Now given a leaf $L$ of $(V,F)$
and two points $x, y \in L$, any simple path $\gamma $ from $x$ to $y$ on $L$
uniquely determines a germ $h(\gamma )$ of a diffeomorphism from a
transverse neighborhood of $x$ to one of $y$. This depends only on the
homotopy class of $\gamma $ and is called the \emph{holonomy} of the
the path $\gamma $. The \textit{holonomy groupoid of a leaf} $L$ is the
quotient of its fundamental groupoid by the equivalence relation which
identifies two paths $\gamma _1$, $\gamma _2$ from $x$ to $y$ both in $L$
iff $h(\gamma _1)=h(\gamma _2)$. Here by the fundamental groupoid of a
leaf we mean the groupoid $\Gamma =L\times L$, $r$, $s$ are the two projections,
$\Gamma ^{(0)}=L$ and the composition is $(x,y)\circ (y,z)=(x,z)$. (From
this one can see that every space is a groupoid). The
holonomy covering $\tilde{L}$ of a leaf $L$ is the covering of $L$ associated to
the normal subgroup of its fundamental group $\pi _1(L)$ given by
paths with trivial holonomy. The \textbf{holonomy groupoid} or \textbf{graph of the
foliation} is the union $\Gamma $ of the holonomy groupoids of its
leaves. Given an element $\gamma $ of $\Gamma $ we denote by $s(\gamma )=x$
the origin of the path $\gamma $ and by $r(\gamma )=y$ its end point,
where $r$, $s$ are the range and source maps as in the general case.
An element of $\Gamma $ is thus given by two points $x=s(\gamma )$ and
$y=r(\gamma )$ of $V$ together with an equivalence class of smooth paths
: the $\gamma (t)$, $t\in [0,1]$ with $\gamma (0)=x$ and $\gamma
(1)=y$, tangent to the bundle $F$, namely with $\frac{d\gamma }{dt}\in
F_{\gamma (t)}\forall t\in \bf{R}$, identifying $\gamma _1$ and $\gamma _2$
as equivalent iff the holonomy of the path $\gamma _2\gamma _1^{-1}$
at the point $x$ is the identity. The graph $\Gamma $ has an obvious composition
law. For $\gamma _1$ and $\gamma _2$ in $\Gamma $, the composition $\gamma
_1\circ\gamma _2$ makes sense if $s(\gamma _1)=r(\gamma _2)$. The
groupoid $\Gamma $ is by construction a (not necessarily Hausdorff) manifold
of dimension $dim\Gamma =dimV+dimF$.
\textbf{Definition 3:} The \textbf{$C^*$-algebra of the foliation} is
exactly the $C^*$-algebra of
its graph, as described for arbitrary groupoids above.\\
For our foliations of interest, the graph $\Gamma $ is the following: for the ve
rtical foliation is
just the manifold $P\times G$ whereas for the horizontal
foliation is $P\times _a\tilde{M}$, where $a$ is the representation
from $\pi _1(M)$ to $G$ induced by the flat connection 1-form (via
the holonomy). Moreover the distinguished subset $\Gamma ^{(0)}$ in both
cases is the manifold we want to foliate, namely $P$, the total space
of our bundle in our case.\\
The $C^*$-algebras associated to our foliations are: for the vertical
foliation is $C(M)$ tensored with compact operators which act as
smoothing kernels along the leaves which in turn is strongly Morita
equivalent to just $C(M)$,
whereas for the horizontal foliation is strongly Morita
equivalent (abreviated to SME) to $C(P)\rtimes \pi _1(M)$. (Note: the
representation of
the fundamental group of the base onto the structure Lie group induced by the flat
connection 1-form used enters the definition of the crossed
product). The first algebra is \textbf{commutative} (up to SME), but the second
\textbf{is not!} It is
for this reason that we can see now that ncg has an important role to
play, in fact we are deeply in the ncg setting. Obviously if the space is
simply connected, i.e. $\pi _1$ vanishes, non-commutativity is lost. We
would like to emphasise that in all cases in the literature where some
"non-commutative" algebras were used, especially in connection to the
well-known Connes-Lott model for electroweak theory (or even QCD), these
algebras are in fact SME to commutative ones. Hence in terms of topology,
this is not a real non-commutative case.
\subsection{K-classes associated to foliations}
We shall give the general construction for an arbitrary foliation.\\
Let $(V,F)$ be a foliated manifold and $t=TV/F$ the transverse bundle of
the foliation. The holonomy groupoid $\Gamma $ of $(V,F)$ acts in a natural way
on $t$ by the differential of the holonomy, thus for every
$\gamma\in\Gamma$, $\gamma
:x\rightarrow y$ determines a linear map $h(\gamma ):t_x\rightarrow
t_y$. We denote this action by
$h$. It is not in general possible to
find a Euclidean metric on $t$ which is invariant under the above action
of $\Gamma $. Let $g$ be an arbitrary smooth Euclidean metric on the real vector
bundle $t$. Thus for $\xi\in t_x$ we let $||\xi ||_{g}=(\langle\xi ,\xi
\rangle _{g})^{1/2}$ be the corresponding norms and inner products and drop
subscript $g$ henceforth. Using $g$ we define a $C^*$-module $E$ on the
$C^*$-algebra $C^*_r(V,F)$ of the foliation. Recall that $C^*_r(V,F)$
is the completion of the convolution algebra $C_c^{\infty }(\Gamma ,\Omega
^{1/2})$ which acts by right convolution on the linear space
$C_c^{\infty }(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2}\otimes r^*(t_{\bf{C}}))$ denoted
$\Lambda $ for simplicity and $t_{\bf C}$ is the complexification of the
transverse bundle $t$:
$$(\xi f)(\gamma )=\int _{\Gamma ^y}\xi (\gamma _1)f(\gamma _1^{-1}\gamma
)$$
where $y=r(\gamma )$. Endowing the complexified bundle $t_{\bf{C}}$ with the
inner product associated to $g$ and anti-linear in the first variable,
the following formula defines a $C_c^{\infty }(\Gamma ,\Omega
^{1/2})$-valued inner product
$$\langle\xi ,n\rangle (\gamma )=\int _{\Gamma ^y}\langle\xi (\gamma _1^{-1}),n(\gamma
_1^{-1}\gamma )\rangle $$
for any $\xi ,n\in C_c^{\infty }(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2}\otimes
r^*(t_{\bf{C}}))$
One then checks that the completion $E$ of the space $C_c^{\infty
}(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2}\otimes r^*(t_{\bf{C}}))$ for the norm
$$||\xi ||=(||\langle\xi ,\xi \rangle ||_{C^*_r(V,F)})^{1/2}$$
becomes a $C^*$-module over $C^*_r(V,F)$. If one takes also the action
$h$
of $\Gamma $ on $t$ into account, with some extra effort one can make $E$ into
a
$(\Lambda ,\Sigma )$-bimodule (for the definition of the algebra $\Sigma
$ see below). The first construction thus gives us an element $E$ of
$K_0(C^*_r(V,F))$ whereas the second gives $E$ as an element of
$KK_0(\Lambda ,\Sigma )$, \emph{Kasparov's bivariant K-Theory}. (Recall
that the 0th
Kasparov's bivariant K-group in this case consists of stable
isomorphism classes of $(\Lambda ,\Sigma )$-bimodules). We shall use this
action $h$ to define a left action of
$C_c^{\infty }(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2})$ on $E$ by:
$$(f\xi )(\gamma )=\int _{\Gamma ^y}f(\gamma _1)h(\gamma _1)\xi (\gamma
_1^{-1}\gamma )$$
$\forall f\in C_c^{\infty }(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2}), \xi\in E$
One then can prove that for any $f \in C_c^{\infty }(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2})$
the above formula defines an endomorphism $\lambda (f)$ of the
$C^*$-module $E$ whose adjoint $\lambda (f)^*$ is given by
$$(\lambda (f)^*\xi )(\gamma )=\int _{\Gamma ^y}f^{\#}(\gamma _1)h(\gamma
_1)\xi (\gamma _1^{-1}\gamma )$$
\\
where
\\
$$f^{\#}(\gamma ):=\widetilde{f}(\gamma ^{-1})\Delta (\gamma )$$
\\
and
\\
$$\Delta (\gamma )=(h(\gamma )^{-1})^{t}h(\gamma )^{-1}\in End(t_{\mathbf{C}}(r(\gamma )))$$
This shows that unless the metric on $t$ is $\Gamma $-invariant, the
representation $\lambda $ is not a *-representation, the subtle difference
between $\lambda (f)^*$ and $\lambda (f^*)$ being measured by $\Delta
$. In particular $\lambda $ is not in general bounded for the
$C^*$-algebra norms on both $End_{C^*_r(V,F)}E$ and $C^*_r(V,F)\supset
C_c^{\infty }(\Gamma ,\Omega ^{1/2})$. However $\lambda $ is a closable
homomorphism of $C^*$-algebras, namely, the closure of the
graph of $\lambda $ is the graph of a densely defined
homomorphism. Then with the graph norm
$$||x||_{\lambda }=||x||+||\lambda(x)||$$
the domain $\Sigma $ of the closure $\widetilde{\lambda }$ of
$\lambda $ is
a Banach algebra which is dense in the $C^*$-algebra
$\Lambda =C^*_r(V,F)$. The $C^*$-module $E$ is then a
$(\Lambda ,\Sigma )$-bimodule. This
particular module $E$ we constructed here will be the one of the two
main ingredients which define the invariant we want and we shall denote
it $E(F)$.
\subsection{Cyclic classes associated to foliations (transverse
fundamental cyclic cocycle)}
We begin with some definitions from cyclic homology:
\textbf{Definition 1:}
1. A \emph{cycle} of dimension $n$ is a triple
$(\Omega ,d,\int )$ where $\Omega =\oplus _{j=0}^n \Omega ^j$ is a
graded algebra over ${\bf C}$, $d$ is a differential on $\Omega $'s and
$\int
:\Omega ^n\rightarrow C$ is a closed graded trace on $\Omega $.
2. Let $A$ be an algebra over $\bf{C}$. Then a cycle over $A$
is
given by
a cycle
$(\Omega ,d,\int )$ and a homomorphism $\rho :A \rightarrow \Omega
^0$.
A cycle over $A$ of dimension $n$ is essentially determined by its
\emph{character} which is the following $(n+1)$-linear functional on
$A$:
$$\tau (a^0,...,a^n)=\int \rho (a^0)d(\rho (a^1))d(\rho
(a^2))...d(\rho (a^n))$$
\\
$\forall a^j\in A$
\\
One can then prove that this is a \emph{cyclic cocycle} of $A$,
namely
it defines a cohomology class in the cyclic homology of $A$ and that
the
above is a necessary and sufficient statement.
We shall now describe the transverse fundamental class associated to
foliations. There is a general construction for arbitrary foliations which
is quite involving since one has to \emph{complete} the graded algebra.
This is so because the transverse bundle of the foliation may not be
integrable and in this case derivation along transverse directions will
not be a differential.
We, however, are primarily interested in our two special kinds of
foliations, the vertical and the horizontal foliation of a principal
bundle. These foliations are transverse, both are integrable so
derivatives are differentials and hence one does not have to complete the
graded algebras. We refer to \cite{conness} for the general construction.
Here we shall only describe the classes wich are associated to our two
foliations:
The vertical and the horizontal (or flat)
foliations of the total space of our principal bundle $P$ will be
denoted $(P_V)$ and $(P_H)$ respectively. One then has that there is a natural
cycle
for the algebra of each foliation, namely:
\textbf{Vertical Foliation}, cycle denoted $[P_V]$:
The natural cycle canonically associated to the algebra $C_c^{\infty
}(P\times G,\Omega ^{1/2})$ of the vertical foliation consists of:
1. The graded algebra $C_c^{\infty }(P\times G,\Omega ^{1/2}\otimes
r^*(\wedge P_H^*))$ where $P_H$ is the \emph{horizontal} subbundle (i.e.
the
transverse bundle to the vertical foliation).
2. The differential $d=d_V+d_H+\theta $ where
$$d_H:C^{\infty }(P,\wedge ^r P_V^*\otimes\wedge ^s P_H^*)\rightarrow
C^{\infty }(P,\wedge ^r P_V^*\otimes\wedge ^{s+1}P_H^*)$$
$$d_V:C^{\infty }(P,\wedge ^rP_V^*\otimes\wedge ^s P_H^*)\rightarrow
C^{\infty }(P,\wedge ^{r+1}P_V^*\otimes\wedge ^s P_H^*)$$
$\theta $ means contraction with the section $\theta\in C^{\infty
}(P,P_V\otimes\wedge ^2P_H^*)$, where $\theta $ is defined by:
$\theta (p_H(X),p_H(Y)=p_V([X,Y])$
for any pair of horizontal vector fields $X, Y \in C^{\infty }(P,P_H)$
and $(p_H,p_V)$ is the isomorphism $TP\rightarrow P_H\oplus P_V$ given by
$P_H$.
3.The trace is defined via
$$\tau (w)=\int _{\Gamma ^{(0)}} w $$
where $\Gamma $ is the graph of the vertical foliation $\Gamma =P\times
G$.\\
\textit{Similarly one defines a fundamental class for the horizontal
foliation}.
One then can define the character of these cycles---essentially the
trace---which is a
class in the cyclic homology of the appropriate algebra for each
foliation \cite{connes2}.
\textbf{Note:}
Since now we have a cyclic homology class, say $\phi $ of the algebra of
the
foliation, say $\Lambda $, we automatically have a map
$$ K_i(\Lambda )\rightarrow \bf{C}$$
given by pairing it with K-group elements ($i=0,1$ above) to get index
theorems
for \emph{leafwise} elliptic operators. Let us mention here that the
analytic
\emph{Index}
of an operator \emph{elliptic along the leaves of an arbitrary foliation}
say
$(V,F)$, is an element of $K_0(C^*(V,F))$, being in fact a
generalisation of the index of families of elliptic operators
considered by Atiyah and Singer. (In the Atiyah-Singer case of
families of elliptic operators one is
dealing with the foliation induced by the fibration, which is the
commutative geometry case). The operator \emph{itself} which is elliptic
along the leaves of the foliation is an element of $KK(C^*(V,F),C(V))$.\\
\section{Invariant for the nl$\sigma $m}
The final step then is to make use of the general formula for pairings
between K-homology and cyclic homology. In
more concrete terms, one has:
\textbf{Definition:}
Let $A$ be an algebra. Then the following equality defines a
bilinear
pairing between K-theory and
cyclic homology:
1. Even case: $K_0(A)$ and $HC^{ev}(A)$:
$$\langle [e],[\phi ]\rangle :=(m!)^{-1}(\phi \# Tr)(e,...,e)$$
\\
for $e\in K_0(A)$ using the idempotents' description and $\phi\in
HC^{2m}(A)$ and where $\#$ is the \emph{cup product} in cyclic
homology (see for instance \cite{connes3} for the precise definition).
2. Odd case: $K_1(A)$ and $HC^{odd}(A)$:
$$\langle [u],[\phi ]\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2i}}2^{-n}\Gamma
(\frac{n}{2}+1)^{-1}(\phi \# Tr)(u^{-1}-1,u-1,u^{-1}-1,...,u-1)$$
\\
This is an important point because by pairing
the $C^*$-module $E$ we constructed previously naturally associated to the foli
ation considered with
the cyclic cocycle naturally associated to the foliation, we get an
invariant for arbitrary foliations. In particular if we apply
this to the horizontal foliation, we get a \emph{complex number} which is
an
invariant for the nl$\sigma$m. Namely one has:
$$\langle [E(P_H)],[P_H]\rangle
=(m!)^{-1}((P_H)\#Tr)(E(P_H),...,E(P_H))\in \bf{C}$$
In more concrete terms, assuming that $E(P_H)\in M_k(C^{*}(P_H))$ for some
$k$ (where $C^{*}(P_H)$ is the corresponding $C^{*}$-algebra to the
horizontal
foliation) and $[P_H]\in Z^{q}(C^{*}(P_H))$ where $Z$ denotes cyclic
cocycles and $q$ is the codimension of the horizontal foliation, then
$(P_H)\#Tr\in Z^{q}(M_k(C^{*}(P_H)))$ is defined by
$$((P_H)\#Tr)(a^0\otimes m^0,...,a^q\otimes
m^q)=(P_H)(a^0,...,a^q)Tr(m^0...m^q)$$
for any $a^i\in C^{*}(P_H), m^i\in M_k({\bf C})$, $i=1,...,q$.\\
\emph{Note:}
Let us mention that the odd case formula is related to the $\eta $
invariant for leafwise elliptic operators, see \cite{douglas1},
\cite{douglas2} which in turn is related to global anomalies and to the
Freedman-Townsend invariance (cf
\cite{witten2}, \cite{Z2}, \cite{townsend}, \cite{henneaux}).
\section{An example: principal fibre bundles}
In order to get some more insight to this pairing we shall try to
calculate it for the case of principal
bundles (vertical foliation) which is the simplest example.
We begin by describing the graph in detail:
the set $\Gamma $ in this case is the manifold $P\times G$, the
distinguished subset $\Gamma ^{(0)}=P\times \{e\}$ and denoting the
action (on the right) of $g\ni G$ on $p\ni P$ simply by $(p,g)\mapsto
pg$, one has that the range and source maps are respectively
$r(p,g)=p$ and $s(p,g)=pg$, the inverse $(p,g)^{-1}=(pg,g^{-1})$ and
the law of composition is $(p_{1},g_{1})\circ
(p_{2},g_{2})=(p_{1},g_{1}g_{2})$ if $p_{1}g_{1}=p_{2}$. Obviously the
set $\Gamma ^{(2)}=P\times G\times G$.
Moreover we recall that the $C^*$-algebra for the vertical foliation
is strongly Morita equivalent to $C(M)$,
We now make use of two important facts:
1. $K_0(C(M))=K^0(M)$, namely \emph{Serre-Swan theorem}\\
and\\
2. $H^{*}_{cont}(C(M))=H_{*}(M)$\\
where on the RHS we have the ordinary homology of $M$ (with complex
coefficients) and by definition for the LHS we have
$H^{*}(C(M)):=Lim_{\rightarrow} (HC^{n}(C(M)),S)$
(see \cite{connes3} for explanations of the notation), $HC^{*}$
denotes cyclic homology and "cont" means
restriction to continuous linear functionals.
The first fact says that for commutative $C^*$-algebras one gets
Atiyah's topological K-theory for the underlying space (described in
terms of stable isomorphism classes of complex vector bundles over the
space considered) and the second says that in the commutative case
again cyclic homology is "roughly speaking" the ordinary homology of the
underlying space (and thus we see that non-commutative geometry
reduces to ordinary geometry in the commutative case).
Since we have these two results in our desposal, we shall try to reduce
the whole discussion in terms of bundles and ordinary homology theory
because this is more comprehensible.
In order to describe the pairing then we need the transverse fundamental
cyclic cocycle: we shall give a simple dimensional argument here; the
exact computations are rather too technical to be presented in grater
detail. The cyclic cocycle we will get from the vertical
foliation will be of dimension equal to the
codimension of the vertical foliation which is equal to the dimension
of the base space of our bundle. Moreover as we mentioned above, in
this case the $C^*$-algebra of this foliation is SME to the algebra of
functions on the base $C(M)$. This is a commutative $C^*$-algebra whose
cyclic homology is moreorless the de Rham cohomology of the base
space. Hence it is not too hard to suspect that we get a top homology
class, which in fact turns out to be the
fundamental class of our base space [M].
For the module denoted $E$ above in this case one uses the following fact:
it is a consequence of Serre-Swan theorem mentioned above that the
link between topological K-theory and K-theory of commutative
$C^*$-algebras is that given a complex vector bundle over $M$ (thus a
topological K-class), one considers the corresponding $C(M)$-module of smooth
sections of the given complex vector bundle. Thus in this case the
module $E$ we get is $C^{\infty }_{c}(P\times G,\Omega ^{1/2}\otimes
r^{*}(t_{\bf C}))$, hence we can recover the corresponding complex vector
bundle over $M$ as follows:
If we denote by $(P,\pi ,G,M)$ our original principal bundle and we
consider the vertical foliation, then its normal bundle $t$ would be
$\pi ^{*}(TM)$, where $TM$ is the tangent bundle of $M$. We prefer the
topological K-theory description which in this case is rather easy to
read: the bundle associated to this $C(M)$ module $E$ is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{CD}
\Omega ^{1/2}\otimes pr_{1}^{*}\pi ^{*}(TM)@>>>\pi ^{*}(TM)@>>>TM\\
@VVV @VVV @VV\tau _{M}V\\
P\times G@>>pr_{1}>P@>>\pi >M\\
\end{CD}
\end{equation}
where the fibre of the line bundle $\Omega ^{1/2}$ is the linear space
of maps
$\rho :\wedge ^{dimG}T_{\gamma }(G)\otimes \wedge ^{dimG}T_{\gamma
}(G)\rightarrow {\bf C}$ satisfying the well-known property for 1/2-densities.
Hence in this case the result will be the number we get if we take the
bundle $\Omega ^{1/2}\otimes pr_{1}^{*}\pi ^{*}(TM)$ \emph{seen as a
bundle over $M$}, then apply the ordinary Chern character to it and
integrate over $M$. The result will be a combination of the Pontryagin
class of $TM$ and the second Chern class of $P$ (recall that we assumed
$M$ to be 4-dim and $P$ is an SU(2) bundle)
which is something expected.
There are some subtleties though: we have the bundle $\Omega
^{1/2}\otimes pr_{1}^{*}\pi ^{*}(TM)$ over the graph which is $P\times G$.
We want to see this as a bundle over $M$. We consider firstly the factor
$pr_{1}^{*}\pi ^{*}(TM)$. This is indeed a bundle over $M$ with fibre
$G\times G\times {\bf R}^{dim M}$ but this is neither a vector nor a
principal bundle and in order to talk about characteristic classes one
actually needs the one or the other. In order not to change the topology
then, which is what we are mainly interested in, we can consider the
vector bundle $TM\otimes adP$ instead, where $adP$ is the adjoint bundle
to $P$. To study formally the classes of $TM\otimes adP$ is an exercise in
mathematics (we forget the pull-backs since they can be treated easily).
The point is that we shall get a combination of the Pontryagin classes of
$TM$ (or Chern if we complexify) and of Chern classes of $P$. The later is
known since the bundle is given whereas the former can be computed from
topological information of $M$ itself. For example for simply
connected closed 4-manifolds one has from the Hirzebruch signature
formula that (see \cite{hirzebruch}):
$$p_1 = 3\tau =3(b^{+} - b^{-})$$
where $\tau $ is the signature.
As about the other factor, the 1/2-densities of the graph, seen as a rank
1 real
bundle over the
graph $P\times G$, is rather dull. It will be determined by $\omega _1$,
the first Stiefel-Whitney class: either trivial ($\omega _1=0$) or it is
non-orientable ($\omega _1=1$). (\emph{Note:} half densities over a
complex
manifold say $N$ with $dimN=k$ are slightly more complicated: in this case
its class will be
$\frac{1}{2}c_1(\wedge ^kT^*)$, where
$\wedge ^kT^*$ is the canonical bundle, so
it will correspond to $spin ^c$ structures on $N$). But we still have the
same problem that over $M$ it is neither a vector nor a principal bundle.
This can be overcome as before; the point is that since it is a dull
bundle over $P\times G$, the projection does not change anything, so as a
bundle over $M$ it will be determined by the topology of $P$, hence we
also have Chern classes of $P$.
What we gave above was a qualitative description and the lesson was that
the invariant will be some combination of Chern numbers of $P$ and the
Pontryagin number of the tangent bundle $TM$ of $M$. The key point is
that $TM$ appears because it is the \emph{transverse bundle} of the
vertical
foliation. We expect then that characteristic classes of the transverse
bundle should be important in general.
What about the flat foliation then, which is the case which is related to
nl$\sigma $m in general and to M-theory in particular in physics? This is
a purely nc case. Computations are much
harder and a picture involving bundles is impossible since we do not have
Serre-Swan theorem. Moreover cyclic homology of nc algebras has no
relation to the usual topology. We can still say something though: first
of all, since we have a flat principal bundle, all its characteristic
classes vanish, so we get nothing from them. Since the base space $M$ is
not simply connected, gauge inequivalent classes of flat connections are
characterised by their holonomy. So we expect the holonomy to play some
role.
Moreover, from the vertical foliation case we saw that the normal bundle
of the foliation also plays a vital role.
\textbf{Note:}
It is not always true that in the commutative case cyclic homology
identifies well with ordinary homology, in fact this is always
essentially true only for $H_0$. There may be complications.
However this point will not be treated in this article with greater
detail. See \cite{connes5}.
\section{Relation to Physics}
There are three cases in physics where this invariant may play some role:
\emph{1. Nl$\sigma $m.}
As it is well-known, $\sigma $ models classically describe harmonic maps
between two Riemannian manifolds (target and source spaces). From the
genral remarks we made in the
preceeding section, we said that we expect the invariant to include the
holonomy of the flat connection (namely $\pi _1$ of the source space) plus
the topology of the space of leaves (target space). Hence this invariant
should contain information about the topology of both manifolds
involved in
$\sigma $ models. Characteristic classes of foliations may provide the way
to calculate the invariant (analogue of Chern-Weil theory, see
\cite{tondeur}).
Moreover, in the flat foliation case the invariant describes the
topological charge of the M-theory Lagrangian density suggested in
\cite{Z1}
Another application is the following (we thank Dr S. T. Tsou for
pointing this out to us): we know from Polyakov
(\cite{polyakov}) that Yang-Mills theories can be formulated as nl$\sigma
$m on the \emph{loop space}. This point of view very recently
exibited some very nice dualities of the Standard Model, see
\cite{tsou}. Hence the invariant, for the flat foliation case (since
nl$\sigma $m can be thought of as a flat bundle with structure group the
isometries of the target space),
maybe of some relevance also for Yang-Mills theories, the setting however
will involve loop spaces now! We do not know exactly what its physical
significance would be. Moreover doing K-theory on loop spaces (infinite
dimensional manifolds) is considerably harder. There are however some path
integral techniques. (see again \cite{tsou} and references therein).
\emph{2. Instantons with non simply connected boundary}.
Following largely the case of instantons we suggest that this invariant is related to
interpolation between \emph{gauge inequivalent vacua} which exist due
to the non simply connectedness of the space considered. Clearly there
is \emph{extra} degeneracy of the vacuum coming from the fact the our
space is
\textsl{not simply connected}. This degeneracy is of different origin than that
of
instantons since as it is well-known for ordinary instantons the
degeneracy comes from the \textsl{different topologies} of the bundle
considered. In more concrete terms we suppose that this invariant will
be relevant in the following case: let us assume that we try to follow
the discussion in the BPST famous paper on instantons \cite{BPST}; if we assume
that we have a space whose boundary is not just $S^3$ as in that case
but a 3-manifold which has a non-trivial $\pi _{1}$. In this case we want
the potential to become flat (pure gauge) on the boundary. However if the
boundary is a 3-manifold with a non trivial fundamental group, then flat
connections are not unique (up to gauge equivalence of course). We know
more specifically that gauge equivalent classes of flat connections are in
1-1 correspondence with conjugate classes of representations of the
fundamental group onto the structure group considered. Thus in this case
the flat connection we choose will not be unique. This \emph{extra
}degeneracy of
the vacuum comes from the different possible choices of flat connection,
which is something noticed for the first time.
The invariant is related to interpolation between these extra vacua.
We
expect then some relation with the so called \emph{ALE
gravitational instantons} which are important both in quantum gravity
and in gauge theory \cite{barrett}, \cite{kronheimer}.
\emph{3. Gravity, Non-Commutative Topological Quantum Field Theories
(ncTQFT for brevity).}
In ordinary Yang-Mills
theory, gauge transformations are described as
automorphisms of the bundle (namely fibre preserving maps) which
\emph{induce the identity on the base space} (cf for example
\cite{donald}). Sometimes these are called
\emph{strong} bundle automorphisms. If one wants to generalise this
picture and attempts to include the symmetry of general relativity, namely
local diffeomorphisms of the base space, then there is a problem because
there are local diffeomprphisms of the base space which can not be induced
by
bundle automorphisms (cf \cite{shard}). In simple words: there are "more"
local diffeomorphisms of the base space than bundle automorphisms. The way
that theoretical
physicists usually try to go arround this problem is - to begin with,
supersymmetry and finally, - supergravity. The origins of supersymmetry
are actually quantum mechanical (multiplets with same number of bosons and
fermions plus symmetry between particles of different spin which should
exist, if all interactions are eventually unified since gauge particles
have spin-1 whereas the graviton is supposed to have spin-2. Another
point of view is to examine the largest possible symmetry of the
S-matrix elements in the framework of relativistic quantum field theory
on Minkowski space). To make the long
story short, based on the Coleman-Mandula theorem (which is responsible
for introducing anti-commuting coordinates), what one actually does
(following the superspace formalism for N=1 supersymmetry coming from
observation that Minkowski space is actually Poincare/Lorentz) is to
enlarge
the base manifold (assumed to be spacetime) by adding some fermionic
dimensions (non-commuting coordinates), thus obtaining another space, the
socalled superspace. This superspace, in an analogous fashion, can be seen
as the quotient space superPoincare/Lorentz. Supersymmetric Yang-Mills
theories are principal G-bundles over superspace with G some compact
and connected Lie group (usually SU(N)) whereas supergravity
can be seen as a principal G-bundle over superspace where G is the
superPoincare group (generalisation of Einstein-Cartan
theory). However the so-called Noether technique which makes local a
rigid supersymmetry and which is used mainly to
construct supersymmetric interacting Lagrangians actually suggests
that supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories can be equivalently be seen as
principal G-bundles over ordinary spacetime with G some Super Lie Group.
Letting alone some severe criticism of supersymmetric theories (e.g.
positive metric assumption), especially
when the discussion
comes to supergravity-- (the most important experimental problem of
supersymmetric theories is the fact that none of the superparteners of
particles has ever been observed, the way phenomenologists try to
overcome this problem is to assume spontaneously breaking of
supersymmetries; two of
the main theoretical problems are: the aspect of supergravity as a local
gauge theory
which is not completely mathematically justified, for example in N=8
D=4 supergravity theory coming from D=11 N=1
supergravity which is supposed to be the best candidate for unification
and according to recent progress one of the two low energy limits of
M-theory, local diffeomorphisms are supposed to come from gauging the
group O(8), an assumption which is based on the observation that ordinary
gravity comes from gauging the Poincare group, something which is wrong
because of the existence of the "shouldering" form on arbitrary curved
manifolds; the second important problem is that most of the extended
supersymmetric and supergravity theories are actually up to now
formulated only "on-shell", namely they are essentially classical
theories - for N=1
supergravity though there is another problem, one has more than one
"off-shell" formulations, this in fact has now an explanation from the
recently observed
string/5-brane duality in D=10 (old brane-scan); - trying to be fair, we must mention that the
good features of such theories are that they offer probably the only
up to now known hope for unification plus the fact that they give "less
divergent" theories, something essential for perturbative quantum fiels
theories),-- we would like to propose here another
approach; our approach is more in the spirit of non-perturbative quantum
field theories, in fact topological quantum field theories: \emph{instead of enlarging the base manifold by considering
anti-commuting coordinates, we chose to relax the
fibre preserving condition}, meaning that now we allow "bundle" maps which
are not fibre-preserving; in such a case, fibres may be "mixed
up", for example they may be "tilted" or "broken".
The resulting structure after applying these more general
transformations to our original bundle may no longer be a fibre bundle,
but it will still be a foliation. In this
case however what we will get as the quotient space will not necessarily
be the
manifold we had originally in our bundle construction (supposed to be
space-time) but another space of leaves with the same dimension and
maybe very
different topology. In this case the dimension of the leaves is kept
fixed, equall to the dimension of the Lie algebra considered; had we
changed
that, the dimension of the space of leaves would have changed accordingly.
This picture is quite close to the picture that string theorists
patronise, namely that space-time is not fixed but it emerges as a ground
state from some dynamical process.
In fact there is a deep result due to Thurston which for a given
manifold M, say, it relates the group of local diffeomorphisms of M
with the group of foliations of M \cite{thurston}. In particular
Thurston proves that one has an isomorphism in cohomology after some shift in
the degrees between the classifying space of local diffeomorphisms and
the classifying space of foliations of a closed manifold M. If we take M to be
the total space of a principal bundle P over spacetime, then obviously
local diffeomorphisms of the base space are included to local
diffeomorphisms of the total space which in turn are very closely
related to the group of foliations. Hence at least in principle looking at
the group of foliations of the total space of a principal bundle
provides a framework which is rich enough in order to encorporate
local diffeomorphisms of the base space, something we need in order to
relate general relativity with Yang-Mills theory symmetries and this
framework is mathematically rigorous.
The group then of all foliations of the total space with fixed codimension
is huge. It definitely contains all foliations which are "regular" enough
in order to
get manifolds diffeomorphic to our original one. Yet foliations can be
really nasty: in this case the quotient space may not be a manifold at all
but a "quantum" topological space. All these cases need to be studied. For
the moment we know that whenever the foliations have a corresponding $C^*$
algebra which is SME to a commutative one, then the space of leaves will
be a compact Hausdorff topological space of the same dimension. If
the $C^*$-algebras of two foliations can be related with a
*-preserving homomorphism, then the corresponding quotient spaces
will be homoeomorphic.
What is the
appropriate condition on the $C^*$ algebras in order to get diffeomorphic
manifolds, we do not know (this point is of particular interest in 4-dim
due to the existence of the so-called "exotic structures" for
4-manifolds). The main point here is that we can "control"
how much non-commutativity we want in the $C^*$- algebra and then see what
this means topologically. At this point we would like to recall that
mathematically, going from classical physics to quantum is going from
commuting algebras to non-commuting ones. The essence of Planck's constant
then
is that it tells us "how much" non-commutativity we want. Moreover there
is the fundamental theorem for $C^*$- algebras representations, namely
that
for each $C^*$- algebra (commutative or not), there exists a Hilbert space
whose space of bounded operators is actually "the same" as the original
$C^*$- algebra. Hence for each foliation there exists a corresponding
$C^*$-
algebra (commutative or not), a corresponding topological space (space of
leaves which may be a manifold or a quantum topological space
respectively) and finally, a Hilbert space as a representation space!
Let us now turn to something related to the above but a little more
concrete:
for the moment let us consider the case where the dimensions of the
leaves and of the space of leaves are kept
fixed. This situation has some similarities with quantum gravity seen as a
TQFT (in fact we generalise that picture and we present a way to consider
unified theories-namely gravity and Yang-Mills theories-as
Non-Commutative Topological Quantum Field Theories).
In \cite{barrett} it was argued that TQFT may provide a framework
which is rich enough for the development of a quantum theory of gravity.
In that aspect, space-time was treated as an unquantized object whereas
the metric was quantum mechanical. The idea in TQFT framework is to find
an invariant $Z(M)$ for a topological space $M$ and then one seeks for a
Lagrangian density whose partition function yields the invariant $Z(M)$,
see \cite{WIT}. One has to be a little more careful though in order for
the Atiyah's axioms for TQFT to be satisfied \cite{AT}. In quantum
mechanics one usually has a space of quantum states associated to a given
system. Often this space of states refers to a particular instant of time,
which can be represented in a 4-dimensional world by a space-like
hypersurface. In TQFT this vector space appears as part of the definition,
when the space-time $M$ has a boundary, i.e. a space of dimension 1 less.
In more
concrete terms, to a $(d-1)$-dim space $\Sigma $ we associate a vector
space $V(\Sigma )$ and to each $d$-dim space $M$ with $\partial M=\Sigma $
we associate a vector $Z(M)$, the partition function of the space $M$.
This point can be generalised, in fact $\Sigma $ can be any embedded
submanifold of $M$ with dimension 1 less. One interpretation of these
conditions is that $\Sigma $ represents the "present instant" of time and
that the vectors in $V(\Sigma )$ which are determined by various choices
of observables represent a memory of past facts. The primary problem
nonetheless is the construction of invariants for spaces and the state
spaces and partition functions for spaces with boundary are usually
obtained as a by-product. Since by our proposal above one can
end up with
quantum topological spaces as spaces of leaves of foliations, one can call
this theory
\emph{non-commutative} topological quantum field theory and we believe
that this can provide a framework for quantum unified theories (including
Yang-Mills and gravity).
The picture we have then is the following: we start with a G-bundle $P$
over a 4-manifold $M$. From symmetry
considerations, namely we want to include local diffeomorphisms of the
base space and relate
them to bundle automorphisms (hence relating general relativity to gauge
theory), we end up to consider all dimG-dim foliations of $P$.
Automatically the 4-dim space which is the space of leaves is somehow
"quantized", namely it is forced to have one of the leaf topologies. This
is a difference with TQFT as explained in \cite{barrett} where
the metric was quantised but space-time
was unquantized (needless to say, in such a case as ours, the metric is
quantised
too automatically). Moreover, for each foliation we have a quotient space
of leaves and hence an invariant $Z(M)$
which is a complex number. The boundary of course can be added with
its
vector space attached to it, one however has to examine what happens to it
as foliations vary. The Lagrangian density whose partition function is
this invariant for foliations is an open question. It should be related to
characteristic classes for foliations. A good indication for that is the
fact that the \emph{$\Gamma _q$ functor} of q-dim Haefliger structures or
$\Gamma _q
$ structures as they are known in topology (and
hence foliations which is an example of a $\Gamma _q$ structure, where $q$
is the codimension of the foliation) \emph{is representable}, see
\cite{james}. So for the moment we do not have a "full" specific ncTQFT
since we have the invariant but not the appropriate Lagrangian density. We
presented though a generalisation of TQFT for non-commutative cases.
Another possible application might be the ability to construct \emph{deformed}
Yang-Mills theories, see \cite{schwarz}. In that paper, some new
compactifications of the IKKT matrix theory on non-commutative tori were
introduced which, in a certain sense, could be realised as deformed
Yang-Mills theories. Clearly in this case our invariant will be the
"instanton number" of these deformed Yang-Mills theories.
This picture also
suggests that the above described
non-commutative topological quantum field theories can be seen as emerging
from M-theory compactified down to some non-commutative spaces (tori or
other).
\section{M-Theory}
In this section we shall present an application to M-Theory. Since it
is more extensive, we give it separately.
We know that M-Theory consists of membranes and
5-branes living on an 11-manifold (\cite{duff}, \cite{west}) and it is non perturbative. This theory
has a very intriguing feature: we can only extract information about it
from its limiting theories, namely either from D=11 N=1 supergravity or
from superstrings in D=10. This is so because this theory is
\emph{genuinly} non
perturbative for a reason which lies in the heart of manifold topology:
Let us recall that in string theory, the path integral involves summation
over all topologically distinct diagrams (same for point
particles of
course). Strings are 1-branes hence in time they swep out a 2-manifold. At
the tree level then we need all topologically distinct simply connected
2-manifolds (actually there is only one, as topology tells us) and for
loop corrections, topology again says that topologically distinct non
simply connected 2-manifolds are classified by their genus, so we sum up
over all Riemann surfaces with different genus.
It is clear then that for a perturbative quantum field theory involving
p-branes we have to sum upon all topologically distinct (p+1)-dim
manifolds: simply connected ones for tree level and non simply connected
ones for loop corrections. Thus \emph{we must know before hand the
topological
classification of manifolds} in the dimension of interest. That is the
main problem of manifold topology in mathematics.
But now we face a deep and intractable problem: geometry tells us,
essentially via a no-go theorem which is due to Whitehead from late '40's,
that:
\emph{"we cannot classify non simply connected manifolds with dimension
greater or equal to 4"}! Hence for p-branes with p greater or equal to 3,
all we can do via perturbative methods is up to tree level!
What happens for 3-manifolds then (hence for membranes)?
The answer from mathematics is that we \emph{do not know} if all
3-manifolds can be
classified! So even for 2-branes it is still unclear whether perturbative
methods work (up to all levels of perturbation theory)!\\
The outlet from this situation that we propose here is not merely to look
only at non perturbative aspects of these theories (i.e. the soliton
part of the theory) and then apply S-duality, as was done up to now,
but to abandon perturbative methods completely from the very beginning.
There is only one way known up to now which can achieve this "radical"
solution to our problem: \emph{formulate
the theory as a Topological Quantum Field Theory} and hence get rid of all
perturbations once and for all.\\
Let us explain how this can be acieved.\\
Our approach is based on one physical \emph{"principle"}:\\
\textsl{A theory containing \emph{p-branes} should be formulated on an
m-dim manifold
which \emph{admits $\Gamma _q$-structures}, where $q=m-p-1$}.\\
{\bf N.B.}
Although we used in our physical principle $\Gamma _q$-structures
which are more general than foliations, we shall use both these terms
meaning essentially the same structure. The interested reader may
refer to \cite{lawson} for example to see the precise definitions which are
quite complicated. The key point however is that the difference
between $\Gamma _q$-structures (or Haefliger structures as they are
most commonly known in topology) and codim-q foliations is essentially the
difference between \textsl{transverse} and \emph{normal}. This does
not affect any of what we have to say, since Bott-Haefliger theory
of characteristic classes is formulated for the most general case, namely
$\Gamma $-structures. We would also like to mention the relation
between $\Gamma $-structures and $\Omega $-spectra which is currently
an active field in topology.\\
(For D-branes we need a variant of the above principle, namely we need
what are called \emph{plane foliations} but we shall not elaborate on this
point here).\\
One way of thinking about this principle is that it is analogous to
the ``past histories'' approach of quantum mechanics. Clearly in
quantum level one should integrate over all foliations of a given codim.\\
\textsl{A piece of warning here:} this principle does not imply that \emph{all}
physical process between branes \emph{are} described by foliations. Although
the group of foliations is huge, in fact comparable in size with the
group of local diffeomorphisms \cite{thurston}, and foliations can be really ``very
nasty'', we would not like to
make such a strong statement. What is definitely true though is that
\emph{some} physical process \emph{are indeed} described by foliations, hence
\textsl{at least} this condition \emph{must} be satisfied because of them.\\
{\bf Note:}
Before going on furter, we would like to make one crucial remark: this
principle puts severe restrictions on the topology that the underlying
manifold may have, in case of M-Theory this is an 11-manifold. It is also
very important if the manifold is \emph{open} or \emph{closed}. This may
be of some help, as we hope, for the compactification problem of string
theory or even M-Theory, namely how we go from D=10 (or D=11) to D=4 which
is our
intuitive dimension
of spacetime. We shall address this question in the next section. The final comment is this: this principle puts
\emph{absolutely no restriction} to the usual quantum field theory for
point particles in D=4, e.g. electroweak theory or QCD. This is so because in
this case spacetime is just ${\bf R^4}$ which is non compact and we have
0-branes (point particles) and consequently 1-dim foliations for which the
integrability condition is trivially satisfied (essentially this is due
to a deep result of Gromov for foliations on open manifolds, which
states that all open manifolds admit codim 1 foliations; in striking contrast,
closed manifolds admit codim 1 foliations iff their Euler
characteristic is zero, see
for example in \cite{lawson}, \cite{gromov} or references therein).\\
If we believe this principle, then the story goes on as follows: we are on
an
11-manifold, call it M for brevity and we want to describe a theory
containing 5-branes for example (and get membranes from S-duality). Then M
should admit 6-dim foliations or equivalently codim 5 foliations. We know
from Haefliger that the $\Gamma _q $-functor, namely the functor of codim
q Haefliger structures and in particular codim q foliations, is
representable. Practically this means that we can have an analogue of
Chern-Weil theory which characterises foliations of M up to homotopy using
cohomology classes of M. (One brief comment for foliations: one way
of describing Haefliger
structures more generally is to say that they \emph{generalise fibre
bundles in exactly
the same way that fibre
bundles generalise Cartesian product}. This observation is also
important when mentioning \textsl{gerbes} later on).\\
In fact it is proved that the correct cohomology to classify Haefliger
structures up to homotopy (and hence foliations which constitute a
particular example of Haefliger structures) is the \emph{Gelfand-Fuchs}
cohomology. This is a result of Bott and Haefliger, essentially
generalising an earlier result due to Godbillon and Vey which was dealing
only with codim 1 foliations, \cite{gv}.\\
Now we have a happy coincidence: the Bott-Haefliger class for a codim 5
foliation (which, recall, is what we want for 5-branes on an 11-manifold)
is exactly an 11-form, something that fits well with using it as a
Lagrangian density!
The construction for arbitrary codim q foliations goes as follows: let
$F$ be a codim q foliation on an m-manifold M and suppose its
normal
bundle $\nu (F)$ is orientable. Then $F$ is defined by a
global decomposable q-form $\Omega $. Let $\{(U_{i},X_i)\}_{i\in
I}$ be a locally finite cover of distinguished coordinate charts on M with
a smooth partition of unity $\{\rho _i\}$. Then set
$$ \Omega = \sum _{i\in I} \rho _{i}dx_{i}^{m-q+1}\wedge ... \wedge
dx_{i}^{m} $$
Since $\Omega $ is integrable,
\begin{equation}
d\Omega =\theta \wedge \Omega ,
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
where $\theta $ \emph{some} 1-form on M. The (2q+1)-form
\begin{equation}
\gamma = \theta \wedge (d\theta )^{q},
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
is closed and its de Rham cohomology class is independent of all choices
involved in defining it, depending only on homotopy type of $F$.
That's the class we want.
Clearly for our case we are on an 11-manifold dealing with 5-branes, hence
6-dim foliations, hence codim 5 and thus the class $\gamma $ is an
11-form.
This construction can be generalised to arbitrary $\Gamma
^{r}_{q}$-structures as a mixed de Rham-Cech cohomology class and thus
gives an element in $H^{2q+1}(B\Gamma ^{r}_{q};{\bf R})$, where $B\Gamma
^{r}_{q}$ is the classifying space for $\Gamma ^{r}_{q}$-structures.
Note that in fact the BHGV class is a cobordism invariant of codim q foliations
of compact (2q+1)-dim manifolds. This construction gives \emph{one}
computable characteristic class for foliations. Optimally we would
like a generalisation of the Chern-Weil construction for $GL_q$. That
is we would like an abstract GDA with the property that for any codim
q foliation $F$ on a manifold M there is a GDA homomorphism
into the de Rham algebra on M, defined in terms of $F$ such
that the induced map on cohomology factors through a universal map
into $H^*(B\Gamma _{q}^{r};{\bf R})$. This algebra is nothing more
than the \emph{Gelfand-Fuchs} Lie coalgebra of \emph{formal} vector fields in
one variable.
More concretely, let $\Gamma $ be a transitive Lie-pseudogroup acting
on ${\bf R^n}$ and let $a(\Gamma )$ denote the \textsl{Lie algebra of
formal $\Gamma $ vector fields} associated to $\Gamma $. Here a vector
field defined on on $U\subset {\bf R^n}$ is called a $\Gamma $ vector
field if the local 1-parameter group which it engenders is $\Gamma
$ and $a(\Gamma )$ is defined as the inverse limit
$$a(\Gamma )=lim_{\leftarrow}a^{k}(\Gamma )$$
of the k-jets at 0 of $\Gamma $ vector fields. In the pseudogroup
$\Gamma $ let $\Gamma _0 $ be the set of elements of $\Gamma $ keeping
0 fixed and set $\Gamma _{0}^{k} $ equal to the k-jets of elements in
$\Gamma _0 $.\\
Then the $\Gamma _{0}^{k} $ form an inverse system of Lie groups and
we can find a subgroup $K\subset lim_{\leftarrow}\Gamma _{0}^{k}$
whose projection on every $\Gamma _{0}^{k} $ is a maximal compact
subgroup for $k>0$. This follows from the fact that the kernel of the
projection $\Gamma _{0}^{k+1}\rightarrow \Gamma _{0}^{k}$ is a vector
space for $k>0$. The subgroup K is unique up to conjugation and its Lie
algebra k can be identified with a subalgebra of $a(\Gamma )$.
For our purposes we need the cohomology of basic elements rel K in
$a(\Gamma )$, namely $H(a(\Gamma );K)$ which is defined as follows:
Let $A\{a^k(\Gamma )\}$ denote the algebra of multilinear alternating
forms on $a^k(\Gamma )$ and let $A\{a(\Gamma )\}$ be the direct limit
of the $A\{a^k(\Gamma )\}$. The bracket in $a(\Gamma )$ induces a
differential on $A\{a(\Gamma )\}$ and we write $H\{a(\Gamma )\}$ for
the resulting cohomology group. The relative group $H^{*}(a(\Gamma
);K)$ is now defined as the cohomology of the subcomplex of
$A\{a(\Gamma )\}$ consisting of elements which are invariant under the
natural action of K and annihilated by all inner products with
elements of k. Then the result is:
\textsl{Let $F$ be a $\Gamma $-foliation on M. There is an
algebra homomorphism}
$$\phi :H\{a(\Gamma );K\}\rightarrow H(M;{\bf R})$$
which is a natural transformation on the category $C(\Gamma )$.
The construction of $\phi $ is as follows:
Let $P^k(\Gamma )$ be the differential bundle of k-jets at the origin
of elements of $\Gamma $. It is a principal $\Gamma
_{0}^{k}$-bundle. On the other hand $\Gamma $ acts transitively on the
left on $P^k(\Gamma )$. Denote by $A(P^{\infty}(\Gamma ))$ the direct
limit of the algebras $A(P^{k}(\Gamma ))$ of differential forms on
$P^k(\Gamma )$. The invariant forms wrt the action of $\Gamma $
constitute a differential subalgebra denoted $A_{\Gamma }$. One can
then prove that it is actually isomorphic to $A(a(\Gamma ))$.
Now let F be a foliation on M and let $P^k(F)$ be the differentiable
bundle over M whose fibre at every point say $x\in M$ is the space of k-jets at
this point of local projections that vanish on $x$. This is a $\Gamma
_0^k $-principal bundle. Its restriction is isomorphic to the inverse
image of the bundle $P^k(\Gamma )$, hence the differential algebra of
$\Gamma $-invariant forms on $P^k(\Gamma )$ is mapped in the algebra
$A(P^k(F))$ of differential forms on $P^k(F)$. If we denote by
$A(P^{\infty}(F))$ the direct limit of $A(P^{k}(F))$ we get an
injective homomorphism $\phi $ of $A(a(\Gamma ))$ in $A(P^{\infty}(F
))$ commuting with the differential.
This homomorphism is compatible with the action of K, hence induces a
homomorphism on the subalgebra of K-basic elements. But the algebra
$A(P^{k}(F );K)$ of K-basic elements in $A(P^{k}(F))$ is isomorphic to
the algebra of differential forms on $P^k(F)/K$ which is a bundle over
M with contractible fibre $\Gamma _0^k/K$.Hence $H(A(P^k(F);K))$ is
isomorphic via the de Rham theorem to $H(M;{\bf R})$. The homomorphism
$\phi $ is therefore obtained as the composition
$$H(a(\Gamma );K)\rightarrow H(A(P^{\infty }(F);K))=H(M;{\bf R})$$
But we think that is enough with \emph{abstract nonsense}
formalism. Let us make our discussion more \textsl{down to earth}:
Consider the GDA (over {\bf R})
$$WO_{q}=\wedge (u_1, u_3,..., u_{2(q/2)-1})\otimes P_q(c_1,...,
c_q)$$
with $du_i=c_i $ for odd i and $dc_{i}=0$ for all i and
$$W_{q}=\wedge (u_{1},u_{2},...,u_{q})\otimes P_{q}(c_1,...,c_q)$$
with $du_{i}=c_{i}$ and $dc_{i}=0$ for i=1,...,q where $deg
u_{i}=2i-1$, $deg c_{i}=2i$ and $\wedge $ denotes exterior algebra,
$P_q $ denotes the polynomial algebra in the $c_{i}$'s mod elements of
total degree greater than 2q. The cohomology of $W_q $ is the Gelfand
Fuchs cohomology of the Lie algebra of formal vector fields in q
variables. We note that the ring structure at the cohomology level is
trivial, that is all cup products are zero. Then the main result is
that there are homomorphisms
$$\phi :H^{*}(WO_{q})\rightarrow H^{*}(B\Gamma ^{r}_{q};{\bf R})$$
$$\tilde {\phi }:H^{*}(W_q)\rightarrow H^{*}(\tilde{B\Gamma _{q}^{r}};{\bf
R})$$
for $r \geq 2$ with the following property ($\tilde{B\Gamma _{q}^{r}}$
denotes the classifying space for \emph{framed} foliations): If $F$ is a codim
q $C^{r}$ foliation of a manifold M, there is a GDA homomorphism
$$\phi _{F}:WO_{q}\rightarrow \wedge ^{*}(M)$$
into the de Rham algebra on M, defined in terms of the differential
geometry of $F$ and unique up to chain homotopy, such that on
cohomology we have $\phi _{F}=f^{*}\circ \phi $, where
$f:M \rightarrow B\Gamma ^{r}_{q}$ classifies $F$. If the
normal bundle of $F$ is trivial, there is a homomorphism
$$\tilde {\phi _{F}}:W_q \rightarrow \wedge ^{*}(M)$$
with analogous properties.\\
Combining this result with the fact that $B\tilde{\Gamma ^{0}_{q}}$ is
\emph{contractible}, we deduce that a foliation is essentially
determined by the structure of its normal bundle; the \emph{Chern}
classes of the normal bundle are contained in the image of the map
$\phi $ above but we have \emph{additional} non trivial classes in the
case of foliations (which are rather difficult to find though), one of
which is this BHGV class which we
constructed explicitly and it is the class we use as a Lagrangian
density which is purely topological since its degree fits nicely for
describing 5-branes.
There is an alternative approach due to Simons \cite{simons} which avoids passing to
the normal bundle using circle coefficients. What he actually does is
to associate to a principal bundle with connection a family of
characteristic homomorphisms from the integral cycles on a manifold to
$S^{1}$ and then defining an extension denoted $K^{2k}_{q}$ of
$H^{2k}(BGL_{q};{\bf Z})$. This approach is related
to \emph{gerbes}. A gerbe over a manifold is a construction which
locally looks like the Cartesian product of the manifold with a line
bundle. Clearly it is a special case of foliations (remember our
previous comment on foliations). However this
approach actually suggests that they might be equivalent, if the
approach of Bott-Haefliger is equivalent to that of Simons,
something which is not known.\\
\textsl{Now the conjecture is that the \emph{partition function} of this
Lagrangian is related to the invariant introduced in \cite{Z2}.}\\
In order to establish relation with physics, we must make some
identifications. The 1-form $\theta $ appearing in the Lagrangian has
no direct physical meaning. In physics it is assumed that a 5-brane
gives rise to a 6-form gauge field denoted $A_6$ whose field strength
is simply
\begin{equation}
dA_{6}=F_{7}
\label{eq3}
\end{equation}
The only way we can explain geometrically this is that this 6-form is
the Poincare dual of the 6-chain that the 5-brane sweps out as it
moves in time.
We know that since we have S-duality between membranes and 5-branes,
in an obvious notation one has
\begin{equation}
F_{7}=*F_{4}
\label{eq4}
\end{equation}
which is the S-duality relation, where
\begin{equation}
F_{4}=dA_{3}
\label{eq5}
\end{equation}
Observe now that the starting point for 5-brane theory is $A_6$ where
the starting point to construct the BHGV class was the 5-form $\Omega
$. How are they related?
There are three obvious possibilities:
I. $d\Omega =A_6$
That would imply that $A_6 $ is pure gauge.
II.$dF_{4}=\Omega $
This is trivial because it implies $d\Omega =0$, hence $d\Omega
=\theta \wedge \Omega =0$.
III. The only remaining possibility is
\begin{equation}
*A_{6}=\Omega
\label{eq6}
\end{equation}
We call this \emph{``reality condition''}. So now in principle we can substitute
equations (10) and (5) into (6) and get an expression for the Lagrangian
which involves the gauge field $A_6$.
The Euler-Lagrange equations which are actually analogous to D=11 N=1
supergravity Euler-Lagrange equations (see equation (12) below) read:
\begin{equation}
d*d\theta + \frac{1}{5}(d\theta )^{5}=0
\label{eq7}
\end{equation}
The on-shell relation with D=11 N=1 supergravity is established as
follows: recall that the bosonic sector of this supergravity theory is
$$\int F_{4}\wedge F_{4}\wedge A_{3}$$
where $F_{4}=dA_{3}$ with
Euler-Lagrange equations
\begin{equation}
d*F_{4}+\frac{1}{2}F_{4}\wedge F_{4}=0
\label{eq8}
\end{equation}
Constraining $A_3 $ via (12), by (9), (8), (7), (10) and (5) we get a constraint
for $\theta $ which can be added to the class $\gamma $ as a Lagrange
multiplier.
In order to calculate the partition function, some additional
difficulties may arise because we do not know what notion of
equivallence between foliations is the appropriate one for physics in
order to fix the gauge and add Faddeev-Popov terms as constraints to
kill-off the gauge freedom. There are actually four different notions
of equivalence for foliations: conjugation, homotopy, integrable
homotopy and foliated cobordism.
In principle, one must end up with an equivallent theory starting with
membranes (that's due to S-duality), provided of course a suitable
class was found. Clearly the BHGV class for a membrane would be a
\emph{17-form}.
The final comment refers to \cite{sus}. In that article it was conjectured
that the quantum mechanics of branes could be described as a matrix model.
As it is well-known matrix models use point particle degrees of freedom.
This is rather intriguing since we are talking about M-theory which
contains various p-branes. In our approach though we propose a Lagrangian
density which has as fundamental object a mysterious 1-form which, if seen
as a gauge potential, that would imply the existence of some yet unknown
underlying point particle!
\subsection{Plane fields}
We now pass on to the second question raised in this application, namely the
restrictions on the topology of the underlying manifold of a theory
containing p-branes via our physical principle.
It is clear from the definition that the existence of a
foliation of certain dim, say d (or equivalently codim q=n-d) on an
n-manifold (closed) depends:
a.) On the existence of a dim d subbundle of the tangent bundle
b.) On this d-dim subbundle being integrable.
The second question has been answered almost completely by Bott and in
a more general framework by
Thurston. Bott's result dictates that for a codim q subbundle of the
tangent bundle to be integrable, the ring of Pontrjagin classes of the
subbundle with degree $>2q$ must be zero. There is a secondary
obstruction due to Shulman involving certain Massey triple products
but we shall not elaborate on this. However Bott's result suggests
nothing for question a.) above. Let us also mention that this result of
Bott can be deduced by another theorem due to Thurston which states
that the classifying space $B\tilde{\Gamma ^{\infty }_{q}}$ of smooth
codim q framed foliations is (q+1)-connected.
On the contrary, Thurston's result reduces the existence
of codim $q>1$ foliations (at least up to homotopy) to the existence of
\emph{q-plane fields}. This is a deep question in differential
topology, related to the problem of classification of closed manifolds
according to their \textsl{rank}.
Now the problem of existence of q-plane fields has been answered
\emph{only for some cases for spheres $S^n$ for various values of
n,q} \cite{steenrod}.
In particular we know everything for spheres of dimension 10 and
less. We should however mention a theorem due to Winkelnkemper
\cite{win1} which
is quite general in nature and talks about simply connected compact
manifolds of dim n greater than 5. If n is not 0 mod 4 then it admits
a so-called \emph{Alexander decomposition} which under special
assumptions can give a particular
kind of a codim 1 foliation with $S^{1}$ as space of leaves and a
surjection from the manifold to $S{1}$. If n is 0 mod 4 then the manifold admits an
Alexander decomposition iff its signature is zero.
Let us return to string theory now: String theory works in D=10 and in this case we have the old brane-scan
suggesting the string/5-brane duality. The new brane-scan contains all
p-branes for $p\leq 6$ and some D-7 and 8-branes are thought to
exist. However topology says that for a sphere in dim 10 we can have
only dim 0 and dim 10 plane fields (in fact this is true for all even
dim spheres), hence by Thurston only dim 0 and
dim 10 foliations and then our physical principle suggests that $S^{10}$
is ruled out as a possible underlying topological space for string theory.\\
What about M-Theory in D=11 then?\\
For the case of $S^{11}$ then it is known that $S^{11}$ admits a 3-plane field, hence by our physical
principle a theory containing membranes \emph{can} be formulated on
$S^{11}$. For $S^{11}$ nothing is known for the existence of q-plane
fields for q greater than 3. But now we apply S-duality between membranes/5-branes
and conjecture that:\\
\emph{$S^{11}$ should admit 5-plane fields}.\\
Let us close with two final remarks:
1. There is extensive work in
foliations with numerous results which actually insert many extra
parameters into their study, for example metric aspects, existence of
foliations with compact leaves (all or at least one or exactly one),
with leaves diffeomorphic to ${\bf R^n}$ for some n etc. We do not have
a clear picture for the moment concerning imposing these in physics.
Let us only mention
one particularly strong result due to Wall generalising a result of
Reeb \cite{reeb}: if a closed
n-manifold admits a codim 1 foliation whose leaves are homeomorphic to
${\bf R^{n-1}}$, then by Thurston we know that its Euler characteristic
must vanish, but in fact we have more: it has to be the n-torus!\\
The interesting point
however is that although all these extended objects theories in
physics are expressed as $\sigma $ models \cite{Z1}, hence they
involve metrics on the manifold (target space) and on the worldvolumes ie on the
leaves, in our approach the metric is only used in the reality
condition (10) which makes connection with physical fields (that is
some metric on the target space) where at the same time we do not use any
metric on the source space (worldvolumes-leaves of the foliation).\\
2. In \cite{Z1} another Lagrangian density was proposed. It is
different from the one described here but they are related in an
analogous way to the relation between the Polyakov and Nambu-Goto (in
fact Dirac \cite{dirac}) actions for the free bosonic string: extended
objects basically immitate string theory and we have two formalisms:
the $\sigma $ model one which is the Lagrangian exhibited in \cite{Z1}
using Polyakov's picture of $\sigma $ models as flat principal bundles
with structure group the isometries of the metric on the target space
\cite{polyakov}; yet we also have the \emph{embedded surface} picture
which is the Dirac (Nambu-Goto) action and whose analogue is described
in this work.
In the light of a very recent work \cite{WIT}, we can also make some
further comments: the first is that the Moyal algebra used in order to
discuss noncommutative solitons is actually Morita equivalent to the usual
commutative one. This fact can be further verified from the explicit
construction of an algebra homomorphism between noncommutative and
ordinary Yang-Mills fields based on Gelfand's theorem. Truly
noncommutative situations appear when discussing noncommutative tori.
The next comment refers to the last section of that paper: we already know
that
strings in a constant magnetic field can be described from that Moyal
algebra-like spacetime structure and they also discuss what may happen to
5-branes in M-theory. Our point of view coincides with theirs in the
following way: we here propose that this is indeed the case for
5-branes with a C-field turned on, namely that this situation can be
described by 6-dim foliations which rather correspond to a "free" theory
of
branes but on a "noncommutative" topological space, which is actually, in
our case, the space of leaves of the corresponding foliation.
\begin {thebibliography}{50}
\bibitem{bott}R. Bott and A. Haefliger: "Characteristic classes of $\Gamma
$-foliations", Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 78.6, (1972)\\
\bibitem{lawson}H. B. Lawson: "Foliations", Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 80.3,
1974\\
\bibitem{thurston}W. Thurston: "Theory of foliations of codim greater than
1", Comment. Math. Helvetici 49 (1974), 214-231\\
W. Thurston: ``Foliations and groups of
diffeomorphisms'', Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 80.2 (1974)\\
\bibitem{gromov}M. L. Gromov: ``Stable mappings of foliations into
manifolds'', Izv. Akad. Nauk. USSR Ser. Mat. 33 (1969)\\
\bibitem{gv}C. Godbillon and J. Vey: ``Un invariant des feuilletages
de codim 1'', C R Acad. Sci. Paris Ser AB 273 (1971)\\
\bibitem{steenrod}N. Steenrod: ``The topology of fibre bundles'',
Princeton 1951\\
\bibitem{win1}H. E. Winkelnkemper: ``Manifolds as open books'',
Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 79 (1973)\\
\bibitem{reeb}G. Reeb: ``Feuillages, resultats anciens et nouveaux'',
Montreal 1982\\
\bibitem{simons}J. Simons: ``Characteristic forms and transgression'',
preprint SUNY Stony Brook\\
\bibitem{dirac}P.A.M. Dirac: Proc. Roy. Soc. London A166 (1969)\\
\bibitem{duff}M. J. Duff et all: ``String Solitons'', Phys. Rep. 259
(1995) 213
M. J. Duff: ``Supermembranes'', hep-th 9611203\\
\bibitem{west}P. C. West: ``Supergravity, brane dynamics and string
dualities'', hep-th 9811101\\
\bibitem{james} R. Bott:"Lectures on characteristic classes and
foliations, Springer LNM 279, 1972.\\
\bibitem{AT} M. F. Atiyah: "Topological quantum field theories", Publ.
Math. IHES 68, 175-186, (1989).
"The geometry and the physics of knots", Cambridge University Press, 1990.
\\
\bibitem{wegge} Wegge-Olsen: "K-Theory and $C^*$-algebras", Oxford
University Press, 1992.\\
\bibitem{shard} G. Shardanashvili,O. Zakharov: "Gauge Gravitation
Theory", World
Scientific, 1991.\\
\bibitem{hirzebruch} Hirzebruch: "Geometrical methods in Topology",
Springer, Berlin 1970.\\
\bibitem{polyakov} A. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B164 (1981),
Phys. Lett. 82B (1979), hep-th/9607049 Princeton preprint 1996.\\
\bibitem{hirsch} G. Hector - U. Hirsch: "Introduction to the Geometry of
Foliations", Vieweg 1981.\\
\bibitem{connes1} A. Connes: "A survey of foliations and operator
algebras", Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 38 AMS 1982.\\
\bibitem{baum}P. Baum, R. Douglas: "K-homology and Index theory", ibid.\\
\bibitem{connes2} A. Connes: "Non-Commutative Geometry", Academic Press
1994.\\
\bibitem{connes3} A. Connes: "Noncommutative differential Geometry I,
II", IHES Publ. Math. 63 (1985).\\
\bibitem{connes5}A. Connes: ``Cyclic cohomology and the transverse
fundamental class of a foliation'', Pitman Res. Notes in Math., 123,
Longman Harlow 1986.\\
\bibitem{townsend} P. Townsend, D. Freedman, Nucl. Phys. B177 (1981)
282.\\
\bibitem{donald} S. K. Donaldson, P.B. Kronheimer, "The geometry
of 4-manifolds", Oxford University Press, 1991.\\
\bibitem{conness} A. Connes, G. Skandalis, "The longitudinal index theorem
for foliations", Publ. Res. Inst. Sci. Kyoto 20 (1984).\\
\bibitem{atiyah} M.F. Atiyah - V.K. Patodi - I.M. Singer: "Spectral
assymetry and Riemannian geometry I, II, III", Math. Proc. Cambridge
Philos. Soc. 77 (1975).\\
\bibitem{win} Winkelnkemper. The graph of a foliation. Ann. Global
Anal. and Geom. 1 No3 (1983) 51.\\
\bibitem{jcw} G.W. Whitehead. Elements of Homotopy Theory. Springer
Berlin 1978.\\
\bibitem{douglas1} R. Douglas - S. Harder - J. Kaminker: "Toeplitz
operators and the eta invariant: the case of $S^1$" ,
Contemp. Math. 70 (1988).\\
\bibitem{douglas2} R. Douglas - S. Harder - J. Kaminker: "Cyclic
cocycles, renormalisation and eta invariant", Invent. Math 103
(1991).\\
\bibitem{witten2} E. Witten: "Global Gravitation Anomalies",
Commun. Math. Phys. 100 (1985).\\
\bibitem{WIT} E. Witten: "Quantum Field Theories and the
Jones polynomial", Commun. Math. Phys. 121 (1989).
"Topology-changing amplitudes in (2+1)-dim gravity", Nucl. Phys. B323,
113-140, (1989).
"(2+1)-dim gravity as an exactly soluble system", Nucl. Phys. B311,
46-78, (1988).
"String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry", hep-th/9908142.\\
\bibitem{tondeur} F. W. Kamber - P. Tondeur: "Foliated Bundles and
Characteristic Classes", LNM 493, Springer 1975.\\
\bibitem{BPST} A.A. Belavin, A.M. Polyakov, A.S. Schwartz,
Y.S. Tyupkin. Pseudoparticle Solutions of the Yang-Mills
Equations. Phys. Lett. 59B (1975).\\
\bibitem{Z1} I.P. Zois: "Search for the M-theory Lagrangian". Phys. Lett.
B 402 (1997) 33-35.\\
\bibitem{Z2} I.P. Zois: "The duality between two-index potentials and
the non-linear $\sigma $ model in field theory", D.Phil Thesis, Oxford,
Michaelmas 1996.\\
\bibitem{barrett} J.W. Barrett. Quantum Gravity as a Topological
Quantum Field Theory. Nottingham Mathematics Preprint 1995.\\
\bibitem{kronheimer} P.B. Kronheimer, H. Nakajima. Yang-Mills
instantons on ALE gravitational instantons. Mathematische Annalen 288
(1990) 263.\\
\bibitem{henneaux} M. Henneaux. Uniqueness of the Freedman-Townsend
interaction vertex for 2-form gauge fields. Preprint Universite Libre
de Bruxelles 1996.\\
\bibitem{loday} J.-L. Loday: "Cyclic Homology", Springer, Berlin, 1991.\\
\bibitem{schwarz} A. Connes, M.R. Douglas and A. Schwarz: "Noncommutative
Geometry and Matrix Theory: Compactification on Tori", J. High Energy
Phys. 02 (1998) 003.\\
\bibitem{tsou} S. T. Tsou et all: "Features of Quark and Lepton Mixing
from Differential Geometry of Curves on Surfaces", Phys. Rev. D58 (1998)
053006.\\
S. T. Tsou et all: "The Dualised Standard Model and its Applications",
talk given at the International Conference of High Energy Physics 1998
(ICHEP 98), Vancouver, Canada.\\
\bibitem{sus}T. Banks et all: "M-Theory as a Matrix Model: A Conjecture",
Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 5112.\\
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
|
\section{Nonabelian Duality and Basic Ingredients of DSM}
To illustrate how nonabelian duality enters in the Standard Model, we
begin with a short resum\'e of (abelian) duality in electromagnetism.
The Maxwell theory has long been known to possess a symmetry under the
interchange of electricity and magnetism:
\begin{equation}
F_{\mu\nu}(x) \longleftrightarrow {}^*\!F_{\mu\nu}(x),
\label{dualsymm}
\end{equation}
where the *-operation (Hodge star):
\begin{equation}
{}^*\!F_{\mu\nu}(x) = -\frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}
F^{\rho\sigma}(x),
\label{dualtransf}
\end{equation}
we may call the abelian dual transform. Electric charges are sources of
the field $F$ but monopoles of the field ${}^*\!F$, while magnetic charges are
monopoles of $F$ but sources of ${}^*\!F$, where the strength of the quantized
electric charges $e$ is related to that of the also quantized magnetic
charges $\tilde{e}$ by the famous Dirac condition:
\begin{equation}
e \tilde{e} = 2 \pi.
\label{diraccond}
\end{equation}
At any point $x$ in space-time free (locally) of electric and magnetic
charges, both $F_{\mu\nu}(x)$ and its dual ${}^*\!F_{\mu\nu}(x)$ are, by
virtue of the Maxwell equations, `gauge fields' derivable from potentials,
thus:
\begin{equation}
F_{\mu\nu}(x) = \partial_\nu A_\mu(x) - \partial_\mu A_\nu(x),
\label{fina}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{}^*\!F_{\mu\nu}(x) = \partial_\nu \tilde{A}_\mu(x) - \partial_\mu
\tilde{A}_\nu(x).
\label{dftinda}
\end{equation}
It follows then that the theory is invariant under the 2 independent gauge
transformations:
\begin{equation}
A_\mu(x) \longrightarrow A_\mu(x) + \partial_\mu \alpha(x),
\label{gaugetransf}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{A}_\mu(x) \longrightarrow \tilde{A}_\mu(x) + \partial_\mu
\tilde{\alpha}(x).
\label{dgaugetransf}
\end{equation}
In other words, the theory is invariant under the doubled gauge symmetry
$U(1) \times \tilde{U}(1)$, although obviously, given (\ref{dualtransf}),
the dual fields $F$ and ${}^*\!F$ represent just the same physical degrees of
freedom. Notice that this `doubled' gauge symmetry is inherent in the
Maxwell theory itself and not an additional assertion imposed from outside.
The only reason we are less familiar with, and have not made much used of,
the dual gauge symmetry $\tilde{U}(1)$, which theoretically is on an equal
footing with the other gauge symmetry $U(1)$, is just that in the physical
world we have observed electric charges but not so far (apparently) their
magnetic counterparts.
Nonabelian Yang-Mills theory is not symmetric under the *-operation of
(\ref{dualtransf}) \cite{Guyang} so that it was not known for some time
whether the dual symmetry of electromagnetism generalizes to Yang-Mills theory.
But it has now been shown in \cite{dualsymm} that there is a generalized
nonabelian dual transform \ $\tilde{\ }$\ , reducing to * in the abelian case,
under which Yang-Mills theory is symmetric. Unfortunately, the explicit
formula for the generalized transform\ $\tilde{\ }$\ is known at present
only in the language of loop space \cite{Polyakov,book} and is for
that reason a little cumbersome. However, for our present discussion, we
need only to note the consequences of the symmetry it implies, as follows.
Dual to a Yang-Mills field $F_{\mu\nu}$ derivable from a potential $A_\mu$:
\begin{equation}
F_{\mu\nu}(x) = \partial_\nu A_\mu(x) -\partial_\mu A_\nu(x)
+ ig\, [A_\mu(x), A_\nu(x)],
\label{FinA}
\end{equation}
there is a field $\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}$ (the relation of which to $F_{\mu\nu}$
is known though complicated) which is also derivable from a potential,
$\tilde{A}_\mu$:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}(x) = \partial_\nu \tilde{A}_\mu(x) - \partial_\mu
\tilde{A}_\nu(x) + i \tilde{g}\, [\tilde{A}_\mu(x), \tilde{A}_\nu(x)],
\label{dFindA}
\end{equation}
where the coupling strengths $g$ and $\tilde{g}$ are related by a generalized
Dirac condition \cite{dualcomm}:
\begin{equation}
g \tilde{g} = 4 \pi.
\label{Diraccond}
\end{equation}
`Colour' (electric) charges appear as sources of the field $F$ but monopoles
of the dual field $\tilde{F}$, while `dual colour' (magnetic) charges appear
as monopoles of $F$ but sources of $\tilde{F}$ \cite{dualsymm,dualsym}.
The symmetry claimed in \cite{dualsymm} then means that Yang-Mills theory
is invariant under the 2 independent gauge transformations:
\begin{equation}
A_\mu(x) \longrightarrow A_\mu(x) + \partial_\mu \Lambda(x)
+ ig\, [\Lambda(x), A_\mu(x)],
\label{Gaugetransf}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\tilde{A}_\mu(x) \longrightarrow \tilde{A}_\mu(x) + \partial_\mu
\tilde{\Lambda}(x) + i \tilde{g}\, [\tilde{\Lambda}(x), \tilde{A}_\mu(x)],
\label{dGaugetransf}
\end{equation}
giving thus to a theory with structure group $G$ a `doubled' gauge symmetry
$G \times \tilde{G}$, in close analogy to the situation in electromagnetism.
This doubling of the gauge symmetry, as in the abelian case, is claimed
to be an inherent property of the gauge theory, not an additional input.
Again, there is no doubling in the physical degrees of freedom.
Given this nonabelian duality let us now examine its implications in
the Standard Model with the structure group $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times
U(1)$.\footnote{Here, for ease of presentation, we ignore the subtle
differences between gauge groups with the same algebra, although of
course global properties of the gauge group are of primary importance
in considerations of monopole charges. (See e.g. \cite{book}.)}
From the discussion in the preceding paragraph, it follows that the
theory will have, in addition to the familiar gauge symmetry $SU(3)
\times SU(2) \times U(1)$, also the dual gauge symmetry $\widetilde{SU}(3)
\times \widetilde{SU}(2) \times \tilde{U}(1)$. This dual gauge symmetry
being, according to our observations above, an inherent property of the
gauge theory, what we call the Dualized Standard Model \cite{dualcons}
which utilizes this dual gauge symmetry is, as at present understood,
no different in principle as a gauge theory from the Standard Model itself.
As physical schemes, however, they differ, but only in the DSM scheme's
recognition of the existence of and its assignment of physical meanings
to the dual gauge symmetry which is ignored in the usual SM treatment.
In other words, the new DSM results are deduced just by exploring how
this `pre-existing' dual gauge symmetry is likely to manifest itself
in the physical world. The exploration is based on two main assumptions,
namely the identification of 2 ingredients inherent in the theory to 2
physical objects, as we shall now explain.
The first assumption concerns the physical interpretation of dual colour.
Indeed, the DSM results so far obtained are all from exploitations of
only the $\widetilde{SU}(3)$ dual colour symmetry, and it is to this
symmetry that our considerations in this paper will be restricted.
Colour symmetry $SU(3)$ being known from experiment to be confined,
't~Hooft's famous arguments \cite{tHooft} then suggest that the dual
colour symmetry $\widetilde{SU}(3)$ should be broken.\footnote{That
the definition of duality given in \cite{dualsymm} is consistent with
't~Hooft's definition given in \cite{tHooft} is shown in \cite{dualcomm}.}
Now the idea has long been toyed with that fermion generations may
be considered as a broken `horizontal' symmetry. In most schemes,
this new symmetry will have to be introduced {\it ad hoc}. Here,
however, given the fact that because of duality and the arguments of
't~Hooft, there is inherent in the SM gauge theory already a broken symmetry
$\widetilde{SU}(3)$, it seems natural to explore the possibility of
making it into the `horizontal' symmetry of generations. The idea
is made particularly attractive by the fact that recent LEP experiments
have determined the number of generations of light neutrinos to be 3
to a high accuracy \cite{Lep3}. Hence, the first basic assumption one
makes in the DSM scheme is that dual colour is to be identified with
generations. This means, first, that there will be just 3 generations,
no more no less, and second, that any particle carrying a generation
index will carry a dual colour charge, implying, as explained above,
that it is a colour monopole of the Yang-Mills field $F$. In particular
a quark will be a colour `dyon' with both colour (electric) and dual
colour (magnetic) charges.
Now, 't~Hooft's arguments suggest that the dual colour symmetry is broken,
but they do not tell us explicitly how this breaking will occur. The
interesting thing is that within the DSM gauge theory, there are
quantities which can figure as Higgs fields, and if so identified will
imply a particular symmetry breaking pattern. The candidates as Higgs
fields in the DSM are the frame vectors in internal symmetry space, which
in the case of dual colour is the space of $\widetilde{SU}(3)$. The
idea of using frame vectors as dynamical variables is made familiar
already in the theory of relativity where in the Palatini treatment or
the Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama formalism \cite{Heyl} the space-time
frame vectors or vierbeins are used as dynamical variables. In gauge
theory, frame vectors in internal symmetry space are not normally given
a dynamical role, but it turns out that in the dualized framework they
seem to acquire some dynamical properties, in being patched, for example,
in the presence of monopoles \cite{dualsym}. Moreover, they are
space-time scalars belonging to the fundamental representations of the
internal symmetry group, i.e. doublets in electroweak $SU(2)$ and
triplets in dual colour $\widetilde{SU}(3)$, and have finite lengths
(as vev's). They thus seem to have just the right properties to be
Higgs fields, at least as borne out by the familiar example of the
Salam-Weinberg breaking of the electroweak theory. Hence, one makes
the second basic assumption in the DSM scheme, namely that these frame
vectors are indeed the physical Higgs fields required for the spontaneously
broken symmetries.
Identifying dual colour with generations and frame vectors with Higgs
fields are of course assumptions. It is worth noting, however, that
even if one does not choose to do so, the niches in the form of dual
colour and frame vectors will still exist and manifest themselves
physically in some way which will need to be accounted for in another
manner. Opting for the identification, on the other hand, not only
offers a hope of determining some of the SM parameters but also gives
a much desired geometric significance both to generations and to
Higgs fields which has been sadly lacking to an otherwise highly
geometric theory.
Having made these basic assumptions, let us now explore the consequences.
First, making the frame vectors in internal symmetry space into dynamical
variables and identifying them with Higgs fields mean that for dual
colour $\widetilde{SU}(3)$, we introduce 3 triplets of Higgs fields
$\phi^{(a)}_a$, where $(a) = 1, 2, 3$ labels the 3 triplets and $a =
1, 2, 3$ their 3 dual colour components. Further, the 3 triplets having
equal status, it seems reasonable to require that the action be symmetric
under their permutations, although the vacuum need not be so symmetric.
An example of a Higgs potential which breaks both this permutation symmetry
and also the $\widetilde{SU}(3)$ gauge symmetry completely is as follows
\cite{dualcons}:
\begin{equation}
V[\phi] = -\mu \sum_{(a)} |\phi^{(a)}|^2 + \lambda \left\{ \sum_{(a)}
|\phi^{(a)}|^2 \right\}^2 + \kappa \sum_{(a) \neq (b)} |\bar{\phi}^{(a)}
.\phi^{(b)}|^2,
\label{Vofphi}
\end{equation}
a vacuum of which can be expressed without loss of generality in terms of
the Higgs vev's:
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi^{(1)} = \zeta \left(
\begin{array}{c}
x \\ 0 \\ 0
\end{array} \right), \,\,\,
\phi^{(2)} = \zeta \left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\ y \\ 0
\end{array} \right) , \,\,\,
\phi^{(3)} = \zeta \left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\ 0 \\ z
\end{array} \right),
\label{vevs}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 1,
\label{normvevs}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\zeta = \sqrt{\mu/2 \lambda},
\label{zeta}
\end{equation}
$x, y, z$, and $\zeta$ being all real and positive. Indeed, this vacuum
breaks not just the symmetry $\widetilde{SU}(3)$ but even the larger symmetry
$\widetilde{SU}(3) \times \tilde{U}(1)$ completely giving rise to 9 massive
dual gauge bosons. And of the 18 real components in $\phi^{(a)}_a$, 9 are
thus eaten up, leaving just 9 (dual colour) Higgs bosons.
Next, we turn to the fermion fields. In analogy to the electroweak theory,
the left-handed fermion fields are assigned the triplet {\bf 3} and the
right-handed fermions the singlet {\bf 1} representation in dual colour,
so that one can construct their Yukawa couplings as:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{(a)[b]} Y_{[b]} \bar{\psi}^a_L \phi^{(a)}_a \psi^{[b]}_R,
\label{Yukawa}
\end{equation}
which, by the same reasons as for the Higgs potential, we have made symmetric
under permutations of the Higgs fields $\phi^{(a)}$. As a result of this
permutation symmetry, the tree-level fermion mass matrix takes the following
factorized form:
\begin{equation}
m = \zeta \left( \begin{array}{c} x \\ y \\ z \end{array} \right)
(a, b, c),
\label{mtree}
\end{equation}
where $a, b, c$ are just abbreviations for the Yukawa couplings $Y_{[b]}$.
Written in the hermitized convention of e.g. \cite{Weinberg}, which is
basically $\sqrt{m m^{\dagger}}$ in terms of the $m$ above and is the
matrix of relevance to the mass spectrum, it becomes:
\begin{equation}
m = m_T \left( \begin{array}{c} x \\ y \\ z \end{array} \right) (x,y,z),
\label{fermass0}
\end{equation}
where $m_T$ is a mass scale dependent on the fermion type $T = U, D, L, N$,
i.e. whether $U$-type quarks ($U$), $D$-type quarks ($D$), charged leptons
($L$) or neutrinos ($N$), but the vector $(x, y, z)$ given in terms of the
Higgs vev's is independent of the fermion type.
One immediate consequence of such a factorized mass matrix is that at
tree-level there is only one state with mass, represented by the eigenvector
$(x,y,z)$ with eigenvalue $m_T$, the other 2 states having zero eigenvalues.
This we interpret as embryo fermion mass hierarchy, with one generation
much heavier than the other two generations. Such an arrangement is not a
bad first approximation to the experimental situation where the highest
generation states of $U, D, L$ are all more than one order of magnitude
heavier than the lower states. Another immediate consequence is that
at tree-level the CKM matrix is the identity, since the CKM matrix is the
matrix giving the relative orientations between the physical states
of the $U$- and $D$-type quarks, and these orientations at tree-level
are both given in (\ref{fermass0}) by the vector $(x,y,z)$. Again,
this is not a bad first approximation to the experimental CKM
matrix whose off-diagonal elements are at most of order 20 percent.
Though reasonable as a first approximation, this tree-level description
is obviously too degenerate to be realistic. We shall see, however,
that the degeneracy will be lifted at higher orders where nonzero masses
for the two lower generations and nonzero off-diagonal elements for the
CKM matrix will both result from loop corrections.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Quark Mixing and Light Masses as Loop Corrections}
Radiative corrections to the tree-level mass matrix (\ref{fermass0})
have already been calculated to 1-loop level \cite{ourckm}. There are
in principle many diagrams to calculate. There are first the usual
diagrams of the Standard Model with loops of gluons, $\gamma$, $Z$, $W$,
and electroweak Higgses. Then there are new diagrams with loops of
dual gluons and dual Higgses. All these diagrams, however, share
the common feature that they preserve the factorizability of the fermion
mass matrix, namely that after the corrections the mass matrix $m'$ is
of the form:
\begin{equation}
m' = m_T' \left( \begin{array}{c} x' \\ y' \\ z' \end{array} \right)
(x',y',z').
\label{fermassc}
\end{equation}
The reason is that only those bosons carrying dual colour can affect
the factorizability, and of these the dual gluon couples only to the
left-handed fermion while the dual Higgses have themselves factorizable
couplings. Indeed, it is believed, though not formally proved, that
factorizability of $m'$ will remain intact to all orders.
Only a small number of these diagrams, however, need be considered for
the purpose of this paper. The reason is as follows. The value of the
normalization factor $m_T'$ in (\ref{fermassc}) is actually not calculable
perturbatively since it receives contributions from diagrams with a dual
gauge boson loop, and these are proportional to the square of the dual
gauge coupling $\tilde{g}$ which is large according to the Dirac condition
(\ref{Diraccond}), given the known empirical value of the colour coupling
$g$. The normalization $m'_T$ has thus to be treated in any case as an
empirical parameter. In other words, the calculation of any diagram
which affects only this normalization will not add to our present level
of understanding and might as well be ignored. What one can calculate
perturbatively, on the other hand, is the orientation of the vector
$(x',y',z')$ and this is affected by only a small subset of the diagrams,
namely those shown in Figure~\ref{oneloopdiag}. For example, it is clear that
diagrams with only loops of gluons or $W$-bosons will not affect the
orientation of $(x', y', z')$ since these bosons do not carry dual colour.
Next, of the remaining 3 diagrams as in Figure~\ref{oneloopdiag}, the
first 2 can
give only negligible effects. This last conclusion is arrived at as follows.
The diagrams (a) and (b) both give rotations to $(x', y', z')$ but these
are of the order $\tilde{g}^2 m_T^2/\mu_N^2$, where $\mu_N$ represents
the masses of the dual gauge bosons which are constrained by present
experimental bounds on flavour-changing neutral current (FCNC) effects to
be rather large. The identification of dual colours to generations means
that particles carrying generation indices can interact by exchanging dual
gluons, which would lead to generation-changing or FCNC effects, such as
$K_L \rightarrow e \mu$ decay or an anomalous $K_L - K_S$ mass difference,
and such effects are strongly bounded by experiment. An analysis using
the latest data \cite{Cahnrari,ourfcnc} which will be outlined in Section
5 below, shows that a violation to present experimental bounds can be
avoided only if $\mu_N^2/\tilde{g}^2$ is of order at least a few hundred
TeV, which means contributions from diagrams (a) and (b), even for the
top quark, are of at most $10^{-6}$. Neglecting then contributions of this
order, the calculation becomes rather simple depending on only the (dual)
Higgs loop diagram of Figure \ref{oneloopdiag} (c) \cite{ourckm}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace{1cm}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=oneloopdiag.eps,width=0.9\textwidth}}
\vspace{.5cm}
\caption{One loop diagrams rotating the fermion mass matrix.}
\label{oneloopdiag}
\end{figure}
The rotation given to the normalized vector $(x',y',z')$ by the remaining
Higgs loop diagram Figure \ref{oneloopdiag} (c) has been calculated. It is
found to depend on the energy scale $\mu$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{d(\ln \mu^2)} \left( \begin{array}{c} x' \\ y' \\ z'
\end{array} \right)
= \frac{5}{64 \pi^2} \rho^2 \left( \begin{array}{c}
\tilde{x}'_1 \\ \tilde{y}'_1 \\ \tilde{z}'_1 \end{array} \right),
\label{runxyz}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\tilde{x}'_1 = \frac{x'(x'^2-y'^2)}{x'^2+y'^2} + \frac{x'(x'^2-z'^2)}
{x'^2+z'^2}, \ \ \ {\rm cyclic},
\label{x1tilde}
\end{equation}
and $\rho^2 = |a|^2 + |b|^2 + |c|^2$ being the Yukawa coupling strength.
As $\mu$ varies the normalized vector traces out a curve on the unit
sphere. It is
easily seen from (\ref{runxyz}) and (\ref{x1tilde}) that the points
$(1,0,0)$ and $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,1)$ are fixed points under scale
changes, and for decreasing energy, the point $(x',y',z')$ runs away
from $(1,0,0)$ towards $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,1)$. The trajectory
along which $(x',y',z')$ runs depends in principle on the Higgs boson
masses logarithmically, but because of a `happy accident' that we shall
make clear later, even this weak dependence can be ignored. The only
parameters remaining are then just the initial values of the
components of the normalized
vector $(x',y',z')$ identifiable with the Higgs vev's which
are the same for all fermion types, and the Yukawa coupling strength
$\rho_T$, one for each fermion type $T$. The information being now
encoded in the vector $(x',y',z')$ running along a trajectory on the
unit sphere, the remaining question is just how to extract the fermion
mass and mixing parameters from this rotating vector.
Let us first consider quarks of the $U$-type and ask what is the physical
state vector the of $t$ quark in dual colour or generation space. Now,
according to (\ref{fermassc}), $(x',y',z')$ is the vector with the single
nonzero eigenvalue of the loop-corrected fermion mass matrix at the energy
scale where $(x',y',z')$ is evaluated. It ought therefore to be
identified with the state vector of the heaviest generation, except
that $(x',y',z')$ has to be evaluated at the scale $\mu$ equal to the
top mass $m_t$. Inputting then the empirical value of $m_t \sim 176\
{\rm GeV}$ we run $(x',y',z')$ to the scale $\mu = m_t$. This gives us
the physical state vector $|{\bf v}_t \rangle$ and also fixes the
value of the parameter $m_U'$ at the same scale. This calculation,
however, still depends on the starting value $(x,y,z)$ of the rotating
vector $(x',y',z')$ and also on the Yukawa coupling strength $\rho_U$.
Next, we ask what is the physical state vector of the $c$ quark. Being
an independent physical entity, the $c$ quark ought to have a state
vector orthogonal to $|{\bf v}_t \rangle$. This means it must have a
zero eigenvalue of the mass matrix (\ref{fermassc}) evaluated at the
scale $\mu = m_t$. But there are two linearly independent such
vectors and we do not as yet know which linear combination of these
should correspond to the $c$ quark. Nor can we identify the mass $m_c$
as the zero eigenvalue for this is evaluated at the wrong scale $m_t$.
Let us first extract the mass submatrix in the 2-dimensional subspace
orthogonal to $|{\bf v}_t \rangle$ and run it down to lower scale. Being
a submatrix of a rank 1 matrix, it is of rank at most 1 at this lower scale
but need no longer be a zero matrix since the nonzero eigenvector $(x',y',z')$
of the full mass matrix (\ref{fermassc}) has already rotated from the
direction $|{\bf v}_t \rangle$ and can have thus a component in the subspace
orthogonal to $|{\bf v}_t \rangle$ which contains $|{\bf v}_c \rangle$.
For consistency with the way we fixed the vector $|{\bf v}_t \rangle$
before, the procedure to determine $|{\bf v}_c \rangle$ is now clear.
We ought to run the $2 \times 2$ mass submatrix down in energy until
the scale $\mu$ equals the empirical value $m_c$ of the $c$ quark mass.
Then its only nonzero eigenvector at that scale is to be identified with
$|{\bf v}_c \rangle$. This vector is, of course, by definition orthogonal
to $|{\bf v}_t \rangle$ as it should be. Its eigenvalue of the mass
submatrix, however, will not in general be the same as the input value
of $m_c$. But our calculation, we recall, still depends on $(x,y,z)$
and $\rho_U$, and by adjusting $\rho_U$ we can make the output eigenvalue
of $|{\bf v}_c \rangle$ the same as the input value of $m_c$. This fixes
$\rho_U$, leaving now only $(x,y,z)$ as parameters.
Once the state vectors of the $t$ and $c$ quarks are determined, then
obviously the state vector of the $u$ quark is also fixed as the vector
orthogonal to both. We have thus the whole triad of physical state
vectors of the $U$-type quarks in terms of the 2 remaining parameters in
the normalised vector $(x,y,z)$ representing the Higgs vev's.
The above procedure can now be repeated for the $D$-type quarks and for the
charged leptons to determine the triad of their physical state vectors.
(The problem for neutrinos is somewhat different as we shall make clear
later.) To do so, we shall have to input the empirical masses of the
two highest generations in each case, namely $b$ and $s$ for the $D$-type
quarks and $\tau$ and $\mu$ for the charged leptons, and then, as before
for the $U$-type quarks, to adjust the Yukawa coupling strengths $\rho_D$
and $\rho_L$ to obtain consistency. The values of the $\rho$'s determined
in this way need not of course be the same for $D$ and $L$ nor as the
value obtained before for the $U$-type quarks. Again the triads so obtained
still depend on $(x,y,z)$, which is the same for all fermion types.
Now the matrix relating the orientations in generation space of the two triads
of physical state vectors of respectively the $U$-type and $D$-type quarks is
what is known in the literature as the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Moskawa (CKM) matrix.
These orientations being now known, the CKM matrix can be calculated in
terms of the two remaining parameters in $(x,y,z)$. By adjusting these,
we can then try to fit the empirical CKM matrix. There are actually 4
independent degrees of freedom in the CKM matrix, but in our treatment
up to 1-loop order, there is no $CP$-violating phase, the vector $(x',y',z')$
being real. We are thus left with 3 real quantities to fit with our
two remaining parameters, which is still nontrivial but has been achieved
rather well. For the matrix of absolute values $|V_{rs}|$, for $r = u,c,t$
and $s = d,s,b$, we obtained \cite{ourckm} \footnote{This fit was obtained
using data given in the databook of 1996 \cite{databook}. For this reason
the comparison with experiment given in this paper refers for consistency
also to data from the same source. Although much of the data have since
been updated, the changes are not large. For a parallel fit to the latest
data and comparison with them, see \cite{phenodsm}, which arrives at a
similar conclusion to that presented in this paper.}:
\begin{equation}
|V_{rs}| =
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0.9755 & 0.2199 & 0.0044 \\
0.2195 & 0.9746 & 0.0452 \\
0.0143 & 0.0431 & 0.9990 \end{array} \right),
\label{calckmq}
\end{equation}
as compared with the experimental values \cite{databook}:
\begin{equation}
|V_{rs}| =
\left( \begin{array}{lll} 0.9745-0.9757 & 0.219-0.224 & 0.002-0.005 \\
0.218-0.224 & 0.9736-0.9750 & 0.036-0.046 \\
0.004-0.014 & 0.034-0.046 & 0.9989-0.9993
\end{array} \right).
\label{expckmq}
\end{equation}
The above fit to the CKM matrix fixes all the parameters in the problem, the
values of which so obtained show two very intriguing features. First, the
vev's of the Higgs fields $(x,y,z)$ turn out to have values very close to
the high energy fixed point $(1,0,0)$. Second, and even more intriguingly,
the Yukawa coupling strengths $\rho_T$ turn out to be $T$-independent
to a surprising accuracy \cite{ourckm}. Indeed, for fermion masses taken
at the (geometric) median of experimental values, the fitted values of
$\rho_T$
for $T = U, D, L$ differ by only 1.5 parts in a thousand, while varying
the masses within the experimental error bars still give differences of
at most a few percent. This last `happy accident' seems to indicate
some hidden symmetry in the scheme, the reason for which we
have at present only some ideas not yet fully understood. In practical
terms, on the other hand, it is a bonus since it simplifies greatly
not only the calculation but also the presentation of the results. It
means, first, that the 3 originally different parameters $\rho_T$ can
now be treated as just a single parameter $\rho$; second, that all
fermion types run on the same trajectory at the same speed; and third,
even the originally already weak dependence of the calculation on the
Higgs boson masses can now be completely ignored.
Next, we turn to the masses of the lowest generation. Since we know
already the physical state vectors of the lowest generation states for all
the 3 fermion types $U, D, L$, namely $u, d, e$, we can simply evaluate their
expectation values of the mass matrix $m'$ at any scale. The actual masses
of the 3 states are given by these expectation values evaluated at the
scales equal to the values themselves, and can also be readily calculated.
However, the calculation of these lowest generation masses is an
extrapolation on a logarithmic scale and depends also on the
normalization $m'_T$ of the mass matrix $m'$ in (\ref{fermassc}),
whose variation with scale, as we have already
explained, is not calculable perturbatively. It is thus expected to be
far less reliable than the above calculation for the mixing parameters.
Nevertheless, assuming simply that the normalization $m'_T$ is
scale-independent, one may hope to get rough order-of-magnitude estimates
for the lowest generation masses. The result of such a calculation is
shown in Table \ref{masstable}. We notice that the mass of the electron is
within about an order of magnitude of the experimental value, which we regard
as reasonable. As for the quarks, the $d$-quark comes out about right but
the $u$ quark is too large by nearly two orders of magnitude. However,
we should note that light quark masses are notoriously difficult to define,
being sensistive to nonperturbative QCD corrections below around 2 GeV.
Moreover, the $u$ and $d$ masses given in the table are defined each at the
scale equal to its value whereas the quoted experimental values are defined
at the scale of 1 GeV. The two sets of values are therefore not directly
comparable. Indeed, if the expectation value in the $u$-state of the running
mass matrix $m'$ is taken at 1 GeV, a value of order only 1 MeV is obtained,
although it is also unclear whether this should be compared with
the empirical value quoted. In all cases, at least, the masses are
hierarchical as they should be.
\begin{table}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{array}{||c|c|c||}
\hline \hline
& Calculation & Experiment \\
\hline
m_c & 1.327 {\rm GeV} & 1.0-1.6 {\rm GeV} \\
m_s & 0.173 {\rm GeV} & 100-300 {\rm MeV} \\
m_\mu & 0.106 {\rm GeV} & 105.7 {\rm MeV} \\
m_u & 209 {\rm MeV} & 2-8 {\rm MeV} \\
m_d & 15 {\rm MeV} & 5-15 {\rm MeV} \\
m_e & 6 {\rm MeV} & 0.511 {\rm MeV} \\
m_{\nu_1} & 10^{-15} {\rm eV} & < 10 {\rm eV} \\
B & 400 {\rm TeV} & ? \\
\hline \hline
\end{array}
\end{eqnarray*}
\caption{Predicted fermion masses compared with experiment. Notice, however,
that for the $u$- and $d$-quarks, the calulated masses are defined each at
the scale equal to its value, and are not directly comparable to the quoted
experimental values defined at the scale of 1 GeV.}
\label{masstable}
\end{table}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Neutrino Oscillations}
Next, we turn our attention to neutrinos. The case for neutrino
oscillations has recently been much strengthened by the atmospheric
neutrino data from SuperKamiokande \cite{superk} confirming earlier
results of the last decade \cite{kamioka}--\cite{soudan}. These have
not only given convincing evidence for the phenomena, but have even
provided quite restrictive bounds on the relevant parameters which
would be a challenge for theoreticians to explain.
If the basic idea in the DSM scheme of identifying generations with
dual colour is adhered to, then there will be 3 and only 3 generations
of neutrinos as for any other fermion type. In principle then, there
is nothing to stop us applying the same procedure as that applied above
to quarks and charged leptons to determine also the masses and physical
state vectors of neutrinos. Indeed, in strict adherence to the scheme,
it would be incumbent upon us to do so. Since the Higgs vev's $(x,y,z)$
are already known, all we need to do so would be to input the (Dirac)
masses of the two heaviest neutrinos as we did for quarks and charged
leptons. In fact, since the Yukawa couplings $\rho$ turned out to
be so close for all the other fermion types, it seems reasonable
to assume the same value also for neutrinos. We shall need then
to input only one (Dirac) mass. However, neutrinos differ from
the other fermions in that they can also have Majorana masses, and it
is from these together with their Dirac masses that one obtains their
physical masses via the well-known seesaw mechanism \cite{Seesaw} by
diagonalizing the matrix:
\begin{equation}
{\bf M}_r = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & M_r \\
M_r & B \end{array} \right),
\label{seesaw}
\end{equation}
where it turns out that in the DSM scheme as at present understood, all
3 generations of neutrinos will have to have the same Majorana mass $B$
for consistency \cite{ournuos}. With then $B$ as an extra parameter,
we need to input two masses to perform the proposed calculation.
Information on the (physical) mass of the heaviest neutrino, usually
denoted by $m_3$, is obtained from the muon anomaly in atmospheric
neutrinos. From \cite{kamioka,superk}, we have an estimate of the
difference between the physical masses of the two heaviest neutrinos.
Since in the DSM scheme, masses are supposed to be hierarchical,
meaning $m_3 \gg m_2 \gg m_1$, we can put the mass itself equal to the
difference $m_3^2 \sim
10^{-3}-10^{-2}\ {\rm eV}^2$, which we can take as one input, leaving
thus just one more mass to be determined.
To do so, we draw on the information from solar neutrino data. There
one has 2 estimates for the (physical) mass of the second generation
neutrino, again taking the masses to be hierarchical. From the LWO
solution \cite{LWOfit}, one has $m_2^2 \sim 10^{-10}\ {\rm eV}^2$, and
from the MSW solution \cite{MSWfit} $m_2^2 \sim 10^{-5}\ {\rm eV}^2$.
With either of these as input, one has in principle enough information
to determine the Dirac mass $M_3$ and hence complete the DSM calculation
of the leptonic CKM matrix.
It turns out, however, that inputting the MSW estimate for $m_2$ and the
estimate of \cite{kamioka,superk} for $m_3$, one obtains no sensible DSM
solution for neutrinos. The reason is that in the DSM scheme, lower
generation masses come only as a `leakage' from the mass of the highest
generation and this leakage mechanism does not easily admit a ratio
$m_2/m_3$ as large as that wanted by the MSW solution. One concludes
thus that the DSM scheme, as at present understood, disfavours the MSW
solution to the solar neutrino problem.\footnote{It is interesting to
note in this context that the latest SuperKamiokande data on day-night
variations and flux reported at the Vancouver ICHEP'98 conference and at the
APS meeting (DPF) at UCLA
in fact also
favour the LWO over the MSW solution for solar neutrinos
\cite{Vagins,superk}.}
On the other hand, inputting the LWO estimate for $m_2^2 \sim
10^{-10}\
{\rm eV}^2$ and the estimate of $m_3^2 \sim 10^{-3}- 10^{-2}\ {\rm eV}^2$
from \cite{kamioka,superk}, a solution is readily found. The state vectors
of the neutrinos so determined then allow one immediately to calculate the
leptonic CKM matrix. For $m_3^2 = 10^{-3} {\rm eV}^2$, one
obtains \cite{ournuos}:
\begin{equation}
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} U_{e1} & U_{e2} & U_{e3} \\
U_{\mu1} & U_{\mu2} & U_{\mu3} \\
U_{\tau1} & U_{\tau2} & U_{\tau3}
\end{array} \right)
= \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0.97 & 0.24 & 0.07 \\
0.22 & 0.71 & 0.66 \\
0.11 & 0.66 & 0.74 \end{array} \right),
\label{calckml}
\end{equation}
all elements being real at the 1-loop level that we are working. The
result is insensitive to the actual values (in the above range) of $m_2$
and $m_3$ used. Notice that apart from inputting the rough values of
$m_2$ and $m_3$ from experiment in the way explained, the calculation
involves no adjustment of parameters which have all been fixed by our
earlier calculation of the quark CKM matrix \cite{ourckm}.
The result (\ref{calckml}) should be compared with the leptonic CKM matrix
extracted from experiment by, for example,
\cite{Giunkimno}\footnote{This
analysis \cite{Giunkimno} was done with the Kamiokande not with the
SuperKamiokande data, for which no parallel analysis as far as we know
has yet been done. The result, however, is expected to be similar, with
a somewhat tighter bound but roughly the same central value for the
$\mu 3$ element, but a looser bound on the $e 3$ element. For a comparison
with the latest data from SuperKamiokande, see \cite{phenodsm}.}
where the bounds
on $U_{\mu3}$ comes mainly from atmospheric neutrino data and the bounds on
$U_{e3}$ comes mainly from reactor data such as \cite{chooz} and the
estimate for $U_{e2}$ comes from the solar neutrino data as interpreted
by either the large angle MSW \cite{MSWfit} or the LWO \cite{LWOfit}
scenario:
\begin{equation}
= \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \ast & 0.4-0.7 & 0.0-0.2 \\
\ast & \ast & 0.5-0.8 \\
\ast & \ast & \ast
\end{array} \right).
\label{expckml}
\end{equation}
Since we are ignoring for the present the CP-violating phase, there
are only 3 independent elements of the matrix we need consider. We
notice that the theoretical predictions for both the angles $U_{\mu 3}$
and $U_{e 3}$ fall neatly into the middle of the experimental range.
A more detailed comparison of our prediction with experiment based
again on the analysis in \cite{Giunkimno} is shown in Figures \ref{comp1}
and \ref{comp2} for a range of $m_3$ values and for $m_2$ within the
range allowed by \cite{LWOfit}. One sees that the agreement is
consistently good.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace{-3cm}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=ue3.eps,width=0.75\textwidth}}
\caption{90 \% CL limits on the CKM element $U_{e 3}$ compared with
the result of our calculation.}
\label{comp1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace{-3cm}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=umu3.eps,width=0.75\textwidth}}
\caption{90 \% CL limits on the CKM element $U_{\mu 3}$ compared with
the result of our calculation.}
\label{comp2}
\end{figure}
The prediction, however, for the other angle $U_{e 2}$ relevant to solar
neutrinos does not score so well, being about a factor 2 too small and
lying some way outside the experimental limits. We shall see later the
reason why this element is particularly hard for the DSM scheme to get
correct.
In addition to the mixing angles, the calculation gives predictions also
for the masses of the lightest and the `right-handed' neutrinos, namely
$m_{\nu_1}$ and $B$, as listed in Table \ref{masstable}. The present
experimental bound on $m_{\nu_1}$ is too weak to be a test. As for
$B$, there is no direct information. However, given $B$, one can
estimate within the scheme a value for the life-time of neutrinoless
double beta decays. One notes that the value of $B$ we obtained is
several orders of magnitude lower than that usually given, say for
example, from grand unified theory models. The reason is that one
usually assumes for the heaviest neutrino a Dirac mass similar in value
to the mass of the $\tau$ or $t$, i.e. of order GeV or higher, whereas the
value we obtain above by fitting $m_3$ and $m_2$ in the DSM scheme gives a
value only of order MeV (and $B$ is proportional to the square of this
estimate). Such a big difference between the (Dirac) masses of the
charged leptons and neutrinos need not be a worry since the same is
known already to occur between the $U$- and $D$-type quarks. But as
a result of this lower value for $B$, the rate for neutrinoless double
beta decays predicted here will be much more accessible to experiment.
In particular, a rough estimate shows that the predicted $0\nu$ half-life
for ${}^{76}Ge$ is only about 2--3 orders longer than the present
experimental limit.
To conclude, one sees that the DSM with no freedom left after fitting
the quark CKM matrix, reproduces quite well the general features of
neutrino oscillations as observed in experiment, and gives in addition
some interesting and in principle testable predictions.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Features of Mixing from Differential Geometry}
It is instructive to compare the quark (\ref{expckmq}) and leptonic
(\ref{expckml}) CKM matrices as now experimentally known. We note in
particular the following outstanding features:
\begin{description}
\item{(a)} The corner elements 13 and 31 are much smaller than the
others for both quarks and leptons.
\item{(b)} All off-diagonal elements for quarks are much smaller than
the diagonal elements.
\item{(c)} The 23 element is much smaller for quarks than for leptons.
\end{description}
These will need to be accounted for in any scheme aiming to explain the
fermion mixing phenomenon. In the preceding sections we have already
shown that the DSM scheme is able quantitatively to reproduce these
features in terms of just a few parameters without explaining why it
should be so. What we shall do in this section is to gain an intuitive
understanding why the CKM matrices have the qualitative features they
do and to show that they emerge from the basic structure of the scheme
as simple consequences of classical differential geometry and can be
deduced, almost quantitively in some cases, without a detailed calculation
\cite{features}.
We recall that the fermion mass matrix in the DSM scheme is factorized
even after loop corrections, and all the information needed for our
consideration of the CKM matrix is encoded in the normalized vector
$(x',y',z')$. This vector rotates with the energy scale, tracing
out a trajectory on the unit sphere, which trajectory is the same
for all fermion types $T$, i.e. whether $U$- or $D$-type quarks, charged
leptons or neutrinos. The various physical states, however, differ in
the locations they occupy on this trajectory. Figure \ref{runtraj}
shows the actual trajectory and locations of the 12 fermion states
obtained in the fit of \cite{ourckm,ournuos}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace{-5cm}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=sphere.eps,width=0.85\textwidth}}
\vspace{0cm}
\caption{The trajectory traced out by $(x',y',z')$ and the locations on
it of the 12 fermion states.}
\label{runtraj}
\end{figure}
The state vectors of the various physical states are given in terms of
the rotating vector $(x',y',z')$ as follows. (i) Evaluated at the scale
of the top mass, $(x',y',z')$ is the state vector $|{\bf v}_1 \rangle$
of $t$, as shown in Figure \ref{v1v2v3}. (ii) At the scale of the charm
mass, the vector $(x',y',z')$ is rotated to another direction, say
$|{\bf \tilde{v}}_1 \rangle$ in Figure \ref{v1v2v3}, with thus a zonzero
component orthogonal to $|{\bf v}_1 \rangle$, the direction of which
gives the state vector $|{\bf v}'_2 \rangle$ of $c$. (iii) The state
vector of the $u$-quark is ${\bf v}'_3 = {\bf v}_1 \wedge
{\bf v}'_2$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=curve1.eps,width=0.6\textwidth}}
\vspace{0cm}
\caption{The state vectors of the 3 physical states belonging to the
3 generations of the $U$-type quark.}
\label{v1v2v3}
\end{figure}
Similar constructions apply to the other 3 fermion types $D, L, N$.
If we make the approximation that the locations of the $t$ and $c$ quarks
on the trajectory are close together (as is seen to be true in Figure
\ref{runtraj}), then the 3 state vectors of $t,c,u$ of Figure \ref{v1v2v3}
form in that limit an orthonormal triad at the $t$ position. If we do
the same for the $D$-type quarks, we have another such triad at the $b$
position, as illustrated in Figure \ref{2triads}. The entries of the
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{\psfig{figure=curve2.eps,width=0.6\textwidth}}
\vspace{0cm}
\caption{Two triads of state vectors for two fermion types
transported along a common trajectory.}
\label{2triads}
\end{figure}
(quark) CKM matrix are nothing but the direction cosines between the
vectors of these 2 triads. The leptonic CKM matrix is similar.
Since the trajectory lies on the unit sphere, the $c$ vector is the tangent
{\bf T} to the trajectory and the $t$ vector the normal {\bf N} to the surface,
so that they form, together with the $u$ vector ${\bf B}={\bf N} \wedge
{\bf T}$, what is known in elementary differential geometry as the
`Darboux triad'. Differentiating then with respect to the arc-length,
we get the following formulae similar to the well-known Serret--Frenet
formulae for space curves \cite{docarmo}:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf N}' & = & -\kappa_n {\bf T} - \tau_g {\bf B}, \nonumber\\
{\bf T}' & = & \kappa_g {\bf B} + \kappa_n {\bf N}, \nonumber \\
{\bf B}' & = & -\tau_g {\bf N} - \kappa_g {\bf T}.
\label{SFDarboux}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\kappa_g$ is the geodesic curvature, $\kappa_n$ the normal curvature,
and $\tau_g$ the geodesic torsion of the curve on the surface. Equivalently,
to first order in arc-length $\Delta s$, (\ref{SFDarboux}) can be rewritten
in the form of a CKM matrix with entries arranged in the conventional order:
\begin{equation}
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
1 & -\kappa_g \Delta s & -\tau_g \Delta s \\
\kappa_g \Delta s & 1 & \kappa_n \Delta s \\
\tau_g \Delta s & -\kappa_n \Delta s & 1 \end{array} \right).
\label{ckmdg}
\end{equation}
In our case of the unit sphere, $\tau_g=0$ and $\kappa_n=1$. It follows
then from (\ref{ckmdg}) that \cite{features}:
\begin{description}
\item{(a)} The corner elements of both the quark CKM matrix ($V_{ub},
V_{td}$) and the leptonic CKM matrix ($U_{e3}, U_{\tau 1}$) are small
since they vanish to first order in the separation between the
corresponding fermion types.
\item{(b)} The 4 other off-diagonal elements of the quark CKM matrix
are small compared to the diagonal elements since they are of first
order in the separation between the $t$ and $b$ quarks, which is small
as seen in Figure~\ref{runtraj}.
\item{(c)} The elements $V_{cb}, V_{ts}$ for quarks are much smaller
than their counterparts $U_{\mu 3}, U_{\tau 2}$ for leptons, since they
are to first order proportional to the separation, which is much smaller
for quarks than for leptons as seen in Figure~\ref{runtraj}.
\end{description}
These 3 points are all borne out by experiment as already noted above.
Indeed, it is amusing to note that even the approximate values for the
4 elements in (c), as quoted above from either experiment (\ref{expckmq}),
(\ref{expckml}) or the DSM calculation (\ref{calckmq}), (\ref{calckml}),
can simply be read off by measuring the separations between $t$ and $b$
and between $\tau$ and $\mu$ on the trajectory in Figure~\ref{runtraj}!
Further, we note that since the geodesic curvature $\kappa_g$, in contrast
to the geodesic torsion $\tau_g$ and the normal curvature $\kappa_n$ on
a sphere, depends both on the location and on the trajectory, so do the
values of the remaining pair of off-diagonal elements of the CKM matrix,
namely the `Cabibbo angles' ($V_{us}, V_{cd}$ for quarks, and $U_{e2},
U_{\mu 1}$ for leptons). This explains why the Cabbibo angle is so large
even though the separation between $t$ and $b$ is small. It also means
that the 12 elements are much more sensitive to the details of the fit
and explains why our calculation has been less successful in predicting
$U_{e2}$ than with the other leptonic mixing angles.
That all these features in the mixing matrices echoing experimental data
can be derived {\em without} detailed calculations is very encouraging,
for it means that the agreement with experiment reported in the 2 sections
before are much less likely to be just numerical accidents of the calculation.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{FCNC Effects from Dual Gluon Exchange}
Besides explaining the features of the Standard Model, any scheme which
attempts to go beyond has of course also to examine its own predictions
for the possibility of their violating already some known experimental
limits, and if not, for the feasibility of their being tested by future
experiment. For the DSM scheme, one obvious direction to probe in
this respect is the new interactions arising from exchanges of the dual
colour gauge bosons. Dual colours in DSM having been identified with
generations, it follows that any particle carrying a generation index
can acquire a new interaction by exchanging these bosons, leading to
generation-changing or flavour-changing neutral current (FCNC) effects.
These gauge bosons are presumably quite heavy or otherwise they would
already have been discovered. There are thus two areas where one can
look for their influence. One can either look for effects at energies
low compared with their mass where the effects of their exchange would
be suppressed, or else for sizeable effects at ultra-high energies. We
shall consider examples of both, at low energies in this section, and
at high energies in the next.
At low energy, flavour-changing neutral currents can manifest themselves
in rare decays and in mass differences between charge conjugate neutral
meson pairs. For DSM, as for other `horizontal gauge symmetry' models
\cite{buchmuller}, these effects arise already at the level of one-(FCNC)
gauge boson exchange and can thus be estimated once given the masses of
the gauge bosons and their couplings to the fermions involved. What
distinguishes DSM, however, is that the scheme has been made so restrictive
by what has gone before that detailed estimates can now be given for all
these FCNC effects at the one-boson exchange level in terms of only one
additional parameter.
In view both of the intrinsic structure built into the scheme and of the
calculations already performed which are summarized above, most of the
`fundamental' parameters of DSM as at present formulated are now known.
First, by virtue of the Dirac quantization condition \cite{dualcomm}:
\begin{equation}
g_3 \tilde{g}_3 = 4\pi, \;\;\; g_2 \tilde{g}_2 = 4\pi, \;\;\;
g_1 \tilde{g}_1 = 2\pi,
\label{couplings}
\end{equation}
the coupling strengths $\tilde{g}_i$ of the dual gauge bosons are derivable
from the coupling strengths $g_i$ of the ordinary colour and electroweak
gauge bosons measured in present experiments. Secondly, the branching
of these couplings $\tilde{g}_i$ into the various physical fermion states
are given by the rotation matrices relating these physical states to the
`gauge states' in generation or dual colour space, thus:
\begin{equation}
\psi_{gauge,L}^T = S^T \psi_{physical,L}^T
\label{rotationf}
\end{equation}
where the index $T$ runs over the four types of fermions $U, D, L$ and
$N$. These matrices $S^T$ were already determined in the calculation
of fermion mixing matrices \cite{ourckm,ournuos}, where for example
the (quark) CKM matrix was obtained as $(S^U)^\dagger S^D$
in Section 2 and there found to be in excellent agreement with experiment.
Finally, in tree-level approximation, the masses of the dual gauge bosons
are given in terms of the vacuum expectation values of the dual colour
Higgs fields, the ratios $x, y, z$ between which are among the parameters
determined in the calculation \cite{ourckm} by fitting the CKM matrix. Thus
the only remaining unknown among the quantities required is the actual
strength $\zeta$ of the vev's, which, though also entering in principle
in the calculations of Standard Model parameters outlined in Section 2,
turns out to be hardly restricted there. That being the case, one can
now calculate in the DSM scheme all one-dual gauge boson exchange diagrams
between any two fermions in terms of this single mass parameter $\zeta$.
There are altogether 9 dual gauge bosons (including that corresponding
to $\tilde{U}(1)$) which can be exchanged, whose masses at tree-level
are given by diagonalizing a mass matrix dependent on the dual couplings
$\tilde{g}_3, \tilde{g}_1$ and on $\zeta$ and $(x, y, z)$. Given that,
as mentioned in Section 2, the value obtained for $(x, y, z)$ from fitting
the quark CKM matrix \cite{ourckm} is very close to the fixed point
$(1,0,0)$, the mass matrix for the dual gauge bosons can be readily
diagonalized \cite{ourfcnc} yielding one particular state with mass:
\begin{equation}
M^2 = \zeta^2 z^2 \frac{3}{4} \frac{\tilde{g}_3^2}
{1 + \frac{3}{16}\frac{\tilde{g}_3^2}{\tilde{g}_1^2}},
\label{gmass}
\end{equation}
which is much lower than the rest. As a result, the calculation for FCNC
effects becomes quite simple, being dominated by the exchange of just
this one boson.
At energies much lower than the mass of this dual gauge boson, the effects
can then be summarized in terms of an effective Lagrangian thus \cite{ourfcnc}:
\begin{equation}
L_{eff}=
\frac{1}{2 \zeta^2 z^2}
\sum_{T,T'} f^{T,T'}_{\alpha,\beta;\alpha',\beta'}
(J^{\mu \dagger}_T)^{\alpha,\beta} (J_{\mu,T'})^{\alpha',\beta'}\,,
\label{laeff1}
\end{equation}
with currents of the usual $\;V-A\;$ form:
\begin{equation}
(J^{T}_\mu)_{\alpha,\beta} = \bar{\psi}_{L,\alpha}^T \gamma_\mu
\psi_{L,\beta}^T,
\label{current2}
\end{equation}
and a group factor which, for reactions involving changes of flavour,
reduces to:
\begin{equation}
f^{T,T'}_{\alpha,\beta;\alpha',\beta'} =
S^{T*}_{3,\alpha} S^{T}_{3,\beta}
S^{T'*}_{3,\alpha'} S^{T'}_{3,\beta'},
\label{groupfactor1}
\end{equation}
which is given entirely in terms of the matrices $S^T_{\alpha,\beta}$,
so that the only remaining free parameter in (\ref{laeff1}) is the mass
scale $\zeta z$.
However, the effective Lagrangian (\ref{laeff1}) describes only interactions
between quarks and leptons. To make contact with actual experiment on
hadrons, we follow the usual procedures adopted in these contexts.
For example, the effective action gives a contribution to the $K_L-K_S$
mass difference of the form:
\begin{equation}
\Delta m_K =
\frac{1}{\zeta^2 \,\, z^2} |f^{D,D}_{2,3;2,3}|
\langle K^0| \left[\bar{s}_L \gamma^\mu d_L \right]^2 |\bar{K}^0 \rangle.
\end{equation}
Evaluating the matrix elements in the vacuum insertion approximation one
obtains:
\begin{equation}
\Delta m_K =
\frac{1}{\zeta^2 \,\, z^2} |f^{D,D}_{2,3;2,3}|\frac{f_K^2 \, \, m_K}{3},
\label{delmK}
\end{equation}
where $f_K$ is the $K$ decay constant and $m_K$ is the $K$ mass. Mass
differences between other charge conjugate neutral mesons are treated
similarly. On the other hand, for hadron decays, in order to minimize
the uncertainties in the hadron structure we take quotients between the
rare and Standard Model-allowed processes which contain the same or similar
hadronic matrix elements. For instance, for $K^+$ decays we take:
\begin{equation}
\frac
{Br \left(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ l_{\alpha} l_{\beta} \right)}
{Br \left(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^0 \nu_{\mu} \mu^+ \right)}
= |f^{D,L}_{2,3;\alpha,\beta}|^2
\left( \frac{v}{\zeta \, \, z} \right)^4 \frac{2}{\sin^2 \theta_c},
\label{kplus}
\end{equation}
where $v=\frac{0.246}{\sqrt{2}}$ TeV and $\theta_c$ is the Cabibbo angle,
$\sin \theta_c=0.23$. Similarly, for the leptonic decays of the neutral
$K$-mesons, we take:
\begin{equation}
\frac {\Gamma \left(K^0_{L(S)} \rightarrow l_\alpha l_\beta \right)}
{\Gamma \left(K^+ \rightarrow \mu^+ \nu_\mu \right)}
= |f^{D,L}_{2,3;\alpha,\beta}|^2
\left( \frac{v}{\zeta \, \, z} \right)^4 \frac{1}{\sin^2 \theta_c}.
\label{kls}
\end{equation}
Then from these formulae, given the total widths of the $K$'s and their
widths in the Standard Model-allowed modes as measured in experiment, one
can easily calculate the branching ratios of the various rare modes of
$K$-decay. These procedures for dealing with the complexities of hadronic
effects are of course far from foolproof but are likely to give the rough
order of magnitudes correctly.
All predictions we obtain in this way are still dependent on the single
parameter $\zeta z$, so that without any further input we can give no
numerical value for the predicted quantities. So long as $\zeta z$
remains undetermined, our predictions will of course lead to no violation
of present experiment. However, given the experimental bound on any
one quantity, a bound on $\zeta z$ is implied, which will then allow us
to give the correlated bound on all the others. The most stringent
lower bound on $\zeta z$ obtained in this way turns out to be that from
the experimentally measured $K_L-K_S$ mass difference, namely $\Delta
m_K(K_L-K_S) =3.5 \,\times \, 10^{-12}\mbox{ MeV}$ which is of roughly
the right order of magnitude expected from second order weak interactions.
Requiring that the FCNC effect due to dual gauge boson exchange be smaller
than this value gives the bound \cite{ourfcnc}:
\begin{equation}
\zeta \,\, z \geq 400\mbox{ TeV}.
\label{bound}
\end{equation}
The correlated (upper) bounds on other FCNC effects due to dual gauge
boson exchange can then be estimated.
As will be seen in the next section, there is a possible upper bound on
the parameter $\zeta z$ coming from a rather unexpected angle which turns
out to be similar to the lower bound quoted in (\ref{bound}). If that is
the case, then the above bounds for FCNC effects can be treated as actual
order of magnitude estimates.
For $\zeta z =$ 400 TeV, the predicted branching ratios \cite{ourfcnc} of some
rare $K$-decay modes are given in Table \ref{Kdecaytab} and compared with
the experimental limits/measurements \cite{databook}. One notes that most
of the predictions are way beyond the present experimental sensitivity,
while some others, such as $K_L \rightarrow e^+ e^-, \mu^+ \mu^-$, can also
go by second order weak interactions which are expected to give similar
or even somewhat larger contributions and so will overshadow the present
predicted effects. Only the mode $K_L \rightarrow e^\pm \mu^\mp$, which
is inaccessible to second order weak interactions unless neutrinos mix,
is interesting in having a predicted branching ratio less than two orders
of magnitude down from the present experimental limits \cite{brookhaven}
and so may be accessible in the near future. Its observation at this level
may be considered as a confirmation either of the DSM prediction or that
neutrinos mix and hence of interest in either case.
\begin{table}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{array}{||l|l|l||}
\hline \hline
& Theory & Experiment \\
\hline
Br(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ e^+ e^-) & 4 \times 10^{-15} &
2.7 \times 10^{-7} \\
Br(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \mu^+ \mu^-) & 2 \times 10^{-15} &
2.3 \times 10^{-7} \\
Br(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ e^+ \mu^-) & 2 \times 10^{-15} &
7 \times 10^{-9} \\
Br(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ e^- \mu^+) & 2 \times 10^{-15} &
2.1 \times 10^{-10} \\
Br(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu {\bar \nu}) & 2 \times 10^{-14} &
2.4 \times 10^{-9} \\
Br(K_L \rightarrow e^+ e^-) & 2 \times 10^{-13} &
4.1 \times 10^{-11} \\
Br(K_L \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-) & 7 \times 10^{-14} &
7.2 \times 10^{-9} \\
Br(K_L \rightarrow e^{\pm} \mu^{\mp}) & 1 \times 10^{-13} &
5.1 \times 10^{-12} \\
Br(K_S \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-) & 1 \times 10^{-16} &
3.2 \times 10^{-7}\\
Br(K_S \rightarrow e^+ e^-) & 3 \times 10^{-16} &
2.8 \times 10^{-6} \\
\hline \hline
\end{array}
\end{eqnarray*}
\caption{Branching ratios for rare leptonic and semileptonic $K$ decays.
The first column shows the DSM predictions from one-dual gauge boson exchange
with the lowest v.e.v. $\zeta z$ of the Higgs fields taken at 400 TeV. The
second column gives either the present experimental limits on that process
if not yet observed or the actual measured value for that process. In the
latter case, it means that the process can go by other mechanisms such as
second-order weak so that our predictions with dual gauge boson exchange
will appear as corrections to these. Except for the entry for the decay
$K_L \rightarrow e \mu$ from \cite{brookhaven} mentioned in the text, the
other entries are from the databook \cite{databook}.}
\label{Kdecaytab}
\end{table}
Similar tables have been compiled for rare $D$ and $B$ meson decays but
the predicted branching ratios are in all cases much below the present
experimental sensitivity and therefore not of immediate interest.
Mass differences between the conjugate neutral $D$ and $B$ meson pairs
are given in a similar way to that for the $K$'s. The contribution of
one-dual gauge boson exchange to the mass splitting in $D$ is \cite{ourfcnc}:
\begin{equation}
{\Delta m_D} = \frac{m_D}{\zeta^2 z^2} \frac{f_D^2}{3} |f^{U,U}_{2,3;2,3}|.
\label{Dmassdiff}
\end{equation}
Taking the values $f_D^2=10^{-8}\mbox{ TeV}^2$ for the $D$-meson coupling and
$m_D=1.865$ GeV for the mass we have:
\begin{equation}
{\Delta m_D} = 5 \times 10^{-12}\mbox{ MeV}.
\label{Dmassnos}
\end{equation}
This is one-and-a-half orders of magnitude off the present experimental
limits ${\Delta m_D}\leq 1.4 \times 10^{-10}$ MeV and could be accessible
to planned experiments in the near future. Applying the same procedure
to the mass-splitting between the neutral $B$-mesons, one finds that the
contribution from dual gauge boson exchange is 6 orders of magnitude
smaller than that from the Standard Model and thus not likely to be
accessible.
We conclude therefore, for this section, that the DSM predictions on
low energy FCNC effects so far made do not seem in contradiction with
any existing experiment, and that for a couple of cases, namely
$K_L \rightarrow e^\pm \mu^\mp$ and $\Delta m(D-\bar{D})$, apart of course
from $\Delta m(K_L-K_S)$ itself, they may be testable in the near future.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Air Showers beyond the GZK Cut-off}
At energies higher than the mass scale of the dual gauge bosons, FCNC
effects will no longer be suppressed and, given the strength of their
couplings $\tilde{g_i}$ as governed by the Dirac quantization conditions
(\ref{couplings}), the interactions due to their exchange will become
strong. Hence, DSM would predict a new strong interaction at ultra-high
energies for all particles carrying a generation index. In particular,
even the neutrinos corresponding to the usual 3 generations of charged
leptons will acquire strong interactions at high energies. At first
sight, this seems alarming until one recalls from the estimate given in
the last section for the mass scale involved of order $\zeta z >
400\ {\rm TeV}$,
which is way beyond anything that has been achieved in terrestial experiments
or can be achieved in the foreseeable future. Nor are such energies
accessible to astrophysical or cosmological considerations except in the
very early universe. There is in fact only one instance known to us that
energies of that order have been experimentally observed, namely in air showers
produced by cosmic rays with energy beyond the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuz'min
(GZK) cutoff.
Air showers with energy $E > 10^{20}\ {\rm eV}$ \cite{Volcano}--\cite{Auger},
though rare in occurrence, pose a long-standing and intriguing question of
fundamental physical interest. High energy air showers are usually thought
to be due to protons, but protons with such an energy would interact with
the 2.7 K microwave background via, for example, the reaction:
\begin{equation}
p + \gamma_{2.7 K} = \Delta + \pi,
\label{piprod}
\end{equation}
and degrade quickly in energy. Indeed, according to Greisen, Zatsepin
and Kuz'min \cite{Greisen,Zatsemin}, the cosmic ray spectrum for protons
should cut off sharply at around $5 \times 10^{19}\ {\rm eV}$ (the GZK
cut-off) if they come from further than 50 Mpc away. And within such
distances, there does not seem to be any likely source for producing
particles of so high an energy.
One possible solution would be that these post-GZK air showers are produced
not by protons but by some other (stable, electrically neutral) particles
which would not be so degraded in energy by the microwave background. The
possibility can thus be considered that they are produced by neutrinos, which
is feasible, of course, only if for some reason neutrinos acquire at high
energy a new strong interaction, for otherwise they would not interact
sufficiently with air nuclei to produce air showers. But this is exactly
what is predicted by DSM as proposed in the preceding paragraph. So, it would
appear that this prediction not only may escape contradiction with existing
experiment as one might at first have feared, but may even offer an
explanation for the long-standing puzzle of air showers beyond the GZK
cutoff \cite{airshower1,airshower2,airshower3}.
However, a strong interaction for neutrinos, though necessary, is by
itself insufficient to guarantee a large cross section with air nuclei,
which is needed for them to produce air showers in the atmosphere, since
whatever the strength of the interaction, the cross section will remain
small if the interaction is short-ranged. Now, the dual gauge bosons
in DSM being supposedly very heavy, it looks at first sight that the
interactions they mediate will be short-ranged and therefore not lead
to large high energy cross sections for neutrinos. But this need not
be the case for the following reason. The relation of dual colour to
colour is similar to that of magnetism to electricity in electrodynamics
which has only the physical degrees of freedom corresponding to the
one photon, despite having two separate, electric {\it and} magnetic,
gauge symmetries, as explained in Section 1. Hence, dual colour, though
a different gauge degree of freedom to colour, represents just the same
physical degree of freedom as colour \cite{dualsymm}. As a result, it
is argued \cite{airshower2} that a dual gluon can `metamorphose' into
a gluon in hadronic matter, thus giving neutrinos at high energy an
interaction of hadronic range inside the nucleus. They will then interact
coherently with the air nucleus and acquire with it a hadronic size cross
section.\footnote{There has appeared a paper by Burdman, Halzen and
Gandhi \cite{Halzen} subsequent to \cite{airshower2} claiming, among other
things, that neutrinos cannot on general grounds acquire hadronic size cross
sections. We think that their claim is ill-founded. Their arguments used
only first order perturbation theory which is far from adequate for hadron
reactions which are notoriously nonperturbative in character. Indeed, with
their arguments, one would be unable to deduce that protons have hadronic
cross sections. They also claimed their conclusions to be a consequence
of s-wave
unitarity but gave neither justifications nor references to substantiate this
claim, and a repeated effort by one of us (CHM) in correspondence with Francis
Halzen has not produced any clarification. We do not think s-wave unitarity
can constrain the cross section the way they claim it does since high
energy cross sections involve all partial waves. For more details of
this discussion see \cite{airshower3,ourfcnc}.} This assertion is admittedly
rather conjectural. If it fails, then the suggested explanation for
post-GZK showers no longer stands, but the assertion that the prediction
of strong neutrino interactions at high energy contradicts no existing
experiment still remains valid.
Since this suggested explanation for post-GZK air showers depends
crucially on the assumed identification of generations with dual colour,
it is worth examining its feasibility in some detail.
Suppose that neutrinos do acquire strong interactions and a large enough
cross section with air nuclei to produce air showers at high energy. The
energy at which this begins to happen, according to DSM, is given by the
scale estimated before to be $>$ 400 TeV in the centre of mass. For a
neutrino impinging on a nucleon at rest in the atmosphere, this corresponds
to a primary energy of around $8 \times 10^{19}\ \rm{eV}$, namely just above
the GZK cut-off, exactly the sort of energy one wants. That being the case,
let us now examine in more detail whether the hypothesis can accommodate
the few observed facts known about the post-GZK showers, most of which
have difficulties in being explained by protons as the primary particle.
(A) First, one asks how neutrinos at such a high energy can be produced.
One does not actually know at present a truly realistic mechanism even for
protons, but according to Hillas \cite{Hillas} one can at least write down
the condition that a source must satisfy in order to produce such energetic
particles:
\begin{equation}
BR > E/Z,
\label{Hillas}
\end{equation}
where $B$ is the magnetic field in $\mu$G, $R$ the size of the source
in kpc, $E$ the energy in EeV = $10^{18}\ {\rm eV}$ and $Z$ the
charge of the particle. There are only a few types of objects known
which satisfy this condition, namely neutron stars, radio galaxies and
active galactic nuclei. Of these, both the neutron stars and active
galactic nuclei are surrounded by strong electromagnetic fields. The
difficulty with protons is that even if the source can accelerate them
to the required high energy, they would not be able to escape from the
intense fields surrounding the source. However, there does not seem to
be the same difficulty with neutrinos. By hypothesis based on the DSM,
neutrinos interact strongly at high energy so that any source capable
of accelerating protons to these energies will be able also copiously
to produce neutrinos by say proton-proton collisions. Once produced,
however, neutrinos will not be deterred by the intense e.m. fields and
will be able to escape where protons fail.
(B) Secondly, one asks whether neutrinos will be able to survive a long
journey through the 2.7 K microwave background. There is no problem,
for in colliding with a (massless) photon at this temperature, a neutrino
even at $10^{20}\ {\rm eV}$ will produce only about 200 MeV C.M. energy,
and at this energy a neutrino has still only weak interactions. The same
applies also to its collision with the neutrino background in the intervening
space.
(C) Thirdly, one asks whether a neutrino when it arrives on earth will
be
able to produce air showers with the observed angular and depth distributions.
Neutrinos with only weak interactions will have immense penetrating power,
and even if an enormous neutrino flux is assumed sufficient to produce air
showers at these rare occasions, the showers will be mostly horizontal
and have a near constant distribution in depth. This is in contradiction
to what is observed for post-GZK showers which are mostly near vertical and
occur in the upper atmosphere. However, once neutrinos are ascribed a
hadronic cross section with air nuclei, they will interact like hadrons
and both the angular and depth distributions will automatically fall into
place.
(D) It was noted \cite{Hayashida} that out of the few post-GZK
events seen, three pairs coincide in incident angles to within the
experimental error of about $2^\circ$. The probability of this occurring
at random is very small and the obvious conclusion would be that the
two members of each pair originate from the same source. They have
however different energies and if they are protons should be deflected
differently by the intervening magnetic fields and hence arrive at
different angles, contrary to what is observed. If they are neutrinos,
on the other hand, they will not be deflected by magnetic fields and
will arrive on earth in the same direction they started out.
(E) The highest energy event at $3 \times 10^{20}\ {\rm eV}$ observed
by the Fly's Eye \cite{Flyseye} was noted to point in the direction of a
very powerful Seyfert galaxy 900 Mpc away \cite{Elmers}. If that is
taken to be its source and if it is due to a proton, one would wonder why
many more showers with lower energies are not observed from the same
direction, for a powerful source capable of accelerating protons to such
a high energy would surely also produce protons at lower energies as well.
For neutrinos interacting strongly only at high energy, this is not a
problem. At low energies, neutrinos are weakly interacting and would
first of all not be produced at source, and even if produced would not
give rise to air showers when they arrive on earth.
It thus seems that the neutrino hypothesis has survived all the above tests
(A)--(E) on post-GZK showers which pose difficulties for their
having been produced by protons. In spite of this, however, the hypothesis
must clearly be subjected to many more quantitative tests before it can be
taken seriuosly. Fortunately, some such tests \cite{airshower2,ourfcnc}
are available, as follows.
(I) If we accept our previous argument that a neutrino at high energy
would interact not only strongly but coherently with an air nucleus, it is easy
to deduce from a geometric picture that the cross section of a neutrino
with the nucleus would be about half that of a proton. To both the
neutrino and the proton, the nucleus would appear as a black disc, say of
radius $r_A$. The neutrino, with as yet no known internal structure,
would appear to the nucleus still as a point, but the proton will appear
again as a black disc of radius, say, $r_p$. One concludes thus that
the (geometric) cross section of the neutrino with the nucleus is roughly:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_T(\nu A) = \pi r_A^2,
\label{sigmanu}
\end{equation}
while that of the proton with the nucleus is roughly:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_T(p A) = \pi (r_p + r_A)^2.
\label{sigmap}
\end{equation}
Assuming that:
\begin{equation}
r_A \sim A^{1/3} r_p,
\label{rA}
\end{equation}
with $A$ around 15 for an air nucleus, one easily deduces the above estimate:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\sigma_T(\nu A)}{\sigma_T(p A)} \sim \frac{1}{2}.
\label{sigmaratio}
\end{equation}
This means that neutrinos at post-GZK energies are expected to be about
twice as penetrating as protons, and hence that neutrino-produced air showers
will occur at a lower depth on the average than proton-produced air
showers. Folding in the air density as a function of height, it is easy
to evaluate the penetration probability as a function of depth. This
was done in \cite{airshower2} which finds that:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Most \; probable \; height \; of} \; p{\rm -produced \; showers}
& \sim & {\rm 21 \; km}, \nonumber \\
{\rm Most \; probable \; height \; of} \; \nu{\rm -produced \; showers}
& \sim & {\rm 15 \; km}.
\label{showerdepth}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, one predicts that post-GZK air showers which are supposedly produced
by neutrinos would occur most probably at a height of only around 15 km,
in contrast to lower energy showers produced by protons which would occur
most probably at a height of around 21 km in our atmosphere. Present
detectors do not locate the primary vertices of air showers readily.
For this reason, we have found up to the present only one tentative piece
of information for testing this prediction. The development profile of the
highest energy event obtained by the Fly's Eye shows that light began to be
observed at a (vertical equivalent) height of around 12 km. If we interpret
this as the primary vertex for the event, then it is much more likely,
according to the preceding arguments, to be a neutrino-produced shower than
a proton-produced one, for which the probability is estimated to be
less than 5 \%. This conclusion should not as yet be taken too seriously,
but with new projects such as Auger \cite{Auger}, capable of collecting
sizeable statistics, this could be a very useful test for the hypothesis
that post-GZK showers are neutrino-produced.
(II) As far as particle physics proper is concerned, the post-GZK
air shower events, if interpreted as due to neutrinos, are useful in
providing a rough upper bound to the dual gauge boson mass. Translated
to the language of Section 5, this means an upper bound on the parameter
$\zeta z$ of around 500 TeV \cite{ourfcnc}, remarkably close to the
lower bound of around 400 TeV obtained there from the $K_L-K_S$
mass difference. Acceptance of this upper bound then converts the bounds
estimated in Section 5 on rare meson decays and mass differences into
actual order of magnitude predictions, and hence affords a second test
for the neutrino hypothesis here for post-GZK air showers.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Concluding Remarks}
The basic tenets and applications to-date of the DSM scheme are summarized
in the flow chart of Figure \ref{flowchart}, which shows that starting
from a previously derived result of nonabelian duality, one is led on the
one hand to a calculation of some of the Standard Model's fundamental
parameters, and on the other to new testable predictions ranging from
FCNC effects at low energy to air showers from cosmic rays at the extreme
end of the detected energy scale.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\center
\begin{picture}(240,400)
\put(60,350){\framebox(120,18){\shortstack{{\footnotesize NONABELIAN DUALITY}\\
{\tiny{Chan--Faridani--Tsou \cite{dualsymm,dualsym}}}}}}
\put(116,340){\line(1,0){8}}
\put(120,344){\line(0,-1){8}}
\put(-10,320){\framebox(120,10){{\footnotesize STANDARD MODEL}}}
\put(130,320){\framebox(130,10){{\footnotesize 'T HOOFT THEOREM
\cite{tHooft}}}}
\put(55,320){\line(0,-1){8}}
\put(185,320){\line(0,-1){8}}
\put(55,312){\line(1,0){130}}
\put(120,312){\vector(0,-1){12}}
\put(40,282){\framebox(160,18){\shortstack{{\footnotesize DUALIZED
STANDARD MODEL}\\
{\tiny{Chan--Tsou \cite{dualcons}}}}}}
\put(120,282){\line(0,-1){10}}
\put(55,272){\line(1,0){130}}
\put(55,272){\vector(0,-1){12}}
\put(185,272){\vector(0,-1){12}}
\put(-10,240){\framebox(120,20){\shortstack{{\footnotesize HIGGS FIELDS}\\
{\footnotesize (AS FRAME VECTORS)}}}}
\put(130,240){\framebox(120,20){\shortstack{{\footnotesize 3 GENERATIONS}\\
{\footnotesize (AS DUAL COLOUR)}}}}
\put(30,240){\vector(0,-1){18}}
\put(160,240){\line(0,-1){6}}
\put(80,234){\line(1,0){80}}
\put(80,234){\vector(0,-1){12}}
\put(-10,202){\framebox(120,20){\shortstack{{\footnotesize SYMMETRY}\\
{\footnotesize BREAKING PATTERN}}}}
\put(55,202){\vector(0,-1){16}}
\put(-10,146){\framebox(166,40){\shortstack{{\footnotesize FERMION MASS
HIERARCHY:}\\
e.g. $m_t \gg m_c \gg m_u$\\{\footnotesize FERMION MASSES AND MIXINGS}\\
{\footnotesize CALCULABLE PERTURBATIVELY}}}}
\put(55,146){\vector(0,-1){16}}
\put(-10,84){\framebox(166,46){\shortstack{{\footnotesize (1-LOOP, 1ST
ORDER)}\\
{\footnotesize QUARK AND LEPTON MASSES}\\{\footnotesize QUARK CKM MATRIX}\\
{\tiny{Bordes--Chan--Faridani--Pfaudler--Tsou
\cite{ourckm}}}}}}
\put(106,84){\line(0,-1){10}}
\put(106,74){\line(1,0){74}}
\put(180,74){\vector(0,-1){19}}
\put(55,84){\vector(0,-1){54}}
\put(-10,0){\framebox(166,30){\shortstack{{\footnotesize (EXTENDED TO
NEUTRINOS)}\\
{\footnotesize NEUTRINO OSCILLATIONS}\\
{\tiny{Bordes--Chan--Pfaudler--Tsou
\cite{ournuos,features}}}}}}
\put(210,240){\vector(0,-1){24}}
\put(176,176){\framebox(84,40){\shortstack{{\footnotesize NEUTRINOS}\\
{\footnotesize INTERACT}\\{\footnotesize STRONGLY AT}\\
{\footnotesize HIGH ENERGY}}}}
\put(210,176){\vector(0,-1){16}}
\put(174,90){\framebox(86,70){\shortstack{{\footnotesize `EXPLANATION'}\\
{\footnotesize FOR PUZZLE OF}\\{\footnotesize AIR SHOWERS}\\
{\footnotesize AT
$E>10^{20}$eV}\\
{\tiny{Bordes--Chan--}}\\{\tiny{Faridani--Pfaudler--}}\\
{\tiny{Tsou \cite{airshower3,airshower2}}}}}}
\put(210,90){\vector(0,-1){35}}
\put(176,0){\framebox(84,55){\shortstack{{\footnotesize PREDICTIONS}\\
{\footnotesize OF B.R.\ FOR}\\{\footnotesize FCNC DECAYS}\\
{\tiny{Bordes--Chan--}}\\{\scriptsize{Faridani--Pfaudler--}}\\
{\tiny{Tsou \cite{ourfcnc}}}}}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Summary flow-chart}
\label{flowchart}
\end{figure}
One of the most attractive features of DSM is undoubtedly its offer of a
possible explanation for the existence both of exactly 3 fermion generations
and of scalar Higgs fields. In the conventional formulation of the Standard
Model, the necessity to introduce by hand both of these, neither having any
known geometrical significance, must be regarded as rather a blotch on a gauge
theory otherwise so beautifully founded on geometry. The identification thus
of generations as dual colour and of Higgs fields as frame vectors in
internal symmetry space, giving each a geometrical significance, seems very
attractive. Besides, according to \cite{dualsymm}, nonabelian duality is
an intrinsic property of the Standard Model (as of any gauge theory) which
then brings with it automatically a 3-fold broken dual colour symmetry
and frame vectors in internal symmetry space playing a dynamical
role. In other words, the niches for 3 fermion generations and Higgs fields
already `pre-exist' in the Standard Model. Hence, it seems appropriate to
assign them to just these features we see in nature, because even if we
do not, we shall still have to account for them physically in some other
way.
Implementing these identifications with some seemingly natural assumptions
as detailed in Section 1, one is then led to a scheme with a hierarchical
fermion mass spectrum where the mixings between fermion types and lower
generation masses are calculable as loop corrections in terms of a few
parameters. The present score from the 1-loop calculation carried out
to-date is as follows. By adjusting 3 parameters, namely the
(common) Yukawa coupling strength $\rho$ and the 2 ratios between the
3 vev's $(x,y,z)$ of the dual colour Higgs fields, one has calculated
the following 14 among the 26 or so of the Standard Model's fundamental
parameters: the 3 independent parameters in the quark CKM matrix $|V_{rs}|$,
the 3 corresponding parameters in the leptonic CKM matrix $|U_{rs}|$, and
the 8 masses $m_c, m_s, m_\mu, m_u, m_d, m_e, m_{\nu_1}, B$. Of these 14
calculated quantities, 2 (i.e.\ $m_u$, $U_{e2}$) compare unsatisfactorily
at present with experiment, and another 2 (i.e. the mass of the lightest
neutrino $m_{\nu_1}$ and that of the right-handed neutrino $B$) are untested
being experimentally yet unknown. The other 10, however, (namely, $|V_{rs}|,
|U_{e3}|, |U_{\mu3}|, m_c, m_s, m_\mu, m_d, m_e$), all agree as well as
can be expected with their known empirical values. This, we think, is not
a bad score for a first attempt based on some rather crude approximations,
such as taking $\rho$ and $m_T$ as scale-independent constants. With more
experience and sophistication, the score can possibly be improved.
However, even if considered successful, this score by itself does not
constitute a stringent test for the basic assumption of DSM that dual colour
is generations. As emphasized in a recent paper \cite{phenodsm}, the same
result can be obtained just by assuming generations to be a broken $U(3)$
symmetry independent of whether it is identified with dual colour. The
only physical consequence considered in this paper which relies crucially
on that identification is the explanation suggested in Section 6 for
air showers beyond the GZK cut-off, which is still far from established.
An urgent task for this scheme is thus to device some further tests for
the dual colour hypothesis.
Besides this, there are many further questions needing answers for checking
the consistency of DSM, both within itself and with nature. Of these we list
in particular the following. First, there is the question of CP-violation
which, though known experimentally, has not yet made an appearance in DSM
at the 1-loop level and might indicate a deficiency. Secondly, there is
the question of the rotating mass matrix, which one has made use of in
the calculation of mass and mixing parameters, and this might have other
physical consequences yet waiting to be explored. Thirdly, there is
the intriguing question of the `accidental' near equality between Yukawa
coupling strengths $\rho$ for all fermion types, and the proximity of the
Higgs vev's $(x, y, z)$ to the fixed point $(1,0,0)$, which presumably
reflect a deeper intricacy in the problem than we have yet understood.
Fourthly, there is the question of linkage between the breaking of the
dual colour symmetry, studied so far in isolation, with the breaking
of the electroweak symmetry, which may be related to the point raised
immediately above. Fifthly, there is the subtle question of whether the
duality assertion that gauge and dual gauge bosons represent the same
physical degrees of freedom might give rise to a new class of phenomena,
called `metamorphosis' by us in \cite{dualcons}, of which post-GZK air
showers are but one example of many possible manifestations. Sixthly,
going even further afield, there is the question of the symmetry
$\widetilde{SU}(2)$ dual to electroweak $SU(2)$, which by the same
logic adopted for $SU(3)$ colour here, ought to give rise to another
level of confinement deeper than colour, and this should be amenable to
experimental investigation, but only by deep inelastic scattering at
ultra-high energies. And there will be other questions too which we
have not yet learned even to formulate. One has thus the feeling that
what has been attempted so far is but scratching the surface of a
possibly very rich vein.
\vspace{.5cm}
\noindent {\large {\bf Acknowledgement}}
\vspace{.2cm}
It is a pleasure for us to thank Jos\'e Bordes, Jacqueline Faridani and
Jakov Pfaudler for a most enjoyable and fruitful collaboration producing
most of the work reported above.
\clearpage
|
\chapter{Whittaker model}\label{Witt}
In this chapter we recall the Whittaker model of the center
of the universal enveloping algebra $U({\frak g})$, where ${\frak g}$ is a
complex simple Lie algebra.
\section{Notation}\label{notation}
Fix the notation used throughout of the text.
Let $G$ be a
connected simply connected finite--dimensional complex simple Lie group, $%
{\frak g}$ its Lie algebra. Fix a Cartan subalgebra ${\frak h}\subset {\frak %
g}\ $and let $\Delta $ be the set of roots of $\left( {\frak g},{\frak h}%
\right) .$ Choose an ordering in the root system. Let $\alpha_i,~i=1,\ldots
l,~~l=rank({\frak g})$ be the
simple roots, $\Delta_+=\{ \beta_1, \ldots ,\beta_N \}$
the set of positive roots. Denote by $\rho$ a half of the sum of positive roots,
$\rho=\frac 12 \sum_{i=1}^N\beta_i$.
Let $H_1,\ldots ,H_l$ be the set of simple root generators of $\frak h$.
Let $a_{ij}$ be the corresponding Cartan matrix.
Let $d_1,\ldots , d_l$ be coprime positive integers such that the matrix
$b_{ij}=d_ia_{ij}$ is symmetric. There exists a unique non--degenerate invariant
symmetric bilinear form $\left( ,\right) $ on ${\frak g}$ such that
$(H_i , H_j)=d_j^{-1}a_{ij}$. It induces an isomorphism of vector spaces
${\frak h}\simeq {\frak h}^*$ under which $\alpha_i \in {\frak h}^*$ corresponds
to $d_iH_i \in {\frak h}$. We denote by $\alpha^\vee$ the element of $\frak h$
that
corresponds to $\alpha \in {\frak h}^*$ under this isomorphism.
The induced bilinear form on ${\frak h}^*$ is given by
$(\alpha_i , \alpha_j)=b_{ij}$.
Let $W$ be the Weyl group of the root system $\Delta$. $W$ is the subgroup of
$GL({\frak h})$
generated by the fundamental reflections $s_1,\ldots ,s_l$,
$$
s_i(h)=h-\alpha_i(h)H_i,~~h\in{\frak h}.
$$
The action of $W$ preserves the bilinear form $(,)$ on $\frak h$.
We denote a representative of $w\in W$ in $G$ by
the same letter. For $w\in W, g\in G$ we write $w(g)=wgw^{-1}$.
Let ${{\frak b}_+}$ be the positive Borel subalgebra and ${\frak b}_-$
the opposite Borel subalgebra; let ${\frak n}_+=[{{\frak b}_+},{{\frak b}_+}]$
and $%
{\frak n}_-=[{\frak b}_-,{\frak b}_-]$ be their
nil-radicals. Let $H=\exp {\frak h},N_+=\exp {{\frak n}_+},
N_-=\exp {\frak n}_-,B_+=HN_+,B_-=HN_-$ be
the Cartan subgroup, the maximal unipotent subgroups and the Borel subgroups
of $G$ which correspond to the Lie subalgebras ${\frak h},{{\frak n}_+},%
{\frak n}_-,{\frak b}_+$ and ${\frak b}_-,$ respectively.
We identify $\frak g$ and its dual by means of the canonical invariant bilinear
form.
Then the coadjoint
action of $G$ on ${\frak g}^*$ is naturally identified with the adjoint one. We
also identify
${{\frak n}_+}^*\cong {\frak n}_-,~{{\frak b}_+}^*\cong {\frak b}_-$.
Let ${\frak g}_\beta$ be the root subspace corresponding to a root $\beta \in
\Delta$,
${\frak g}_\beta=\{ x\in {\frak g}| [h,x]=\beta(h)x \mbox{ for every }h\in
{\frak h}\}$.
${\frak g}_\beta\subset {\frak g}$ is a one--dimensional subspace.
It is well--known that for $\alpha\neq -\beta$ the root subspaces ${\frak
g}_\alpha$ and ${\frak g}_\beta$ are orthogonal with respect
to the canonical invariant bilinear form. Moreover ${\frak g}_\alpha$ and
${\frak g}_{-\alpha}$
are non--degenerately paired by this form.
Root vectors $X_{\alpha}\in {\frak g}_\alpha$ satisfy the following relations:
$$
[X_\alpha,X_{-\alpha}]=(X_\alpha,X_{-\alpha})\alpha^\vee.
$$
If $V$ is a finite--dimensional complex vector space, $S(V)$ will denote the
symmetric algebra over $V$ and
$S_k(V)$ denotes the homogeneous subspace of degree k. If $V^*$ is the dual
space to $V$ then $S(V^*)$ is
regarded as the algebra of polynomial functions on $V$.
Let $U({\frak g})$ be the universal enveloping algebra of $\frak g$, and
$U_k({\frak g})$ the standard filtration in $U({\frak g})$. From the
Poincar\'{e}--Birkhoff--Witt
theorem it follows that the associated graded algebra $GrU({\frak g})$ is
isomorphic to the symmetric algebra
$S({\frak g})$ of the linear space $\frak g$.
Equip $S({\frak g})$ with a Poisson structure as follows. For each
$s_k\in S_k({\frak g})$ choose a representative $u_k\in U_k({\frak g})$ such
that
$u_k/ U_{k-1}({\frak g})=s_k$. We shall denote $s_k=Gru_k$.
Given two such elements $s_i$ and $s_j$ with chosen representatives
$u_i$ and $u_j$, the commutativity of $S({\frak g})$ implies that
$$
[u_i,u_j]\in U_{i+j-1}({\frak g}).
$$
Define
\begin{equation}\label{KK}
\{ s_i,s_j\} =[u_i,u_j]/ U_{i+j-2}({\frak g}).
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that this bracket is independent of the choice of
representatives $u_i,~u_j$ and equips
$S({\frak g})$ with the structure of a Poisson algebra, i.e. it is a derivation
of the multiplication in
$S({\frak g})$. We refer to the procedure described above as the graded limit.
\section{The Whittaker model}\label{whitt}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
In this section we introduce the Whittaker model of the center of the universal
enveloping
algebra $U({\frak g})$. We start by recalling the classical result of Chevalley
which describes the structure of the center.
Let $Z({\frak g})$ be the center of $U({\frak g})$. The standard filtration
$U_k({\frak g})$
in $U({\frak g})$ induces a filtration $Z_k({\frak g})$ in $Z({\frak g})$. The
following
important theorem may be found for instance in \cite{Bur1}, Ch.8, \S 8, no. 3,
Corollary 1 and no.5, Theorem 2.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Theorem (Chevalley)}
{\em One can choose
elements $I_k\in Z_{m_k+1}({\frak g}),~~k=1,\ldots l$, where $m_k$ are called
the exponents of $\frak g$,
such that
$Z({\frak g})={\Bbb C}[I_1,\ldots , I_l]$ is a polynomial algebra in $l$
generators.}
\vskip 0.3cm
The adjoint action of $G$ on $\frak g$ naturally extends to $S({\frak g})$.
Let $S({\frak g})^G$ be the algebra of $G$--invariants in $S({\frak g})$.
Clearly, $GrZ({\frak g})\cong S({\frak g})^G$. In particular $S({\frak
g})^G\cong
{\Bbb C}[\widehat I_1,\ldots , \widehat I_l]$, where $\widehat I_i=Gr
I_i,~i=1,\ldots ,l$. The elements
$\widehat I_i,~i=1,\ldots ,l$ are called fundamental invariants.
Following Kostant we shall realize the center $Z({\frak g})$ of the universal
enveloping
algebra $U({\frak g})$ as a subalgebra in $U({\frak b}_-)$.
Let
$$
\chi :{{\frak n}_+} \rightarrow {\Bbb C}
$$
be a character of ${{\frak n}_+}$.
Since ${{\frak n}_+}=\sum_{i=1}^l{\Bbb C}X_{\alpha_i} \oplus[{{\frak
n}_+},{{\frak n}_+}]$
it is clear that $\chi$ is completely determined by the constants $c_i=\chi
(X_{\alpha_i}),~i=1,\ldots ,l$ and
$c_i$ are arbitrary. In \cite{K} $\chi$ is called non--singular if $c_i\neq 0$
for all $i$.
Let $f=\sum_{i=1}^l X_{-\alpha_i}\in {\frak n}_-$ be a regular nilpotent
element.
From the properties of the invariant bilinear form (see Section \ref{notation})
it follows that
$(f,[{{\frak n}_+},{{\frak
n}_+}])=0,~~(f,X_{\alpha_i})=(X_{-\alpha_i},X_{\alpha_i})$,
and hence the map
$x\mapsto (f,x),~~x\in {{\frak n}_+}$ is a non--singular character of ${{\frak
n}_+}$.
Recall that in our choice of root vectors no normalization was made. But now
given a non--singular
character $\chi :{{\frak n}_+}\rightarrow {\Bbb C}$ we will say that $f$
corresponds to $\chi$ in case
$$
\chi (X_{\alpha_i}) =(X_{-\alpha_i},X_{\alpha_i}).
$$
Conversely if $\chi$ is non--singular there is a unique choice of $f$ so that
$f$ corresponds to $\chi$.
In this case $\chi (x)=(f,x)$ for every $x\in {{\frak n}_+}$.
Naturally, the character $\chi$ extends to a character of
the universal enveloping algebra $U({{\frak n}_+})$.
Let $U_\chi ({{\frak n}_+})$ be the kernel of this extension so that
one has a direct sum
$$
U({{\frak n}_+})={\Bbb C}\oplus U_\chi ({{\frak n}_+}).
$$
Since ${\frak g}={\frak b}_-\oplus {{\frak n}_+}$ we have a linear
isomorphism $U({\frak g})=U({\frak b}_-)\otimes U({{\frak n}_+})$ and hence
the direct sum
\begin{equation}\label{maindec}
U({\frak g})=U({\frak b}_-) \oplus I_\chi,
\end{equation}
where $I_\chi=U({\frak g})U_\chi ({{\frak n}_+})$ is the left--sided ideal
generated by
$U_\chi ({{\frak n}_+})$.
For any $u\in U({\frak g})$ let $u^\chi\in U({\frak b}_-)$ be its component in
$U({\frak b}_-)$ relative to the decomposition (\ref{maindec}). Denote by
$\rho_\chi$
the linear map
$$
\rho_\chi : U({\frak g}) \rightarrow U({\frak b}_-)
$$
given by $\rho_\chi (u)=u^\chi$.
Let $W({\frak b}_-)=\rho_\chi (Z({\frak g}))$.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Theorem A (\cite{K}, Theorem 2.4.2)}
{\em The map
\begin{equation}\label{map}
\rho_\chi : Z({\frak g}) \rightarrow W({\frak b}_-)
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism of algebras. In particular
$$
W({\frak b}_-)={\Bbb C}[I_1^\chi ,\ldots , I_l^\chi ],
~~I_i^\chi=\rho_\chi(I_i),~~i=1,\ldots ,l
$$
is a polynomial algebra in $l$ generators.}
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\em Proof.}
First, we show that the map (\ref{map}) is an algebra homomorphism.
If $u,v\in Z({\frak g})$ then $u^\chi v^\chi \in U({\frak b}_-)$ and
$$
uv-u^\chi v^\chi =(u-u^\chi )v+u^\chi (v-v^\chi ).
$$
Since $(u-u^\chi )v=v(u-u^\chi )$ the r.h.s. of the last equality is an element
of $I_\chi$.
This proves $u^\chi v^\chi =(uv)^\chi$.
By definition the map (\ref{map}) is surjective. We have to prove that it is
injective.
Let $U({\frak g})^{\frak h}$ be the centralizer of $\frak h$ in $U({\frak g})$.
Clearly
$Z({\frak g})\subseteq U({\frak g})^{\frak h}$. From the
Poincar\'{e}--Birkhoff--Witt
theorem it follows that every element $z\in U({\frak g})^{\frak h}$ may be
uniquely
written as
$$
z=\sum_{p,q\in{\Bbb N}^N,<p>=<q>}X_{-\beta_1}^{p_1}\ldots
X_{-\beta_N}^{p_N}\varphi_{p,q}
X_{\beta_1}^{q_1}\ldots X_{\beta_N}^{q_N},
$$
where $<p>=\sum_{i=1}^r p_i \beta_i \in {\frak h}^*$ and $\varphi_{p,q} \in
U({\frak h})$.
Now recall that $\chi (X_{\beta_i})=0$ if $\beta_i$ is not a simple root, and we
easily obtain
$$
\rho_\chi (z)=\sum_{p,q\in{\Bbb N}^l,<p>=<q>\neq
0}X_{-\alpha_{k_1}}^{p_{j_1}}\ldots X_{-\alpha_{k_l}}^{p_{j_l}}\varphi_{p,q}
\prod_{i=1}^lc_{k_i}^{q_{j_i}}+\varphi_{0,0}.
$$
Let $z\in Z({\frak g})$. One knows that the map
$$
Z({\frak g})\rightarrow U({\frak h}),~~z\mapsto \varphi_{0,0},
$$
called the Harich-Chandra homomorphism, is injective (see (c), p. 232 in
\cite{Dix}). It follows that
the map (\ref{map}) is also injective.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Definition A}
{\em The algebra $W({\frak b}_-)$ is called the Whittaker model of $Z({\frak
g})$.}
\vskip 0.3cm
Next we equip $U({\frak b}_-)$ with a structure of a left $U({{\frak n}_+})$
module in such a
way that $W({\frak b}_-)$ is realized as the space of invariants with respect to
this action.
Let $Y_\chi$ be the left $U({\frak g})$ module defined by
$$
Y_\chi =U({\frak g})\otimes_{U({{\frak n}_+})}{\Bbb C}_\chi ,
$$
where ${\Bbb C}_\chi$ denotes the 1--dimensional $U({{\frak n}_+})$--module
defined by $\chi$.
Obviously $Y_\chi$ is just the quotient module $U({\frak g})/I_\chi$. From
(\ref{maindec}) it
follows that the map
\begin{equation}\label{iso2}
U({\frak b}_-)\rightarrow Y_\chi;~~v\mapsto v\otimes 1
\end{equation}
is a linear isomorphism.
It is convenient
to carry the module structure of $Y_\chi$ to $U({\frak b}_-)$. For $u\in
U({\frak g}),~~
v\in U({\frak b}_-)$ the induced action $u\circ v$ has the form
\begin{equation}\label{indact}
u\circ v=(uv)^\chi.
\end{equation}
The restriction of this action to $U({{\frak n}_+})$ may be changed by tensoring
with 1--dimensional
$U({{\frak n}_+})$--module defined by $-\chi$. That is $U({\frak b}_-)$ becomes
an $U({{\frak n}_+})$
module where if $x\in {U({\frak n}_+)},~~v\in U({\frak b}_-)$ one puts
\begin{equation}\label{mainact}
x\cdot v=x\circ v-\chi (x)v.
\end{equation}
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Lemma A (\cite{K}, Lemma 2.6.1.)}
{\em Let $v\in U({\frak b}_-)$ and $x\in {U({\frak n}_+)}$. Then}
$$
x\cdot v =[x,v]^\chi.
$$
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\em Proof.}
By definition $x\cdot v=(xv)^\chi -\chi (x)v$. Then we have $xv=[x,v]+vx$ and
hence
$x\cdot v=([x,v])^\chi +(vx)^\chi -\chi (x)v$. But clearly $(vx)^\chi =v\chi
(x)$. Thus
$x\cdot v=([x,v])^\chi$.
The action (\ref{mainact}) may be lifted to an action of the unipotent group
$N_+$.
Consider the space $U({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}$ of $N_+$ invariants
in $U({\frak b}_-)$ with respect to this
action. Clearly,
$W({\frak b}_-)\subseteq U({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}$ .
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Theorem B (\cite{K}, Theorems 2.4.1, 2.6)}
{\em Suppose that the character $\chi$ is non--singular. Then the space of $N_+$
invariants
in $U({\frak b}_-)$ with respect to the
action (\ref{mainact}) is isomorphic to $W({\frak b}_-)$, i.e.}
\begin{equation}\label{inv}
U({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}\cong W({\frak b}_-).
\end{equation}
\vskip 0.3cm
We shall prove Theorem B in the next section.
\section{Geometric approach to the Whittaker model}\label{geomappr}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
In this section we establish a relation between the Whittaker model
and the geometry of the adjoint action of
the corresponding Lie group.
Denote the character of $S({{\frak n}_+})$ that equals to $\chi(x)$ for every
$x\in {\frak n}_+$
by the same letter. Similarly to (\ref{maindec}) we have the following
decomposition for $S({\frak g})$:
$$
S({\frak g})=S({\frak b}_-)\oplus I_\chi^0,
$$
where $I_\chi^0$ is the ideal in $S({\frak g})$ generated by the kernel of
$\chi$.
For any $s\in S({\frak g})$ let $s^\chi$ be its component in $S({\frak b}_-)$
relative to
this decomposition.
Now using Lemma A we define the graded limit of the action (\ref{mainact}). For
$x\in {\frak n}_+$
and $s\in S({\frak b}_-)$ we put
\begin{equation}\label{classact}
x\cdot s=(\{ x,s\} )^\chi.
\end{equation}
This action may be lifted to an action of the unipotent group $N_+$ on $S({\frak
b}_-)$.
For $a\in N_+,~s\in S({\frak b}_-)$ this action is given by
$$
a\cdot s=({\rm Ad}(a)(s))^\chi.
$$
Observe that $S({\frak b}_-)$ is naturally identified with the algebra of
polynomial functions on
${\frak b}_+$. We shall describe the space of invariants $S({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}$
using the induced action of
$N_+$ on ${\frak b}_+$.
To calculate this action it suffices to consider the restriction of the action
(\ref{classact}) to linear
functions. Let $s\in {\frak b}_-$ be such a function. Then for $a\in N_+$
$$
a\cdot s=({\rm Ad}(a)(s))^\chi =P_{{\frak b}_-}({\rm Ad}(a)(s))+\chi(P_{{\frak
n}_+}({\rm Ad}(a)(s))),
$$
where $P_{{\frak b}_-}$ and $P_{{\frak n}_+}$ are the projection operators onto
${\frak b}_-$ and ${\frak n}_+$,
respectively,
in the direct sum
${\frak g}={\frak b}_- +{{\frak n}_+}$. By the definition of the induced action
we have
$$
a\cdot s(s')=s(a^{-1}\cdot s'),\mbox{ for every }s'\in {{\frak b}_+}.
$$
On the other hand
$$
\begin{array}{l}
a\cdot s(s')=(P_{{\frak b}_-}({\rm Ad}(a)(s)),s')+\chi(P_{{\frak n}_+}({\rm
Ad}(a)(s)))=\\
({\rm Ad}(a)(s),s')+({\rm Ad}(a)(s),f),
\end{array}
$$
where $f\in {\frak n}_-$ corresponds to $\chi$. Since the canonical bilinear
form $(,)$ is Ad-invariant
the last formula may be rewritten as:
$$
a\cdot s(s')=(s,{\rm Ad}(a)^{-1}(s'+f))=s(P_{{\frak b}_+}({\rm
Ad}(a)^{-1}(s'+f))),
$$
where $P_{{\frak b}_+}$ is the projector onto ${{\frak b}_+}$ in the direct sum
${\frak g}={{\frak b}_+}+{\frak n}_-$.
Finally observe that the subspace $f+{{\frak b}_+}$ is stable under the adjoint
action of $N_+$.
Therefore $P_{{\frak b}_+}({\rm Ad}(a)^{-1}(s'+f))={\rm Ad}(a)^{-1}(s'+f)-f$,
and the induced action of $N_+$ on ${{\frak b}_+}$ takes
the form:
\begin{equation}\label{dualact}
a\cdot s'={\rm Ad}(a)(s'+f)-f.
\end{equation}
Now the algebra of invariants $S({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}$ may be identified with a
certain subalgebra in the algebra of
functions on the quotient ${{\frak b}_+}/{N_+}$. The space ${{\frak b}_+}/{N_+}$
has a nice geometric description.
Observe that $[f,{{\frak n}_+}]\subset {{\frak b}_+}$. Moreover, $[f,{{\frak
n}_+}]$ is an ${\rm ad}_\rho$ stable
subspace of ${\frak b}_+$. Since $\rho$ is a semi--simple element there exists
an
${\rm ad}_\rho$ invariant stable subspace ${\frak s}\subseteq {{\frak b}_+}$
such that
${{\frak b}_+}={\frak s}+[f,{{\frak n}_+}]$ is a direct sum. By Theorem 8 and
Remark 19' in \cite{K1} $\frak s$ is an
$l$--dimensional subspace in ${{\frak n}_+}$.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Theorem C (\cite{K}, Theorem 1.2 )}
{\em The map
$$
{N_+}\times {\frak s}\rightarrow {{\frak b}_+}
$$
given by $(a,x)\mapsto a\cdot x$ is an isomorphism of affine varieties.
Therefore the quotient space ${{\frak b}_+}/{N_+}$ is isomorphic to ${\frak
s}$.}
\vskip 0.3cm
The linear space $\frak s$ naturally appears in the study of regular elements in
$\frak g$. Recall that an element of
$\frak g$ is called regular if its centralizer in $\frak g$ is of minimal
possible dimension. Let $R$ be
the set of regular elements in $\frak g$. Clearly, $R$ is stable under the
adjoint action of $G$ and in fact $R$
is the union of all $G$ orbits in $\frak g$ of maximal dimension.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Theorem D (\cite{K}, Theorem 1.1; \cite{K1}, Theorem 8)}
{\em The affine space $f+{\frak s}$ is contained in $R$ and is a cross--section
for the action of $G$ on $R$.
That is every $G$--orbit in $\frak g$ of maximal dimension intersects $f+{\frak
s}$ in one and only one point.
Let $\widehat I_1,\ldots , \widehat I_l\in S({\frak g})^G$ be the fundamental
invariants.
$\widehat I_1,\ldots , \widehat I_l$ may be viewed as polynomial functions on
${\frak g}^*
\cong {\frak g}$. The restrictions of these functions to $f+{\frak s}$ define a
global coordinate system on
${\frak s}$.}
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Theorem E (\cite{K}, Theorem 1.3)}
{\em For any $\widehat I\in S({\frak g})^G$ one has $\widehat I^\chi\in S({\frak
b}_-)^{N_+}$.
Furthermore the map
\begin{equation}\label{iso1}
S({\frak g})^G\rightarrow S({\frak b}_-)^{N_+},~~\widehat I\mapsto \widehat
I^\chi
\end{equation}
is an algebra isomorphism. In particular
$$
S({\frak b}_-)^N={\Bbb C}[\widehat I_1^\chi ,\ldots , \widehat I_l^\chi ]
$$
is a polynomial algebra in $l$ generators.}
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\em Proof.}
First observe that elements of $S({\frak g})$ may be viewed as polynomial
functions on ${\frak g}^*
\cong {\frak g}$. Note also that the ideal $I_\chi^0$ is generated by the
elements $x-(x,f),~x\in {{\frak n}_+}$.
Therefore $I_\chi^0$ is the ideal of polynomial functions vanishing on the
subspace $f+{{\frak b}_+}$ and so for every $\widehat I\in S({\frak g})$
$\widehat I^\chi$ may be
regarded as the restriction of the function $\widehat I$ to the subspace
$f+{{\frak b}_+}$.
For $\widehat I\in S({\frak g})^G,~s'\in {{\frak b}_+}$ and $a\in N_+$ one has
$\widehat I({\rm Ad}(a)(f+s'))=
\widehat I^\chi(a\cdot s')$. Since $\widehat I({\rm Ad}(a)(f+s'))=\widehat
I(f+s')$ it follows that
$\widehat I^\chi \in S({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}$.
By Theorem C the map
$$
S({\frak b}_-)^{N_+} \rightarrow S({\frak s}^*)
$$
given by the restriction $v\mapsto v|_{\frak s}$ is an algebra isomorphism.
Now by Theorem D the restrictions of the functions $\widehat I_i^\chi
,~i=1,\ldots ,l$ to ${\frak s}$
are a coordinate system. Therefore (\ref{iso1}) is an isomorphism.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\em Proof of Theorem B.}
First observe that elements $\widehat I_i^\chi,~i=1,\ldots ,l$
are the graded limits of
the elements $I_i^\chi \in U({\frak b}_-)^{N_+},~i=1,\ldots ,l$. Therefore
$GrW({\frak b}_-)=S({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}$. Recall that
$W({\frak b}_-)\subseteq U({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}$ is a linear subspace.
Let $J\in U({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}\cap U_{k_1}({\frak b}_-)$ be an invariant
element.
Clearly, $GrJ\in S({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}$.
Since $GrW({\frak b}_-)=S({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}$ one can find elements
$I_1\in W({\frak b}_-)\cap U_{k_1}({\frak b}_-)$ and
$J_1\in U({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}\cap U_{k_2}({\frak b}_-),
~~k_2<k_1$ such that
$$
J-I_1=J_1.
$$
Applying the same procedure to $J_1$ we obtain elements
$J_2\in U({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}\cap U_{k_3}({\frak b}_-),
~k_3<k_2,~~I_2\in W({\frak b}_-)\cap U_{k_2}({\frak b}_-)$ such that
$$
J_1-I_2=J_2.
$$
We can continue this process. Since the standard filtration in $U({\frak b}_-)$
is
bounded below we finally obtain that for some $i~~ J_i-I_i=c\in {\Bbb C}$. By
construction
the element $J$ is represented as $J=\sum_{j=1}^i I_j+c,~I_j\in W({\frak
b}_-)\cap U_{k_j}({\frak b}_-)$.
Therefore $J\in W({\frak b}_-)$.
This concludes the proof.
Now we make an important remark.
\vskip 0.3cm
{\bf Remark A}
Observe that the space $U({\frak b}_-)^{N_+}$ may be interpreted as the zeroth
cohomology space of the
$U({{\frak n}_+})$ module $Y_\chi$, where $U({{\frak n}_+})$ is augmented by
$\chi$.
Indeed, for every associative algebra $B$ equipped with character $\chi$ and for
every left
$B$--module $V$ the cohomology module $H^*(V)$ is defined as the cohomology
space of the complex (see \cite{carteil})
\begin{equation}\label{cohomol1}
{\rm Hom}_B(X,V),
\end{equation}
where $X$ is a projective resolution of the one--dimensional $B$--module ${\Bbb
C}_\chi$ defined by
$\chi$. In homological algebra $\chi$ is called an augmentation of $B$.
It is well--known that the graded vector space $H^*(V)$ does not depend on the
resolution $X$ and
the zeroth cohomology
space $H^0(V)$ is isomorphic to the space of invariants ${\rm Hom}_B({\Bbb
C}_\chi ,V)$ (see
\cite{carteil}). Using the map
$$
{\rm Hom}_B({\Bbb C}_\chi ,V)\rightarrow V;~~ \hat{v}\mapsto \hat{v}(1)=v
$$
this space may be identified with the subspace in $V$ spanned by elements
$v\in V$ such that $bv=\chi (b)v$ for every $b\in B$, i.e.
$$
H^0(V)={\rm Hom}_B({\Bbb C}_\chi ,V)=\{ v\in V: bv=\chi (b)v \mbox{ for every }
b\in B \}.
$$
Now for $B=U({{\frak n}_+})$, $\chi$ as in Theorem B and $V=Y_\chi$ we have
$H^0(Y_\chi)=\{ v\in Y_\chi: xv=\chi (x)v \mbox{ for every } x\in U({{\frak
n}_+}) \}$.
From (\ref{mainact}) and (\ref{iso2}) it follows that $H^0(Y_\chi)=U({\frak
b}_-)^{N_+}$.
Now recall that by
Theorem B there exists a linear isomorphism $W({\frak b}_-)\cong U({\frak
b}_-)^{N_+}$.
Therefore the associative algebra $W({\frak b}_-)$ is isomorphic to
$H^0(Y_\chi)$ as a
linear space. In Section \ref{whitthom} we show that the multiplicative
structure of $W({\frak b}_-)$
naturally appears in the context of homological algebra.
\chapter{Hecke algebras}\label{Hom}
In this section we give a homological definition of Hecke algebras (see Section
\ref{Hecke}).
Let $K$ be a ring with unit, $A$ an associative algebra over $K$, and $B$ a
subalgebra of $A$ with
augmentation, that is, a $K$--algebra homomorphism $\varepsilon : B\rightarrow
K$.
The Hecke algebra $Hk^*(A,B,\varepsilon)$ of the triple $(A,B,\varepsilon )$ is
a natural generalization of
the algebra ${\rm Hom}_A(A\otimes_BK,A\otimes_BK)$. For
every left $A$ module $V$ and every right $A$ module $W$ the algebra
$Hk^*(A,B,\varepsilon)$ acts in both the cohomology
space $H^{*}(B,V)$ and the homology space $H_*(B,W)$ of $V$ and $W$ as
$B$--modules.
Hecke algebras are
also closely related to the quantum BRST cohomology (see \cite{KSt}).
To define Hecke algebras we study complexes of $A$--endomorphisms of graded left
$A$ modules.
Let $X$ be such a complex, ${\rm End}_{A}(X)$ be the corresponding complex of
endomorphisms. Our main
observation is that the natural multiplication in ${\rm End}_{A}(X)$ given by
composition of endomorphisms
induces a multiplicative structure on the cohomology space $H^*({\rm
End}_{A}(X))$. Furthermore, the
associative algebra $H^*({\rm End}_{A}(X))$ only depends on the homotopy class
of the complex $X$.
As an application of our construction we show that the Whittaker model
$W({\frak b}_-)$ is the zeroth graded component of the
Hecke algebra of the triple $(U({\frak g}),U({\frak n}),\chi )$.
The exposition in this chapter follows \cite{S2}.
\section{Endomorphisms of complexes}\label{end}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
Let $A$ be an associative ring with unit, $X$ a graded complex of left
$A$~modules equipped
with a differential $d$ of degree $-1$. Recall the definition of the complex
$Y={\rm End}_{A}(X)$ \cite{MacLane}.
By definition $Y$ is a $\Bbb Z$--graded complex
$$
Y=\bigoplus_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} Y^n
$$
with graded components defined as
$$
Y^n=\prod_{p+q=n} Y^{p,q},
$$
where
$$
Y^{p,q}={\rm Hom}_{A}(X^{p},X^{-q}).
$$
Clearly $Y$ is
closed with respect to the multiplication given by composition of endomorphisms.
Thus it is a graded
associative algebra.
We introduce a differential on $Y$ of degree +1 as follows:
$$
\begin{array}{c}
({\bf d}f)^{p,q}=(-1)^{p+q}f^{p-1,q}\circ d +d\circ f^{p,q-1}, \\
f=\{ f^{p,q} \}, f^{p,q} \in Y^{p,q},
\end{array}
$$
where $d$ is the differential of $X$. If $f$ is homogeneous then
\begin{equation}\label{diff}
{\bf d}f=d\circ f -(-1)^{{\rm deg} (f)}f\circ d .
\end{equation}
So that ${\bf d}$ is the supercommutator by $d$.
We shall consider also the partial differentials $d'$ and $d''$ on Y :
\begin{equation}\label{part}
\begin{array}{cc}
\mbox{for } f\in Y^{p,q}& \\
(d'f)(x)=(-1)^{p+q+1}f(dx),& x\in X^{p+1}; \\
(d''f)(x)=df(x),& x\in X^{p}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
It is easy to check that
$$
d'^2=d''^2=d'd''+d''d'=0
$$
These conditions ensure that ${\bf d}^2=0$.
The following property of ${\bf d}$ is crucial for the subsequent
considerations.
\begin{lemma}
${\bf d}$ is a superderivation of $Y$.
\end{lemma}
{\em Proof.} Let $f$ and $g$ be homogeneous elements of $Y$. Then ${\rm deg}
(fg) = {\rm deg} (f) + {\rm deg} (g)$ and
(\ref{diff}) yields:
$$
\begin{array}{l}
{\bf d}(fg)=d\circ fg - (-1)^{{\rm deg} (f) +{\rm deg} (g)} fg \circ d= \\
d\circ fg -(-1)^{{\rm deg} (f)} f \circ d \circ g +(-1)^{{\rm deg} (f)} f \circ
d \circ g - (-1)^{{\rm deg} (f) +{\rm deg} (g)} fg \circ d= \\
({\bf d}f)g+(-1)^{{\rm deg} (f)}f({\bf d}g).
\end{array}
$$
This completes the proof.
The most important consequence of the lemma is
\begin{proposition}\label{alg}
The homology space $H^*(Y)$ inherits a multiplicative structure from Y.
Thus $H^*(Y)$ is a graded associative algebra.
\end{proposition}
{\em Proof.} First, the product of two cocycles is a cocycle.
For if $f$ and $g$ are homogeneous and ${\bf d}f={\bf d}g=0$ then
$$
{\bf d}(fg)=({\bf d}f)g+(-1)^{{\rm deg} (f)}f({\bf d}g)=0.
$$
Now we have to show that the product of homology classes is well--defined.
It suffices to verify that the product of a homogeneous cocycle with a
homogeneous coboundary is cohomologous to zero.
For instance consider the product $f{\bf d}h$. Equation (\ref{diff}) gives
\begin{eqnarray}
f{\bf d}h=f\circ (d\circ h -(-1)^{{\rm deg} (h)}h\circ d)= \\
(-1)^{{\rm deg} (f)}d\circ f \circ h - (-1)^{{\rm deg} (h)}f\circ h\circ d =
(-1)^{{\rm deg}(f)}{\bf d}(fh). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
This completes the proof.
One of the principal statements of homological algebra says that homotopically
equivalent complexes have
the same homology. In particular the vector space $H^*(Y)$ depends only on the
homotopy
class of the complex $X$. It turns out that the same is true for the algebraic
structure of $H^*(Y)$.
Indeed we have the following
\begin{theorem}\label{equiv}
Let $X, X'$ be two homotopically equivalent graded complexes of left
$A$--modules. Then
$$
H^*(Y)\cong H^*(Y')
$$
as graded associative algebras.
\end{theorem}
{\em Proof.} Let $F:X \rightarrow X' , F':X' \rightarrow X$ be two maps between
the complexes such that
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
F'F-{\rm id}_X=d_Xs+sd_X,& s:X\rightarrow X ,& s \in Y^{-1},\\
FF'-{\rm id}_{X'}=d_{X'}s'+s'd_{X'},& s':X'\rightarrow X' ,& s' \in Y'^{-1}.
\end{array}
$$
Consider the induced mappings of the complexes $Y,~~Y'$:
$$
\begin{array}{c}
FF'^{*}:Y \rightarrow Y' ,\\
FF'^{*}f= F \circ f \circ F' , f\in Y ;\\
F'F^{*}:Y' \rightarrow Y ,\\
F'F^{*}g= F' \circ g \circ F , f\in Y' .\\
\end{array}
$$
Their compositions are homotopic to the identity maps of $Y$ and $Y'$ (see
Chap.~4, \cite{carteil} for a
general statement about equivalences of functors). But this means that $FF'^{*}$
is inverse to $F'F^{*}$
when restricted to homology. Thus $H^*(Y)$ is isomorphic to $H^*(Y')$ as a
vector space. We have to
show that the restrictions of $FF'^{*}$ and $F'F^{*}$ to the homologies are
homomorphisms of algebras.
Let $f$ and $g$ be homogeneous elements of $Y$ and ${\bf d}_Xf={\bf d}_Xg=0$. By
the definition of the
induced maps we have
$$
FF'^{*}(fg)=F \circ fg \circ F'.
$$
On the other hand
\begin{eqnarray}\label{hom}
FF'^{*}(f)FF'^{*}(g)=F \circ f \circ F'F \circ g \circ F'= \\
F \circ f({\rm id}_X+d_Xs+sd_X)g \circ F'.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Now recall that $f$ and $g$ are cocycles in $Y$. By (\ref{diff}) they
supercommute with $d_X$:
\begin{equation}\label{cocycle}
d_X\circ f =(-1)^{{\rm deg} (f)}f\circ d_X.
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{cocycle}) and the fact that $F$ and $F'$ are morphisms of complexes
we can rewrite (\ref{hom})
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{hom1}
F \circ f({\rm id}_X+d_Xs+sd_X)g \circ F'= F \circ fg \circ F' + \nonumber \\
+(-1)^{{\rm deg} (f)}d_{X'} \circ F \circ fsg \circ F' +
(-1)^{{\rm deg} (g)}F \circ fsg \circ F' \circ d_{X'} = \\
=F \circ fg \circ F'+(-1)^{{\rm deg} (f)}{\bf d}_{X'}(F \circ fsg \circ F') .
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Finally observe that by (\ref{hom1}), $FF'^{*}(fg)$ and $FF'^{*}(f)FF'^{*}(g)$
belong to the same
homology class in $H^{*}(Y')$. This completes the proof.
\section{Hecke algebras}\label{Hecke}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
Let $A$ be an associative algebra over a ring $K$ with unit, and $B$ a
subalgebra of $A$ with
augmentation, that is, a $K$--algebra homomorphism $\varepsilon : B\rightarrow
K$.
Let $X$ be a projective resolution of the left $B$--module $K$ defined by
$\varepsilon$.
Since $X$ is a complex of left
$B$--modules, the space $A \otimes_B X$ is also a differential complex.
Observe that this complex has the natural structure of a left $A$--module.
Therefore we can apply Proposition \ref{alg} to define a
graded associative
algebra
$$
Hk^*(A,B,\varepsilon)=H^*({\rm End}_A(A \otimes_B X)).
$$
Note that all $B$--projective resolutions of $K$ are homotopically equivalent
and so the complexes
$A \otimes_B X$ are homotopically equivalent for different resolutions $X$.
Hence
by Theorem \ref{equiv} the associative algebra $Hk^*(A,B,\varepsilon)$ does not
depend on the resolution $X$.
We shall call it the {\it Hecke
algebra} of the the triple $(A,B,\varepsilon )$.
Now consider $A$ as a left $A$--module and a right $B$--module via
multiplication. In this way $A$ becomes
a left $A\otimes B^{opp}$--module. Let $X'$ be a projective resolution of this
module. The complex $X' \otimes_B K$,
where the $B$ module structure on $K$ is defined by $\varepsilon$, is a left
$A$--module.
Therefore one can define an associative algebra
$$
\widehat{Hk}^*(A,B,\varepsilon)=H^*({\rm End}_A(X' \otimes_B K))
$$
independent of the resolution $X'$.
\begin{proposition}\label{iso}
$Hk^*(A,B,\varepsilon)$ is isomorphic to $\widehat{Hk}^*(A,B,\varepsilon)$ as a
graded associative algebra.
\end{proposition}
{\em Proof.} We shall use the standard bar resolutions for computing
$\widehat{Hk}^*(A,B,\varepsilon)$ and
${Hk}^*(A,B,\varepsilon)$ \cite{MacLane}, \cite{carteil}.
Consider the complex $B\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes B$, where $I(B)=B/K$ and $T$
denotes the tensor algebra
of the vector space. Elements of $B\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes B$ are usually
written as
$a[a_1,\ldots ,a_s]a'$. The differential is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
da[a_1,\ldots ,a_s]a'=aa_1[a_2,\ldots ,a_s]a'+ \\
\sum_{k=1}^{s-1}(-1)^{k}a[a_1,\ldots ,a_ka_{k+1},\ldots ,a_s]a' +
(-1)^sa[a_1,\ldots ,a_{s-1}]a_sa'. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Then $B\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes B \otimes_B K = B\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes K$ is a
free resolution of
the left $B$--module $K$. And $A \otimes_B B\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes B =A\otimes
T(I(B)) \otimes B$ is
a free resolution of $A$ as a right $B$--module. The complex $A\otimes T(I(B))
\otimes B$ is also a free
left $A$--module via left multiplication by elements of $A$. Hence this is an
$A\otimes B^{opp}$--
free resolution of $A$.
Thus the complex ${\rm End}_A(A\otimes_B B\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes K)={\rm
End}_A(A\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes K)$
for the computation of $Hk^*(A,B,\varepsilon)$ is canonically isomorphic to the
complex
${\rm End}_A(A \otimes T(I(B)) \otimes B \otimes_B K)={\rm End}_A(A \otimes
T(I(B)) \otimes K)$ for the computation
of $\widehat{Hk}^*(A,B,\varepsilon)$. This establishes the isomorphism of the
algebras.
\section{Action in homology and cohomology spaces}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
Recall that for every left $B$--module $V$ the cohomology modules are defined to
be
\begin{equation}\label{cohomol}
H^*(B,V)={\rm Ext}_B^*(K,V)=H^*({\rm Hom}_B(X,V)),
\end{equation}
where $X$ is a projective resolution of $K$. On the other hand for every right
$B$--module $W$ one can define
the homology modules
\begin{equation}\label{homol}
H_*(B,W)={\rm Tor}_*^B(W,K)=H_*(W\otimes_B X).
\end{equation}
Now observe that for every left $A$--module $V$
the complex in (\ref{cohomol}) for calculating its cohomology as a right
$B$--module
may be represented as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{cohomcompl}
{\rm Hom}_B(X,V)={\rm Hom}_A(A\otimes_B X ,V).
\end{equation}
Endow the space ${\rm Hom}_A(A\otimes_B X ,V)$ with a right ${\rm
End}_A(A\otimes_B X)$--action:
\begin{equation}\label{act1}
\begin{array}{ll}
{\rm Hom}_A(A\otimes_B X ,V) \times {\rm End}_A(A\otimes_B X) \rightarrow {\rm
Hom}_A(A\otimes_B X ,V) , &\\
\varphi \times f \mapsto \varphi \circ f, &\\
\varphi \in {\rm Hom}_A(A\otimes_B X ,V), f \in {\rm End}_A(A\otimes_B X).&
\end{array}
\end{equation}
This action is well--defined since $f$ commutes with the left $A$--action.
Clearly this action respects the
gradings, i.e., it is an action of the graded associative algebra on the graded
module.
\begin{proposition}\label{cohomact}
For every left $A$ module $V$
the action (\ref{act1}) gives rise to a right action
\begin{eqnarray}\label{cohomact1}
H^*(B,V)\times {Hk}^*(A,B,\varepsilon) \rightarrow H^*(B,V), \\
H^n(B,V)\times {Hk}^m(A,B,\varepsilon) \rightarrow H^{n+m}(B,V).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proposition}
{\em Proof.} Let $\varphi \in {\rm Hom}_A(A\otimes_B X ,V)$ and $d\varphi
=\varphi \circ d =0$. Let also
$f \in {\rm End}_A(A\otimes_B X)$ be a homogeneous cocycle. By (\ref{cocycle})
$\varphi \circ f$ is a cocycle
in ${\rm Hom}_A(A\otimes_B X ,V)$. Indeed
$$
d(\varphi \circ f)=\varphi \circ f \circ d =(-1)^{{\rm deg} (f)} \varphi \circ d
\circ f =0.
$$
Next we need to show that the action does not depend on the choice of the
representative $f$ in the
homology class $[f]$, that is $\varphi \circ {\bf d}g$ is homologous to zero for
every homogeneous
$g\in {\rm End}_A(A\otimes_B X)$. This is a direct consequence of the
definitions:
$$
\varphi \circ {\bf d}g= \varphi \circ (d\circ g - (-1)^{{\rm deg}(g)} g\circ d)=
-(-1)^{{\rm deg}(g)}d(\varphi \circ g),
$$
since $\varphi \circ d =0$.
Finally let us check that the action is independent of the representative
in the homology class $[\varphi]$. For $\psi \in {\rm Hom}_A(A\otimes_B X ,V)$
$d\psi \circ f$ is always
homologous to zero:
$$
d\psi \circ f= \psi \circ d \circ f = (-1)^{{\rm deg}(f)}\psi \circ f \circ d
=(-1)^{{\rm deg}(f)}d(\psi \circ f).
$$
This concludes the proof.
Similarly for every right $A$--module $W$ one can equip the homology module
$H_*(B,W)$ with a
structure of a left ${Hk}^*(A,B,\varepsilon)$--module. First the complex
$W\otimes_B X=W\otimes_A A\otimes_B X$ has
the natural structure of a left ${\rm End}_A(A\otimes_B X)$--module:
\begin{equation}\label{act2}
\begin{array}{ll}
{\rm End}_A(A\otimes_B X)\times W\otimes_A A\otimes_B X \rightarrow W\otimes_A
A\otimes_B X , &\\
f \times w\otimes x\mapsto w\otimes f(x), &\\
w\otimes x \in W\otimes_A (A\otimes_B X), f \in {\rm End}_A(A\otimes_B X).&
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Observe that according to the convention of Section \ref{end} elements of ${\rm
End}_A^n(A\otimes_B X)$ have
degree -n as operators in the graded space $W\otimes_A A\otimes_B X$:
$$
{\rm End}_A^n(A\otimes_B X)\times W\otimes_A A\otimes_B X_m \rightarrow
W\otimes_A A\otimes_B X_{m-n}.
$$
The following assertion is an analogue of Proposition \ref{cohomact} for
homology.
\begin{proposition}
For every right $A$ module $W$ the action (\ref{act2}) gives rise to a left
action
\begin{eqnarray}
Hk(A,B,\varepsilon)^* \times H_*(B,W) \rightarrow H_*(B,W),\\
Hk(A,B,\varepsilon)^n \times H_m(B,W) \rightarrow H_{m-n}(B,W).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proposition}
\section{Structure of the Hecke algebras}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
In this section we investigate the Hecke algebras under some technical
assumptions. The main theorem here is
\begin{theorem}\label{struct}
Assume that
$$
{\rm Tor}_n^B(A,K)=0 \mbox{ for } n>0.
$$
Then
$$
Hk^n(A,B,\varepsilon)={\rm Ext}^n_A(A\otimes_BK,A\otimes_BK)={\rm
Ext}^n_B(K,A\otimes_BK).
$$
In particular
$$
Hk^n(A,B,\varepsilon)=0 ,~ n<0,
$$
and
$$
Hk^0(A,B,\varepsilon )={\rm Hom}_A(A\otimes_BK,A\otimes_BK)
$$
as an associative algebra.
\end{theorem}
{\em Proof.} Equip the complex $Y={\rm End}_A(A\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes K)$,
which we used in Proposition \ref{iso} for the
computation of $Hk^*(A,B,\varepsilon)$, with the first filtration as follows:
$$
F^kY=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\prod_{p+q=n , p\geq k}Y^{p,q}.
$$
The associated graded complex with respect to this filtration is the double
direct sum
$$
{\rm Gr}Y=\sum_{p,q=-\infty}^{\infty}Y^{p,q}.
$$
One can show that the filtration is regular and the second term of the
corresponding spectral sequence is
\begin{equation}\label{spec}
E_2^{p,q}=H^p_{d'}(H^q_{d''}({\rm Gr}Y)),
\end{equation}
where $H^*_{d'}$ and $H^*_{d''}$ denote the homologies of the complex with
respect to the partial differentials (\ref{part}).
Now observe that at the same time the complex $A\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes K$ is a
complex
for the calculation
of ${\rm Tor}_n^B(A,K)$ because $A\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes B$ is a free
resolution of $A$ as a right $B$--module. It is
also free as a left $A$--module. Therefore the functor ${\rm Hom}_A(A\otimes
T(I(B)) \otimes K, \cdot )$ is exact.
By assumption $H^*(A\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes K)={\rm Tor}_0^B(A,K)=A\otimes_BK$.
Using the last two
observations we can calculate the cohomology of the complex ${\rm Gr}Y$ with
respect to the differential $d''$ :
\begin{equation}\label{degener}
\begin{array}{l}
H^*_{d''}({\rm Gr}Y)=H^*_{d''}({\rm Hom}_A(A\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes K,A\otimes
T(I(B)) \otimes K))=\\
{\rm Hom}_A(A\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes K,A\otimes_BK).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Here ${\rm Hom}_A$ should be thought of as a direct sum of the double graded
components. Now (\ref{degener}) provides that
the spectral sequence (\ref{spec}) degenerates at the second term. Moreover,
$$
E_2^{p,*}=H^p_{d'}(H^0_{d''}({\rm Gr}Y))=H^p_{d'}({\rm Hom}_A (A\otimes T(I(B))
\otimes K,A\otimes_BK)).
$$
But the complex $A\otimes T(I(B)) \otimes K$ may be regarded as a free
resolution of the left
$A$--module $A\otimes_BK$. Therefore
$$
E_2^{p,*}={\rm Ext}^p_A(A\otimes_BK,A\otimes_BK).
$$
Finally by Theorem 5.12, \cite{carteil} we have:
$$
Hk^n(A,B,\varepsilon)=H^n(Y)=E_2^{n,0}={\rm Ext}^n_A(A\otimes_BK,A\otimes_BK).
$$
Since ${\rm Tor}_n^B(A,K)=0 \mbox{ for } n>0$ we can apply the Shapiro lemma
(see Proposition
4.1.3 in \cite{carteil}) to simplify the last expression:
$$
{\rm Ext}^n_A(A\otimes_BK,A\otimes_BK)={\rm Ext}^n_B(K,A\otimes_BK).
$$
Clearly, $Hk^0(A,B,\varepsilon)={\rm Hom}_A(A\otimes_BK,A\otimes_BK)$
as an associative algebra.
This completes the proof.
\begin{remark}\label{multhk}
In particular the conditions of the theorem are satisfied if $A$ is projective
as a right $B$--module. For instance
suppose that there exists a subspace $N \subset A$ such that multiplication in
$A$ provides an isomorphism of vector spaces $A \cong N\otimes B$. Then $A$ is a
free right $B$--module.
\end{remark}
\section{Comparison with the BRST complex}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
Let $\frak g$ be a Lie algebra over a field $K$. For simplicity we suppose that
$\frak g$ is finite--dimensional. However
the arguments presented below remain true, with some technical modifications,
for an arbitrary Lie algebra.
We shall apply the construction of Section \ref{Hecke} in the following
situation.
Let $B=U({\frak g})$ and let $A$ be an associative
algebra over $K$ containing $B$ as a subalgebra. Note that $U({\frak g})$ is
naturally augmented.
Consider the $U({\frak g})$--free resolution of the left $U({\frak g})$--module
$K$ as follows:
$$
\begin{array}{l}
X=U({\frak g})\otimes \Lambda ({\frak g}),\\
d (u\otimes x_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge x_n)=
\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^{i+1} ux_i\otimes x_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge \widehat{x_i}
\wedge \ldots \wedge x_n +\\
\sum_{1\leq i< j \leq n}(-1)^{i+j} u\otimes [x_i,x_j] \wedge
x_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge \widehat{x_i} \wedge \ldots \wedge \widehat{x_j} \wedge
\ldots \wedge x_n,
\end{array}
$$
where the symbol $\widehat{x_i}$ indicates that $x_i$ is to be omitted.
Introduce operators of exterior and inner multiplication on $\Lambda ({\frak
g})$ as follows. For every
$x\in {\frak g}$ and $x^*\in {\frak g}^*$ we define
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\overline{x} x_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge x_n= x\wedge x_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge
x_n,\\
\\
\overline{x^*}x_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge x_n=
\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^{i+1} x^*(x_i) x_1\wedge \ldots \wedge \widehat{x_i} \wedge
\ldots \wedge x_n.
\end{array}
$$
Equip the linear space ${\frak g}+{\frak g}^*$ with a scalar product given by
the canonical paring between
${\frak g}$ and ${\frak g}^*$. Using this scalar product we can construct the
Clifford algebra
$C({\frak g}+{\frak g}^*)$. The operators $\overline{x}, \overline{y^*}, x\in
{\frak g},y^*\in{\frak g}^*$ satisfy
the defining relations of this algebra,
$$
\overline{x}\overline{y^*}+\overline{y^*}\overline{x}=y^*(x).
$$
Therefore the algebra $C({\frak g}+{\frak g}^*)$ naturally acts in the space
$\Lambda ({\frak g})$.
Moreover, it is well--known that ${\rm End}_K(\Lambda ({\frak g}))=C({\frak
g}+{\frak g}^*)$.
Now the differential of the complex $A\otimes_{U({\frak g})} X = A\otimes
\Lambda ({\frak g})$ may be explicitly
described using the operators of exterior and inner multiplications,
\begin{equation}\label{different}
d=\sum_i e_i\otimes \overline{e_i^*}-\sum_{i,j} 1\otimes
\overline{[e_i,e_j]}\overline{e_i^*}\overline{e_j^*}.
\end{equation}
Here $e_i$ is a linear basis of ${\frak g}$, $e_i^*$ is the dual basis,
$e_i\otimes 1$ is regarded as the
operator of right multiplication in $A$, $e_i\otimes 1\cdot u\otimes
1=ue_i\otimes 1$.
Now consider the complex ${\rm End}_A(A\otimes_{U({\frak g})} X)={\rm
End}_A(A\otimes \Lambda ({\frak g}))$ for the
computation of the algebra $Hk(A,B,\varepsilon)$.
Observe that
$$
{\rm End}_A(A\otimes \Lambda ({\frak g})) = A^{opp}\otimes {\rm End}_K(\Lambda
({\frak g}))=A^{opp} \otimes C({\frak g}+{\frak g}^*).
$$
Under this
identification $A^{opp}$ acts on $A\otimes \Lambda ({\frak g})$ by
multiplication in $A$ on the right and the Clifford
algebra acts by the exterior and inner multiplication in $\Lambda ({\frak g})$.
This allows to consider the
differential (\ref{different}) as an element of the complex $A^{opp} \otimes
C({\frak g}+{\frak g}^*)$.
It is easy to see that the canonical $\Bbb Z$--grading of the complex $A^{opp}
\otimes C({\frak g}+{\frak g}^*)$ coincides
mod 2 with the ${\Bbb Z}_2$--grading inherited from the Clifford algebra.
Therefore according to (\ref{diff})
the differential $\bf d$ is given by the supercommutator in $A^{opp} \otimes
C({\frak g}+{\frak g}^*)$ by element
(\ref{different}).
Now recall that the complex $A^{opp} \otimes C({\frak g}+{\frak g}^*)$ with the
differential given by
the supercommutator by the element (\ref{different}) is the quantum BRST complex
proposed in \cite{KSt}.
This establishes
\begin{proposition}
The complex $({\rm End}_A(A\otimes_{U({\frak g})} X) , {\bf d})$ is isomorphic
to the BRST one
$A^{opp} \otimes C({\frak g}+{\frak g}^*)$ with the differential being the
supercommutator by the element (\ref{different}).
\end{proposition}
\section{Whittaker model as a Hecke algebra}\label{whitthom}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
In this section we use the notation introduced in Section \ref{notation}. Let
$\frak g$ be a complex simple
Lie algebra,
${\frak n}_+\subset {\frak g}$ the maximal nilpotent subalgebra, $\chi :{\frak
n}_+\rightarrow {\Bbb C}$ a
character. Let $W({\frak b}_-)$ be the Whittaker model of the center $Z({\frak
g})$ of the
universal enveloping algebra $U({\frak g})$.
\begin{proposition}\label{hkhom}
Suppose that the character $\chi$ is non--singular. Then $W({\frak b}_-)$ is
isomorphic to
$Hk^0(U({\frak g}),U({\frak n}_+),\chi )^{opp}$ as an associative algebra.
\end{proposition}
{\em Proof.}
First observe that since ${\frak g}={\frak b}_-\oplus {\frak n}_+$ we have a
linear
isomorphism $U({\frak g})=U({\frak b}_-)\otimes U({\frak n}_+)$. Therefore from
Remark
\ref{multhk} and Theorem \ref{struct} it follows that $Hk^0(U({\frak
g}),U({\frak n}_+),\chi )=
{\rm Hom}_{U({\frak g})}(Y_\chi ,Y_\chi )$, where $Y_\chi =U({\frak
g})\otimes_{U({\frak n}_+)}{\Bbb C}_\chi$.
Now observe that the map
$$
{\rm Hom}_{U({\frak g})}(Y_\chi ,Y_\chi )\rightarrow {\rm Hom}_{U({\frak
n}_+)}({\Bbb C}_\chi ,Y_\chi);~~
\tilde{v}\mapsto \hat{v},
$$
where $\hat{v}$ is given by $\hat{v}(z)=\tilde{v}(1\otimes z)$ for every $z\in
{\Bbb C}_\chi$,
is a linear isomorphism.
Note also that by Remark A and Theorem B there exists a linear isomorphism
$$
{\rm Hom}_{U({\frak n}_+)}({\Bbb C}_\chi ,Y_\chi)\rightarrow W({\frak
b}_-);~~\hat{v} \mapsto v,
\mbox{ where }v\otimes 1=\hat{v}(1).
$$
Therefore we have a linear isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{be}
{\rm Hom}_{U({\frak g})}(Y_\chi ,Y_\chi )\rightarrow W({\frak b}_-);~~
\tilde{v}\mapsto v.
\end{equation}
We have to prove that (\ref{be}) is an antihomomorphism.
Let $\tilde{v},\tilde{w}\in {\rm Hom}_{U({\frak g})}(Y_\chi ,Y_\chi )$ be two
elements such that
$\tilde{v}(1\otimes 1)=v\otimes 1,~\tilde{w}(1\otimes 1)=w\otimes 1$. Then
$\tilde{v}(\tilde{w}(1\otimes 1))=\tilde{v}(w\otimes 1)$. Since $\tilde{v}$ is
an $U({\frak g})$ endomorphism
of $Y_\chi$ we have $\tilde{v}(\tilde{w}(1\otimes 1))=w\tilde{v}(1\otimes
1)=wv\otimes 1$
This completes the proof.
\chapter{Quantum deformation of the Whittaker model}\label{qWitt}
Let $\frak g$ be a complex simple Lie algebra, $U_h({\frak g})$ the standard
quantum group associated with
${\frak g}$.
In this section we construct a generalization of the Whittaker model $W({\frak
b}_-)$ for $U_h({\frak g})$.
Let $U_h({\frak n}_+)$
be the subalgebra of $U_h({\frak g})$ corresponding to the nilpotent
Lie subalgebra ${\frak n}_+$. $U_h({\frak n}_+)$ is
generated by simple positive root generators of $U_h({\frak g})$
subject to the quantum Serre relations. It is easy to show that $U_h({\frak
n}_+)$
has no non--singular characters (taking nonvanishing values
on all simple root generators). Our first main result
is a family of new realizations of the
quantum group $U_h({\frak g})$, one for each Coxeter element
in the corresponding Weyl group (see also \cite{S1}). The counterparts of
$U({\frak n}_+)$,
which naturally arise in these new realizations of $U_h({\frak g})$,
do have non--singular characters.
Using these new realizations we can immediately formulate a quantum group
version
of Definition A. We also prove counterparts of Theorems A and B for $U_h({\frak
g})$.
Finally we define quantum group generalizations of the Toda Hamiltonians. In the
spirit of quantum harmonic
analysis these new Hamiltonians are difference operators. An alternative
definition of these Hamiltonians has been
recently given in \cite{Et}.
\section{Quantum groups}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
In this section we recall some basic facts about quantum groups.
We follow the notation of \cite{ChP}.
Let $h$ be an indeterminate, ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$ the ring of formal power series in
$h$.
We shall consider ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$--modules equipped with the so--called
$h$--adic
topology. For every such module $V$ this topology is characterized by requiring
that
$\{ h^nV ~|~n\geq 0\}$ is a base of the neighbourhoods of $0$ in $V$, and that
translations
in $V$ are continuous. It is easy to see that, for modules equipped with this
topology, every
${\Bbb C}[[h]]$--module map is automatically continuous.
A topological Hopf algebra over ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$ is a complete ${\Bbb
C}[[h]]$--module $A$
equipped with a structure of ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$--Hopf algebra (see \cite{ChP},
Definition 4.3.1),
the algebraic tensor products entering the axioms of the Hopf algebra are
replaced by their
completions in the $h$--adic topology.
We denote by $\mu , \imath , \Delta , \varepsilon , S$ the multiplication, the
unit, the comultiplication,
the counit and the antipode of $A$, respectively.
The standard quantum group $U_h({\frak g})$ associated to a complex
finite--dimensional simple Lie algebra
$\frak g$ is the algebra over ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$ topologically generated by
elements
$H_i,~X_i^+,~X_i^-,~i=1,\ldots ,l$, and with the following defining relations:
\begin{equation}\label{qgrh}
\begin{array}{l}
[H_i,H_j]=0,~~ [H_i,X_j^\pm]=\pm a_{ij}X_j^\pm,\\
\\
X_i^+X_j^- -X_j^-X_i^+ = \delta _{i,j}{K_i -K_i^{-1} \over q_i -q_i^{-1}} , \\
\\
\mbox{where }K_i=e^{d_ihH_i},~~e^h=q,~~q_i=q^{d_i}=e^{d_ih},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and the quantum Serre relations:
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\sum_{r=0}^{1-a_{ij}}(-1)^r
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1-a_{ij} \\ r \end{array} \right]_{q_i}
(X_i^\pm )^{1-a_{ij}-r}X_j^\pm(X_i^\pm)^r =0 ,~ i \neq j ,\\ \\
\mbox{ where }\\
\\
\left[ \begin{array}{c} m \\ n \end{array} \right]_q={[m]_q! \over
[n]_q![n-m]_q!} ,~
[n]_q!=[n]_q\ldots [1]_q ,~ [n]_q={q^n - q^{-n} \over q-q^{-1} }.
\end{array}
$$
$U_h({\frak g})$ is a topological Hopf algebra over ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$ with
comultiplication
defined by
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\Delta_h(H_i)=H_i\otimes 1+1\otimes H_i,\\
\\
\Delta_h(X_i^+)=X_i^+\otimes K_i+1\otimes X_i^+,
\end{array}
$$
$$
\Delta_h(X_i^-)=X_i^-\otimes 1 +K_i^{-1}\otimes X_i^-,
$$
antipode defined by
$$
S_h(H_i)=-H_i,~~S_h(X_i^+)=-X_i^+K_i^{-1},~~S_h(X_i^-)=-K_iX_i^-,
$$
and counit defined by
$$
\varepsilon_h(H_i)=\varepsilon_h(X_i^\pm)=0.
$$
We shall also use the weight--type generators defined by
$$
Y_i=\sum_{j=1}^l d_i(a^{-1})_{ij}H_j,
$$
and the elements $L_i=e^{hY_i}$. They commute with the root vectors $X_i^\pm$ as
follows:
\begin{equation}\label{weight-root}
L_iX_j^\pm L_i^{-1}=q_i^{\pm \delta_{ij}}X_j^\pm .
\end{equation}
The Hopf algebra $U_h({\frak g})$ is a quantization of the standard bialgebra
structure on $\frak g$, i.e.
$U_h({\frak g})/hU_h({\frak g})=U({\frak g}),~~ \Delta_h=\Delta~(\mbox{mod }h)$,
where $\Delta$ is
the standard comultiplication on $U({\frak g})$, and
$$
{\Delta_h -\Delta_h^{opp} \over h}~(\mbox{mod }h)=\delta ,
$$
where
$\delta: {\frak g}\rightarrow {\frak g}\otimes {\frak g}$ is the standard
cocycle on $\frak g$.
Recall that
$$
\delta (x)=({\rm ad}_x\otimes 1+1\otimes {\rm ad}_x)2r_+,~~ r_+\in {\frak
g}\otimes {\frak g},
$$
\begin{equation}\label{rcl}
r_+=\frac 12 \sum_{i=1}^lY_i \otimes X_i + \sum_{\beta \in
\Delta_+}(X_{\beta},X_{-\beta})^{-1} X_{\beta}\otimes X_{-\beta}.
\end{equation}
Here $X_{\pm \beta}\in {\frak g}_{\pm \beta}$ are root vectors of $\frak g$.
The element $r_+\in {\frak g}\otimes {\frak g}$ is called a classical r--matrix.
The following proposition describes the algebraic structure of $U_h({\frak g})$.
\begin{proposition}{\bf (\cite{ChP}, Proposition 6.5.5)}\label{algq}
Let $\frak g$ be a finite--dimensional complex simple Lie algebra, let
$U_h({\frak h})$ be
the subalgebra of $U_h({\frak g})$ topologically generated by the $H_i,
i=1,\ldots l$.
Then, there is an isomorphism of algebras $\varphi :U_h({\frak g})\rightarrow
U({\frak g})[[h]]$
over ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$ such that $\varphi =id$ (mod $h$) and $\varphi|_{U_h({\frak
h})}=id$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}{\bf (\cite{ChP}, Proposition 6.5.7)}\label{zq}
If $\frak g$ is a finite--dimensional complex simple Lie algebra, the center
$Z_h({\frak g})$ of
$U_h({\frak g})$ is canonically isomorphic to $Z({\frak g})[[h]]$, where
$Z({\frak g})$ is
the center of $U({\frak g})$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}{\bf (\cite{ChP}, Corollary 6.5.6)}\label{rep}
If $\frak g$ be a finite--dimensional complex simple Lie algebra, then the
assignment
$V\mapsto V[[h]]$ is a one--to--one correspondence between the
finite--dimensional irreducible
representations of $\frak g$ and indecomposable representations of $U_h({\frak
g})$
which are free and of finite rank as ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$--modules. Furthermore for
every such $V$ the action of the generators $H_i \in U_h({\frak g}),~~
i=1,\ldots l$ on
$V[[h]]$ coincides with the action of the root generators $H_i \in {\frak h},~~
i=1,\ldots l$.
\end{corollary}
The representations of $U_h({\frak g})$ defined in the previous corollary are
called
finite--dimensional representations of $U_h({\frak g})$. For every
finite--dimensional representation
$\pi_V:{\frak g}\rightarrow {\rm End}V$ we denote the corresponding
representation of
$U_h({\frak g})$ in the space $V[[h]]$ by the same letter.
$U_h({\frak g})$ is a quasitriangular Hopf algebra, i.e. there exists an
invertible element
${\cal R}\in U_h({\frak g})\otimes U_h({\frak g})$, called a universal
R--matrix, such that
\begin{equation}\label{quasitr}
\Delta^{opp}_h(a)={\cal R}\Delta_h(a){\cal R}^{-1}\mbox{ for all } a\in
U_h({\frak g}),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta^{opp}=\sigma \Delta$, $\sigma$ is the permutation in $U_h({\frak
g})^{\otimes 2}$,
$\sigma (x\otimes y)=y\otimes x$, and
\begin{equation}\label{rmprop}
\begin{array}{l}
(\Delta_h \otimes id){\cal R}={\cal R}_{13}{\cal R}_{23},\\
\\
(id \otimes \Delta_h){\cal R}={\cal R}_{13}{\cal R}_{12},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal R}_{12}={\cal R}\otimes 1,~{\cal R}_{23}=1\otimes {\cal R},
~{\cal R}_{13}=(\sigma \otimes id){\cal R}_{23}$.
From (\ref{quasitr}) and (\ref{rmprop}) it follows that $\cal R$ satisfies the
quantum Yang--Baxter
equation:
\begin{equation}\label{YB}
{\cal R}_{12}{\cal R}_{13}{\cal R}_{23}={\cal R}_{23}{\cal R}_{13}{\cal R}_{12}.
\end{equation}
For every quasitriangular Hopf algebra we also have (see Proposition 4.2.7 in
\cite{ChP}):
$$
(S\otimes id){\cal R}={\cal R}^{-1},
$$
and
\begin{equation}\label{S}
(S\otimes S){\cal R}={\cal R}.
\end{equation}
We shall explicitly describe the element ${\cal R}$.
First following \cite{kh-t} we recall the construction of root vectors of
$U_h({\frak g})$.
We shall use the so--called normal ordering in the root system
$\Delta_+=\{\beta_1,\ldots ,\beta_N\}$ (see \cite{Z1}).
\begin{definition}\label{normord}
An ordering of the root system $\Delta_+$ is called normal if all simple roots
are written in an arbitrary
order, and
for any theree roots $\alpha,~\beta,~\gamma$ such that
$\gamma=\alpha+\beta$ we have either $\alpha<\gamma<\beta$ or
$\beta<\gamma<\alpha$.
\end{definition}
To construct root vectors we shall apply the following
inductive algorithm. Let $\alpha , \beta , \gamma \in \Delta_+$ be positive
roots such that
$\gamma=\alpha+\beta,~\alpha<\beta$ and $[\alpha,\beta]$ is the minimal segment
including
$\gamma$, i.e. the segment has no other roots $\alpha',\beta'$ such that
$\gamma=\alpha'+\beta'$.
Suppose that $X_{\alpha}^\pm ,~X_{\beta}^\pm$ have
already been constructed. Then we define
\begin{equation}\label{rootvect}
\begin{array}{l}
X_{\gamma}^+=X_{\alpha}^+X_{\beta}^+ -
q^{(\alpha,\beta)}X_{\beta}^+X_{\alpha}^+,\\
\\
X_{\gamma}^-= X_{\beta}^-X_{\alpha}^- -
q^{-(\alpha,\beta)}X_{\alpha}^-X_{\beta}^-.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}\label{rootprop}
For $\beta =\sum_{i=1}^lm_i\alpha_i,~m_i\in {\Bbb N}$ $X_{\beta}^\pm $ is a
polynomial in
the noncommutative variables $X_i^\pm$ homogeneous in each $X_i^\pm$ of degree
$m_i$.
\end{proposition}
The root vectors $X_{\beta}$ satisfy the following relations:
$$
[X_\alpha^+,X_{\alpha}^-]=a(\alpha){e^{h\alpha^\vee}-e^{-h\alpha^\vee}\over
q-q^{-1}}.
$$
where $a(\alpha)\in {\Bbb C}[[h]]$.
They commute with elements of the subalgebra $U_h({\frak h})$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{roots-cart}
[H_i,X_{\beta}^\pm]=\pm \beta(H_i)X_{\beta}^\pm,~i=1,\ldots ,l.
\end{equation}
Note that by construction
$$
\begin{array}{l}
X_\beta^+~(\mbox{mod }h)=X_\beta \in {\frak g}_\beta,\\
\\
X_\beta^-~(\mbox{mod }h)=X_{-\beta} \in {\frak g}_{-\beta}
\end{array}
$$
are root vectors of $\frak g$. This implies that $a(\alpha)~(\mbox{mod
}h)=(X_\alpha,X_{-\alpha})$.
Let $U_h({\frak n}_+),U_h({\frak n}_-)$ be the ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$--subalgebras of
$U_h({\frak g})$ topologically
generated by the
$X_i^+$ and by the $X_i^-$, respectively.
Now using the root vectors $X_{\beta}^\pm$ we can construct a topological basis
of
$U_h({\frak g})$.
Define for ${\bf r}=(r_1,\ldots ,r_N)\in {\Bbb N}^N$,
$$
(X^+)^{\bf r}=(X_{\beta_1}^+)^{r_1}\ldots (X_{\beta_N}^+)^{r_N},
$$
$$
(X^-)^{\bf r}=(X_{\beta_1}^-)^{r_1}\ldots (X_{\beta_N}^-)^{r_N},
$$
and for ${\bf s}=(s_1,\ldots s_l)\in {\Bbb N}^{~l}$,
$$
H^{\bf s}=H_1^{s_1}\ldots H_l^{s_l}.
$$
\begin{proposition}{\bf (\cite{kh-t}, Proposition 3.3)}\label{PBW}
The elements $(X^+)^{\bf r}$, $(X^-)^{\bf t}$ and $H^{\bf s}$, for ${\bf
r},~{\bf t}\in {\Bbb N}^N$,
${\bf s}\in {\Bbb N}^l$, form topological bases of $U_h({\frak n}_+),U_h({\frak
n}_-)$ and $U_h({\frak h})$,
respectively, and the products $(X^+)^{\bf r}H^{\bf s}(X^-)^{\bf t}$ form a
topological basis of
$U_h({\frak g})$. In particular, multiplication defines an isomorphism of ${\Bbb
C}[[h]]$ modules:
$$
U_h({\frak n}_-)\otimes U_h({\frak h}) \otimes U_h({\frak n}_+)\rightarrow
U_h({\frak g}).
$$
\end{proposition}
An explicit expression for $\cal R$ may be written by making use of the
q-exponential
$$
exp_q(x)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty {x^k \over (k)_q!},
$$
where
$$
(k)_q!=(1)_q\ldots (k)_q,~~(n)_q={q^n -1 \over q-1}.
$$
Now the element $\cal R$ may be written as (see Theorem 8.1 in \cite{kh-t}):
\begin{equation}\label{univr}
{\cal R}=exp\left[ h\sum_{i=1}^l(Y_i\otimes H_i)\right]\prod_{\beta}
exp_{q_{\beta}^{-1}}[(q-q^{-1})a(\beta)^{-1}X_{\beta}^+\otimes X_{\beta}^-],
\end{equation}
where $q_\beta =q^{(\beta,\beta)}$;
the product is over all the positive roots of $\frak g$, and the order of the
terms is such that
the $\alpha$--term appears to the left of the $\beta$--term if $\alpha <\beta$
with respect to the normal
ordering of $\Delta_+$.
\begin{remark}
The r--matrix $r_+=\frac 12 h^{-1}({\cal R}-1\otimes 1)~~(\mbox{mod }h)$, which
is the classical limit of $\cal R$,
coincides with the classical r--matrix (\ref{rcl}).
\end{remark}
\section{Non--singular characters and quantum groups}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
In this section we construct quantum counterparts of the principal nilpotent
Lie subalgebras of complex simple Lie algebras and of their non--singular
characters. We mainly follow the exposition presented in \cite{S1}.
First we would like to show that the algebra $U_h({\frak n}_+)$ spanned by
$X_i^+ , i=1, \ldots , l$ does not admit characters
which take nonvanishing values on all generators $X_i^+$,
except for the case of $U_h(sl(2))$ when the quantum Serre relations
do not appear.
Suppose, $\chi_h$ is such a character, and
$\chi_h(X_i^+)=c_i\in {\Bbb C}[[h]],~c_i\neq 0,~i=1,\ldots l$.
By applying the character $\chi_h$ to the quantum Serre relations
one obtains a family of identities,
\begin{equation} \label{false}
\sum_{r=0}^{1-a_{ij}}(-1)^r
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1-a_{ij} \\ r \end{array} \right]_{q_i} =0 ,
\, i \neq j.
\end{equation}
We claim that some of these relations fail for the quantized universal
enveloping algebra $U_h({\frak g})$
of any simple Lie algebra $\frak g$ , with the exception of ${\frak g}=sl(2)$.
In a more general setting, relations (\ref{false})
are analysed in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{qbinom}
The only solutions of equation
\begin{equation}\label{c1}
\sum_{k=0}^{m}(-1)^k
\left[ \begin{array}{c} m \\ k \end{array} \right]_{t}
t^{kc}=0 ,
\end{equation}
where $t$ is an indeterminate, are of the form
\begin{equation}\label{c2}
c=-m+1,-m+2, \ldots ,m-2,m-1.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
{\em Proof.}
According to the q--binomial theorem \cite{GR},
\begin{equation}\label{z}
\sum_{k=0}^{m}(-z)^k
\left[ \begin{array}{c} m \\ k \end{array} \right]_{t}
=\prod_{p=0}^{m-1}(1-t^{m-1-2p}z).
\end{equation}
Put $z=t^c$ in this relation. Then the l.h.s of (\ref{z}) coincides with
the l.h.s. of (\ref{c1}).
Now (\ref{z}) implies that $c=m-1-2p , p=0, \ldots ,m-1$
are the only solutions of (\ref{c1}).
Now we return to identities (\ref{false}).
Any Cartan matrix contains at least one off-diagonal element
equal to $-1$. Then, $m= 1- a_{ij} = 2$ and
$c=\pm 1$, and Lemma \ref{qbinom} implies
that some of identities (\ref{false}) are false for
any simple Lie algebra, except for $sl(2)$. Hence, subalgebras of $U_h({\frak
g})$ generated by
$X_i^+$ do not possess non--singular characters.
It is our goal to construct subalgebras of $U_h({\frak g})$ which resemble the
subalgebra $U({\frak n}_+)
\subset U({\frak g})$ and possess non--singular
characters.
Denote by $S_l$ the symmetric group of $l$ elements.
To any element $\pi \in S_l$ we associate a Coxeter element $s_{\pi}$ by the
formula
$s_\pi =s_{\pi (1)}\ldots s_{\pi (l)}$.
For each Coxeter element $s_\pi$ we define an associative algebra
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+) $ generated by elements $e_i ,~ i=1, \ldots l$ subject
to the relations :
\begin{equation}\label{fqpi}
\sum_{r=0}^{1-a_{ij}}(-1)^r q^{r c_{ij}^{\pi}}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1-a_{ij} \\ r \end{array} \right]_{q_i}
(e_i )^{1-a_{ij}-r}e_j (e_i)^r =0 ,~ i \neq j ,
\end{equation}
where $c_{ij}^{\pi}=\left( {1+s_\pi \over 1-s_\pi }\alpha_i , \alpha_j \right)$
are matrix elements of the Caley transform of $s_\pi$
in the basis of simple roots.
\begin{proposition}\label{charf}
The map $\chi_h^{s_\pi}:U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+) \rightarrow {\Bbb C}[[h]]$
defined on generators by
$\chi_h^{s_\pi}(e_i)=c_i,~c_i\in {\Bbb C}[[h]],~c_i\neq 0$ is a character of the
algebra $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+) $.
\end{proposition}
To show that $\chi_h^{s_\pi}$ is a character of $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+) $ it
suffices to check that the defining
relations (\ref{fqpi}) belong to the kernel of $\chi_h^{s_\pi}$, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{chifqpi}
\sum_{r=0}^{1-a_{ij}}(-1)^r q^{r c_{ij}^{\pi}}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1-a_{ij} \\ r \end{array} \right]_{q_i}=0 ,~ i \neq j .
\end{equation}
As a preparation for the proof of Proposition \ref{charf} we study the matrix
elements of the Caley transform of
$s_\pi$ which enter the definition of $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+) $.
\begin{lemma}\label{tmatrel}
The matrix elements of ${1+s_\pi \over 1-s_\pi }$ are of the form :
\begin{equation}\label{matrel}
c_{ij}^{\pi}=\left( {1+s_\pi \over 1-s_\pi }\alpha_i , \alpha_j \right)=
\varepsilon_{ij}^\pi b_{ij},
\end{equation}
where
$$
\varepsilon_{ij}^\pi =\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
-1 & \pi^{-1}(i) <\pi^{-1}(j) \\
0 & i=j \\
1 & \pi^{-1}(i) >\pi^{-1}(j)
\end{array}
\right .
$$
\end{lemma}
{\em Proof.} (compare \cite{Bur}, Ch. V, \S 6, Ex. 3).
First we calculate the matrix of the Coxeter element $s_\pi$ with respect to the
basis of simple roots. We obtain this matrix in the form of the Gauss
decomposition of the operator $s_\pi$.
Let $z_{\pi (i)}=s_\pi \alpha_{\pi (i)}$. Recall that
$s_i(\alpha_j)=\alpha_j-a_{ji}\alpha_i$.
Using this definition the elements $z_{\pi (i)}$ may be represented as:
$$
z_{\pi (i)}=y_{\pi (i)} -\sum_{k \geq i} a_{\pi (k) \pi (i)}y_{\pi (k)},
$$
where
\begin{equation}\label{y}
y_{\pi (i)}=s_{\pi (1)}\ldots s_{\pi (i-1)}\alpha_{\pi (i)}.
\end{equation}
Using the matrix notation we can rewrite the last formula as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{2*}
\begin{array}{l}
z_{\pi (i)}=
(I+V)_{\pi (k) \pi (i)}y_{\pi (k)} , \\ \\ \mbox{ where } V_{\pi (k) \pi (i)}=
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
a_{\pi (k) \pi (i)} & k\geq i \\
0 & k < i
\end{array}
\right .
\end{array}
\end{equation}
To calculate the matrix of the operator $s_\pi$ with respect to the basis of
simple roots we have to express
the elements $y_{\pi (i)}$ via the simple roots.
Applying the definition of simple reflections to (\ref{y}) we can pull out the
element $\alpha_{\pi (i)}$ to the right:
\[
y_{\pi (i)}=\alpha_{\pi (i)}-\sum_{k<i}a_{\pi (k) \pi (i)}y_{\pi (k)}.
\]
Therefore
\[
\alpha_{\pi (i)}=(I+U)_{\pi (k) \pi (i)}y_{\pi (k)} ~, \mbox{ where } U_{\pi (k)
\pi (i)}=
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
a_{\pi (k) \pi (i)} & k<i \\
0 & k \geq i
\end{array}
\right .
\]
Thus
\begin{equation}\label{1*}
y_{\pi (k)}=(I+U)^{-1}_{\pi (j) \pi (k)}\alpha_{\pi (j)}.
\end{equation}
Summarizing (\ref{1*}) and (\ref{2*}) we obtain:
\begin{equation}\label{**}
s_\pi \alpha_i=\left( (I+U)^{-1}(I-V) \right)_{ki}\alpha_k .
\end{equation}
This implies:
\begin{equation}\label{3*}
{1+s_\pi \over 1-s_\pi}\alpha_i=\left( {2I+U-V \over U+V}\right)_{ki}\alpha_k .
\end{equation}
Observe that $(U+V)_{ki}=a_{ki}$ and
$(2I+U-V)_{ij}=-a_{ij}\varepsilon_{ij}^\pi$.
Substituting these expressions into (\ref{3*}) we get :
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( {1+s_\pi \over 1-s_\pi }\alpha_i , \alpha_j \right) =
-(a^{-1})_{kp}\varepsilon_{pi}^\pi a_{pi}b_{jk}=\\
-d_ja_{jk}(a^{-1})_{kp}\varepsilon_{pi}^\pi a_{pi} =
\varepsilon_{ij}^\pi b_{ij}.
\end{eqnarray}
This concludes the proof of the lemma.
\noindent
{\em Proof of Proposition \ref{charf} } Identities (\ref{chifqpi}) follow from
Lemma \ref{qbinom} for $t=q_i,~~m=1-a_{ij},~~ c=\varepsilon_{ij}^\pi a_{ij}$
since set of solutions (\ref{c2}) always contains $\pm (m-1)$.
Motivated by relations (\ref{fqpi}) we suggest new realizations of the quantum
group $U_h({\frak g})$,
one for each Coxeter element $s_\pi$.
Let
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$ be the associative algebra over ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$ with
generators
$e_i , f_i , H_i,~i=1, \ldots l$ subject to the relations:
\begin{equation}\label{sqgr}
\begin{array}{l}
[H_i,H_j]=0,~~ [H_i,e_j]=a_{ij}e_j, ~~ [H_i,f_j]=-a_{ij}f_j,\\
\\
e_i f_j -q^{ c^\pi _{ij}} f_j e_i = \delta _{i,j}{K_i -K_i^{-1} \over q_i
-q_i^{-1}} , \\
\\
K_i=e^{d_ihH_i}, \\
\\
\sum_{r=0}^{1-a_{ij}}(-1)^r q^{r c_{ij}^\pi}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1-a_{ij} \\ r \end{array} \right]_{q_i}
(e_i )^{1-a_{ij}-r}e_j (e_i)^r =0 ,~ i \neq j , \\
\\
\sum_{r=0}^{1-a_{ij}}(-1)^r q^{r c_{ij}^\pi}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1-a_{ij} \\ r \end{array} \right]_{q_i}
(f_i )^{1-a_{ij}-r}f_j (f_i)^r =0 ,~ i \neq j .
\end{array}
\end{equation}
It follows that the map $\tau_h^\pi :U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+) \rightarrow
U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g});~~~e_i\mapsto e_i$ is a {\em natural} embedding of
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+) $ into $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$.
From now on we identify $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+) $ with the subalgebra in
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$ generated by $e_i ,i=1, \ldots l$.
\begin{theorem} \label{newreal}
For every solution $n_{ij}\in {\Bbb C},~i,j=1,\ldots ,l$ of equations
\begin{equation}\label{eqpi}
d_jn_{ij}-d_in_{ji}=c^\pi_{ij}
\end{equation}
there exists an algebra
isomorphism $\psi_{\{ n\}} : U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g}) \rightarrow
U_h({\frak g})$ defined by the formulas:
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\psi_{\{ n\}}(e_i)=X_i^+ \prod_{p=1}^lL_p^{n_{ip}},\\
\\
\psi_{\{ n\}}(f_i)=\prod_{p=1}^lL_p^{-n_{ip}}X_i^- , \\
\\
\psi_{\{ n\}}(H_i)=H_i .
\end{array}
$$
\end{theorem}
{\em Proof} is provided by direct verification of defining relations
(\ref{sqgr}). The most nontrivial part is to verify deformed quantum Serre
relations (\ref{fqpi}).
The defining relations of $U_h({\frak g})$ imply the following relations for
$\psi_{\{ n\}}(e_i)$,
$$
\sum_{k=0}^{1-a_{ij}}(-1)^k
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1-a_{ij} \\ k \end{array} \right]_{q_i}
q^{k({d_j}n_{ij}-d_in_{ji})}\psi_{\{ n\}}(e_i)^{1-a_{ij}-k}\psi_{\{
n\}}(e_j)\psi_{\{ n\}}(e_i)^k =0 ,
$$
for any $i\neq j$.
Now using equation (\ref{eqpi}) we arrive to relations (\ref{fqpi}).
\begin{remark}
The general solution of equation (\ref{eqpi})
is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
n_{ji}=\frac 12 (\varepsilon_{ij}^\pi a_{ij} + \frac{s_{ij}}{d_i}),
\end{equation}
where $s_{ij}=s_{ji}$.
\end{remark}
We call the algebra $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$ the Coxeter realization of the
quantum group $U_h({\frak g})$ corresponding to the Coxeter element $s_\pi$.
\begin{remark}
Let $n_{ij}$ be a solution of the homogeneous system that corresponds to
(\ref{eqpi}),
$$
d_in_{ji}-d_jn_{ij}=0.
$$
Then the map defined by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
X_i^+ \mapsto X_i^+ \prod_{p=1}^lL_p^{n_{ip}},\\
\\
X_i^- \mapsto \prod_{p=1}^lL_p^{-n_{ip}}X_i^- , \\
\\
H_i \mapsto H_i
\end{array}
\end{equation}
is an automorphism of $U_h({\frak g})$. Therefore for given Coxeter element the
isomorphism $\psi_{\{ n\}}$
is defined uniquely up to automorphisms of $U_h({\frak g})$.
\end{remark}
Now we shall study the algebraic structure of $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$.
Denote by $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_-) $ the subalgebra in $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$
generated by
$f_i ,i=1, \ldots l$. From defining relations (\ref{sqgr}) it follows that the
map
$\overline \chi_h^{s_\pi}:U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_-) \rightarrow {\Bbb C}[[h]]$
defined on generators by
$\overline \chi_h^{s_\pi}(f_i)=c_i, c_i\in {\Bbb C}[[h]], c_i\neq 0$ is a
character of the algebra $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_-)$.
Let $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak h})$ be the subalgebra in $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$
generated by $H_i,~i=1,\ldots ,l$.
Define $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_\pm)=U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_\pm)U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak
h})$.
We shall construct a Poincar\'{e}--Birkhoff-Witt basis for $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak
g})$.
It is convenient to introduce an operator $K\in {\rm End}~{\frak h}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Kdef}
KH_i=\sum_{j=1}^l{n_{ij} \over d_i}Y_j.
\end{equation}
In particular, we have
$$
{n_{ji} \over d_j}=(KH_j,H_i).
$$
Equation (\ref{eqpi}) is equivalent to the following equation for the operator
$K$:
$$
K-K^* = {1+s_\pi \over 1-s_\pi}.
$$
\begin{proposition}\label{rootss}
(i)For any solution of equation (\ref{eqpi}) and any normal ordering of the root
system $\Delta_+$
the elements $e_{\beta}=\psi_{\{ n\}}^{-1}(X_{\beta}^+e^{hK\beta^\vee})$ and
$f_{\beta}=\psi_{\{ n\}}^{-1}(e^{-hK\beta^\vee}X_{\beta}^-),~\beta \in \Delta_+$
lie in the subalgebras $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)$ and $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak
n}_-)$, respectively.
(ii)Moreover, the elements
$e^{\bf r}=e_{\beta_1}^{r_1}\ldots e_{\beta_N}^{r_N},~~f^{\bf
t}=e_{\beta_1}^{t_1}\ldots e_{\beta_N}^{t_N}$
and $H^{\bf s}=H_1^{s_1}\ldots H_l^{s_l}$
for ${\bf r},~{\bf t},~{\bf s}\in {\Bbb N}^N$, form
topological bases of $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+),~U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_-)$ and
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak h})$,
and the products $f^{\bf t}H^{\bf s}e^{\bf r}$ form a topological basis of
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$. In particular, multiplication defines an isomorphism
of ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$ modules$$
U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_-)\otimes U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak h})\otimes U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak
n}_+)\rightarrow U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g}).
$$
\end{proposition}
{\em Proof.} Let $\beta=\sum_{i=1}^l m_i\alpha_i \in \Delta_+$ be a positive
root,
$X_{\beta}^+\in U_h({\frak g})$ the corresponding root vector. Then
$\beta^\vee=\sum_{i=1}^l m_id_iH_i$, and so
$K\beta^\vee=\sum_{i,j=1}^l m_in_{ij}Y_j$. Now the proof of the first statement
follows immediately from
Proposition \ref{rootprop}, commutation relations (\ref{weight-root}) and the
definition of the isomorphism
$\psi_{\{ n\}}$. The second assertion is a consequence of Proposition \ref{PBW}.
Now we would like to choose a normal ordering of the root system $\Delta_+$ in
such a way that
$\chi_h^{s_\pi}(e_{\beta})=0$ and $\overline \chi_h^{s_\pi}(f_{\beta})=0$ if
$\beta$ is not a simple root.
\begin{proposition}\label{rootsh}
Choose a normal ordering of the root system $\Delta_+$ such that the simple
roots are written
in the following order: $\alpha_{\pi (1)},\ldots ,\alpha_{\pi (l)}$.
Then $\chi_h^{s_\pi}(e_{\beta})=0$ and $\overline \chi_h^{s_\pi}(f_{\beta})=0$
if $\beta$ is not a simple root.
\end{proposition}
{\em Proof.} We shall consider the case of positive root generators.
The proof for
negative root generators is similar to that for the positive ones.
The root vectors $X_{\beta}^+$ are defined in terms of iterated q-commutators
(see (\ref{rootvect})). Therefore it suffices to verify that for $i<j$
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\chi_h^{s_\pi}(e_{\alpha_{\pi(i)}+\alpha_{\pi(j)}})=\\
\\
\chi_h^{s_\pi}(\psi_{\{ n\}}^{-1}( (X_{\pi(i)}^+X_{\pi(j)}^+ -
q^{(\alpha_{\pi(i)},\alpha_{\pi(j)})}X_{\pi(j)}^+X_{\pi(i)}^+)
e^{hK(d_{\pi(i)}H_{\pi(i)}+d_{\pi(j)}H_{\pi(j)})}))=0.
\end{array}
$$
From (\ref{Kdef}) and commutation relations (\ref{weight-root}) we obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{bebe}
\begin{array}{l}
\psi_{\{ n\}}^{-1}((X_{\pi(i)}^+X_{\pi(j)}^+ -
q^{(\alpha_{\pi(i)},\alpha_{\pi(j)})}X_{\pi(j)}^+X_{\pi(i)}^+)
e^{hK(d_{\pi(i)}H_{\pi(i)}+d_{\pi(j)}H_{\pi(j)})})= \\
\\
q^{-d_{\pi(j)}n_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}}(e_{\pi(i)}e_{\pi(j)} -
q^{b_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}+d_{\pi(j)}n_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}-d_{\pi(i)}n_{\pi(j)\pi(i)}}e_{\pi
(j)}e_{\pi(i)})
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Now using equation (\ref{eqpi}) and Lemma \ref{tmatrel} the combination
$b_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}+d_{\pi(j)}n_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}-d_{\pi(i)}n_{\pi(j)\pi(i)}$ may be
represented as
$b_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}+\varepsilon_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}^\pi b_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}$. But
$\varepsilon_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}^\pi =-1$ for $i<j$ and therefore the r.h.s. of
(\ref{bebe}) takes the form
$$
q^{-d_{\pi(j)}n_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}}[e_{\pi(i)},e_{\pi(j)}].
$$
Clearly,
$$
\chi_h^{s_\pi}(e_{\alpha_{\pi(i)}+\alpha_{\pi(j)}})=
q^{-d_{\pi(j)}n_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}}\chi_h^{s_\pi}([e_{\pi(i)},e_{\pi(j)}])=0.
$$
\section{Quantum deformation of the Whittaker model}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
In this section we define a quantum deformation of the Whittaker model $W({\frak
b}_-)$.
Our construction is similar the one described in Section \ref{whitt}, the
quantum group $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$,
the subalgebra $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)$ and characters
${\chi_h^{s_\pi}}:U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+) \rightarrow {\Bbb C}[[h]]$ serve as
natural
counterparts of the universal enveloping algebra $U({\frak g})$,
of the subalgebra $U({\frak n}_+)$ and of non--singular characters
$\chi:U({\frak n}_+) \rightarrow {\Bbb C}$.
Let ${U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)}_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}$ be the kernel of the character
$\chi_h^{s_\pi}:U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+) \rightarrow {\Bbb C}[[h]]$ so that
one has a direct sum
$$
U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)={\Bbb C}[[h]]\oplus {U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak
n}_+)}_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}.
$$
From Proposition \ref{rootss} we have a linear
isomorphism $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})=U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)\otimes
U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)$ and hence
the direct sum
\begin{equation}\label{maindecq}
U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})=U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-) \oplus I_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}},
\end{equation}
where $I_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}=U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g}){U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak
n}_+)}_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}$ is the left--sided ideal generated by
${U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)}_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}$.
For any $u\in U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$ let $u^{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}\in
U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)$ be its component in
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)$ relative to the decomposition (\ref{maindecq}).
Denote by $\rho_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}$
the linear map
$$
\rho_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}} : U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g}) \rightarrow U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak
b}_-)
$$
given by $\rho_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}} (u)=u^{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}$.
Denote by $Z_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$ the center of $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$.
From Proposition \ref{zq} and Theorem \ref{newreal} we obtain that
$Z_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})\cong Z({\frak g})[[h]]$. In particular,
$Z_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$
is freely generated as a commutative topological algebra over ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$ by
$l$ elements $I_1,\ldots , I_l$.
Let $W_h({\frak b}_-)=\rho_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}} (Z_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g}))$.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Theorem $\bf A_h$ }
{\em The map
\begin{equation}\label{mapq}
\rho_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}} : Z_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g}) \rightarrow W_h({\frak b}_-)
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism of algebras. In particular, $W_h({\frak b}_-)$
is freely generated as a commutative topological algebra over ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$ by
$l$ elements
$I_i^{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}=\rho_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}(I_i),~~i=1,\ldots ,l$.}
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\em Proof} is similar to that of Theorem A in the classical case.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Definition $\bf A_h$ }
{\em The algebra $W_h({\frak b}_-)$ is called the Whittaker model of
$Z_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$.}
\vskip 0.3cm
Next we equip $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)$ with a structure of a left
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)$ module in such a
way that $W_h({\frak b}_-)$ is identified with the space of invariants with
respect to this action.
Following Lemma A in the classical case we define this action by
\begin{equation}\label{mainactq}
x\cdot v =[x,v]^{\chi_h^{s_\pi}},
\end{equation}
where $v\in U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)$ and $x\in U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)$.
Consider the space $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)^{U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)}$ of
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)$ invariants
in $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)$ with respect to this
action. Clearly,
$W_h({\frak b}_-)\subseteq U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)^{U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)}$.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Theorem $\bf B_h$ }
{\em Suppose that $\chi_h^{s_\pi}(e_i)\neq 0~(\mbox{mod }h)$ for $i=1,\ldots l$.
Then the space of $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)$ invariants
in $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)$ with respect to the
action (\ref{mainactq}) is isomorphic to $W_h({\frak b}_-)$, i.e.}
\begin{equation}\label{invq}
U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)^{U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)}\cong W_h({\frak b}_-).
\end{equation}
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\em Proof.}
Let $p: U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})\rightarrow U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak
g})/hU_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})=U({\frak g})$
be the canonical projection. Note that $p(U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+))=U({\frak
n}_+),~
p(U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-))=U({\frak b}_-)$ and for every $x\in
U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)$
$\chi_h^{s_\pi}(x)~(\mbox{mod }h)=\chi(p(x))$ for some non--singular character
$\chi: U({\frak n}_+)\rightarrow {\Bbb C}$.
Therefore $p(\rho_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}(x))=\rho_\chi(p(x))$ for every $x\in
U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$,
and hence by Theorem ${\rm A}_q$ $p(W_h({\frak b}_-))=W({\frak b}_-)$. Using
Lemma A and
the definition of action (\ref{mainactq}) we also obtain that
$p(U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)^{U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)})=
U({\frak b}_-)^{N_+} = W({\frak b}_-)$.
Now let $I\in U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)^{U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)}$ be an
invariant element.
Then $p(I)\in W({\frak b}_-)$, and hence one can find an element $K_0\in
W_h({\frak b}_-)$ such
that $I-K_0=hI_1,~I_1\in U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)^{U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)}$.
Applying the same procedure
to $I_1$ one can find elements $K_1\in W_h({\frak b}_-),
~I_2\in U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)^{U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+)}$ such that
$I_1-K_1=hI_2$, i.e.
$I-K_0-hK_1=0~(\mbox{mod }h^2)$.
We can continue this process. Finally we obtain an infinite sequence of elements
$K_i\in W_h({\frak b}_-)$ such that $I-\sum_{i=0}^p h^pK_p=0~(\mbox{mod
}h^{p+1})$. Since the space
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)$ is complete in the $h$--adic topology the series
$\sum_{i=0}^\infty h^pK_p\in W_h({\frak b}_-)$
converges to $I$. Therefore $I\in W_h({\frak b}_-)$. This completes the proof.
Similarly to Proposition \ref{hkhom} we have
\begin{proposition}
The algebra $W_h({\frak b}_-)$ is isomorphic to the zeroth graded component of
the Hecke algebra
of the triple $(U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g}),U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_+),\chi_h^{s_\pi})$
with the opposite
multiplication,
$$
W_h({\frak b}_-)=Hk^0(U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g}),U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak
n}_+),\chi_h^{s_\pi})^{opp}.
$$
\end{proposition}
\section{Coxeter realizations of quantum groups and Drinfeld twist}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
In this section we show that the Coxeter realizations $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$
of the quantum group $U_h({\frak g})$
are connected with quantizations of some nonstandard bialgebra structures on
$\frak g$. At the quantum level
changing bialgebra structure corresponds to the so--called Drinfeld twist. We
shall consider a particular class
of such twists described in the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}{\bf (\cite{ChP}, Proposition 4.2.13)}\label{twdef}
Let $(A,\mu , \imath , \Delta , \varepsilon , S)$ be a Hopf algebra over a
commutative ring. Let $\cal F$ be an invertible element of $A\otimes A$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{twist}
\begin{array}{l}
{\cal F}_{12}(\Delta \otimes id)({\cal F})={\cal F}_{23}(id \otimes
\Delta)({\cal F}),\\
\\
(\varepsilon \otimes id)({\cal F})=(id \otimes \varepsilon )({\cal F})=1.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Then, $v=\mu (id\otimes S)({\cal F})$ is an invertible element of $A$ with
$$
v^{-1}=\mu (S\otimes id)({\cal F}^{-1}).
$$
Moreover , if we define $\Delta^{\cal F}:A\rightarrow A\otimes A$ and $S^{\cal
F}:A\rightarrow A$ by
$$
\Delta^{\cal F}(a)={\cal F}\Delta(a){\cal F}^{-1},~~S^{\cal F}(a)=vS(a)v^{-1},
$$
then $(A,\mu , \imath , \Delta^{\cal F} , \varepsilon , S^{\cal F})$ is a Hopf
algebra denoted by $A^{\cal F}$
and called the twist of $A$ by ${\cal F}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}{\bf (\cite{ChP}, Corollary 4.2.15)}
Suppose that $A$ and ${\cal F}$ as in Proposition \ref{twdef}, but assume in
addition that $A$ is quasitriangular
with universal R--matrix $\cal R$. Then $A^{\cal F}$ is quasitriangular with
universal R--matrix
\begin{equation}\label{rf}
{\cal R}^{\cal F}={\cal F}_{21}{\cal R}{\cal F}^{-1},
\end{equation}
where ${\cal F}_{21}=\sigma {\cal F}$.
\end{corollary}
Fix a Coxeter element $s_\pi\in W$, $s_\pi=s_{\pi (1)}\ldots s_{\pi (l)}$.
Consider the twist of the Hopf algebra $U_h({\frak g})$ by the element
\begin{equation}\label{Ftw}
{\cal F}=exp(-h\sum_{i,j=1}^l {n_{ji} \over d_j}Y_i\otimes Y_j) \in U_h({\frak
h})\otimes U_h({\frak h}),
\end{equation}
where $n_{ij}$ is a solution of the corresponding equation (\ref{eqpi}).
This element satisfies conditions (\ref{twist}), and so $U_h({\frak g})^{\cal
F}$ is a quasitriangular
Hopf algebra with the universal R--matrix ${\cal R}^{\cal F}={\cal F}_{21}{\cal
R}{\cal F}^{-1}$,
where $\cal R$ is given by (\ref{univr}). We shall explicitly calculate the
element ${\cal R}^{\cal F}$.
Substituting (\ref{univr}) and (\ref{Ftw}) into (\ref{rf}) and using
(\ref{roots-cart}) we obtain
$$
\begin{array}{l}
{\cal R}^{\cal F}=exp\left[ h(\sum_{i=1}^l(Y_i\otimes H_i)+
\sum_{i,j=1}^l (-{n_{ij} \over d_i}+{n_{ji} \over d_j})Y_i\otimes Y_j)
\right]\times \\
\prod_{\beta}
exp_{q_{\beta}^{-1}}[(q-q^{-1})a(\beta)^{-1}X_{\beta}^+e^{hK\beta^\vee} \otimes
e^{-hK^*\beta^\vee}X_{\beta}^-],
\end{array}
$$
where $K$ is defined by (\ref{Kdef}).
Equip $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$ with the comultiplication given by :
$\Delta_{s_\pi}(x)=(\psi_{\{ n\}}^{-1}\otimes \psi_{\{ n\}}^{-1})\Delta_h^{\cal
F}(\psi_{\{ n\}}(x))$.
Then $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$ becomes a quasitriangular Hopf algebra with the
universal R--matrix
${\cal R}^{s_\pi}=\psi_{\{ n\}}^{-1}\otimes \psi_{\{ n\}}^{-1}{\cal R}^{\cal
F}$. Using equation
(\ref{eqpi}) and Lemma \ref{tmatrel} this R--matrix may be written as follows
\begin{equation}\label{rmatrspi}
\begin{array}{l}
{\cal R}^{s_\pi}=exp\left[ h(\sum_{i=1}^l(Y_i\otimes H_i)+
\sum_{i=1}^l {1+s_\pi \over 1-s_\pi }H_i\otimes Y_i) \right]\times \\
\prod_{\beta}
exp_{q_{\beta}^{-1}}[(q-q^{-1})a(\beta)^{-1}e_{\beta} \otimes
e^{h{1+s_\pi \over 1-s_\pi} \beta^\vee}f_{\beta}].
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The element ${\cal R}^{s_\pi}$ may be also represented in the form
\begin{equation}\label{rmatrspi'}
\begin{array}{l}
{\cal R}^{s_\pi}=exp\left[ h(\sum_{i=1}^l(Y_i\otimes H_i)\right]\times \\
\prod_{\beta}
exp_{q_{\beta}^{-1}}[(q-q^{-1})a(\beta)^{-1}e_{\beta}e^{-h{1+s_\pi \over
1-s_\pi}\beta^\vee}\otimes f_\beta]
exp\left[ h(\sum_{i=1}^l {1+s_\pi \over 1-s_\pi }H_i\otimes Y_i)\right] .
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The comultiplication $\Delta_{s_\pi}$ is given on generators by
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\Delta_{s_\pi}(H_i)=H_i\otimes 1+1\otimes H_i,\\
\\
\Delta_{s_\pi}(e_i)=e_i\otimes e^{hd_i{2 \over 1-s_\pi}H_i}+1\otimes e_i,\\
\\
\Delta_{s_\pi}(f_i)=f_i\otimes e^{-hd_i{1+s_\pi \over
1-s_\pi}H_i}+e^{-hd_iH_i}\otimes f_i.
\end{array}
$$
Note that the Hopf algebra $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$ is a quantization of the
bialgebra structure on $\frak g$
defined by the cocycle
\begin{equation}\label{cocycles}
\delta (x)=({\rm ad}_x\otimes 1+1\otimes {\rm ad}_x)2r^{s_\pi}_+,~~
r^{s_\pi}_+\in {\frak g}\otimes {\frak g},
\end{equation}
where $r^{s_\pi}_+=r_+ + \frac 12 \sum_{i=1}^l {1+s_\pi \over 1-s_\pi
}H_i\otimes Y_i$, and $r_+$ is given by (\ref{rcl}).
We shall also need the following property of the antipode $S^{s_\pi}$ of
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$.
\begin{proposition}\label{sqant}
The square of the antipode $S^{s_\pi}$ is an inner automorphism of
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$ given by
$$
(S^{s_\pi})^2(x)=e^{2h\rho^\vee}xe^{-2h\rho^\vee},
$$
where $\rho^\vee=\sum_{i=1}^lY_i$.
\end{proposition}
{\em Proof.}
First observe that by Proposition \ref{twdef} the antipode of
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$ has the form:
$S^{s_\pi}(x)=\psi_{\{ n\}}^{-1}(vS_h(\psi_{\{ n\}}(x))v^{-1})$, where
$$
v=exp(h\sum_{i,j=1}^l {n_{ji} \over d_j}Y_iY_j).
$$
Therefore $(S^{s_\pi})^2(x)=\psi_{\{ n\}}^{-1}(vS_h(v^{-1})S_h^2(\psi_{\{
n\}}(x))S_h(v)v^{-1})$.
Note that $S_h(v)=v$, and hence $(S^{s_\pi})^2(x)=\psi_{\{
n\}}^{-1}(S_h^2(\psi_{\{ n\}}(x)))$.
Finally observe that from explicit formulas for the antipode of $U_h({\frak g})$
it follows that
$S_h^2(x)=e^{2h\rho^\vee}xe^{-2h\rho^\vee}$. This completes the proof.
In conclusion we note that using Corollary \ref{rep} and the isomorphism
$\psi_{\{ n\}}$ one can define finite--dimensional representations of
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$.
\section{Quantum deformation of the Toda lattice}\label{toda}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
Recall that one of
the main applications of the algebra $W({\frak b}_-)$ is the quantum Toda
lattice \cite{K'}.
Let $\overline \chi : {\frak n}_- \rightarrow {\Bbb C}$ be a non--singular
character of
the opposite nilpotent subalgebra ${\frak n}_-$. We denote the character of
$N_-$ corresponding to
$\overline \chi$ by the same letter. The algebra $U({\frak b}_-)$ naturally acts
by differential
operators in the space $C^\infty ({\Bbb C}_{\overline \chi}\otimes_{N_-}{B_-})$.
This space may be
identified with $C^\infty (H)$.
Let $D_1,\ldots ,D_l$ be the differential operators on $C^\infty (H)$ which
correspond to the elements
$I_1^\chi ,\ldots , I_l^\chi\in W({\frak b}_-)$. Denote by $\varphi$ the
operator of multiplication in
$C^\infty (H)$ by the function $\varphi (e^h)=e^{\rho(h)}$, where $h\in {\frak
h}$. The operators $M_i=\varphi D_i\varphi^{-1}, i=1,\ldots l$
are called the quantum Toda Hamiltonians. Clearly, they commute with each other.
In particular if $I$ is the quadratic Casimir element then the corresponding
operator $M$ is
the well--known second--order differential operator:
$$
M=\sum_{i=1}^l \partial_i^2
+\sum_{i=1}^l \chi(X_{\alpha_i})\overline
\chi(X_{-\alpha_i})e^{-\alpha_i(h)}+(\rho,\rho),
$$
where $\partial_i={\partial \over \partial y_i}$, and $y_i,~i=1,\ldots l$ is an
ortonormal basis of $\frak h$.
Using the algebra $W_h({\frak b}_-)$ we shall construct quantum group analogues
of the Toda Hamiltonians.
A slightly different approach has been recently proposed in \cite{Et}.
Denote by $A$ the space of linear functions on
${\Bbb C}[[h]]_{\overline \chi_h^{s_\pi}}\otimes_{U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak
n}_-)}U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)$, where
${\Bbb C}[[h]]_{\overline \chi_h^{s_\pi}}$ is the one--dimensional
$U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak n}_-)$ module
defined by ${\overline \chi_h^{s_\pi}}$.
Note that
${\Bbb C}[[h]]_{\overline \chi_h^{s_\pi}}\otimes_{U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak
n}_-)}U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)\cong U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak h})$
as a linear space. Therefore $A=U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak h})^*$.
The algebra $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)$ naturally acts on
${\Bbb C}[[h]]_{\overline \chi_h^{s_\pi}}\otimes_{U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak
n}_-)}U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)$
by multiplications from the right. This action induces an $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak
b}_-)$--action in the space $A$.
We denote this action by $L$, $L:U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)\rightarrow {\rm
End}A$. Clearly, this action generates
an action of the algebra $W_h({\frak b}_-)$ on $A$.
To construct deformed Toda Hamiltonians we shall use certain elements in
$W_h({\frak b}_-)$.
These elements may be described as follows.
Let $\mu : U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g}) \rightarrow {\Bbb C}[[h]]$ be a map such that
$\mu(uv)=\mu(vu)$. By Proposition
\ref{sqant} $(S^{s_\pi})^2(x)=e^{2h\rho^\vee}xe^{-2h\rho^\vee}$. Hence from
Remark 1 in \cite{D} it follows that
$(id\otimes \mu)({\cal R}_{21}^{s_\pi}{\cal R}^{s_\pi}(1\otimes
e^{2h\rho^\vee}))$, where
${\cal R}_{21}^{s_\pi}=\sigma {\cal R}^{s_\pi}$, is a central element.
In particular, for any finite--dimensional $\frak g$--module $V$ the element
\begin{equation}\label{centrelv}
C_V=(id\otimes tr_V)({\cal R}_{21}^{s_\pi}{\cal R}^{s_\pi}(1\otimes
e^{2h\rho^\vee})),
\end{equation}
where $tr_V$ is the
trace in $V[[h]]$, is central in $U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$.
Using formulas (\ref{rmatrspi}) and (\ref{rmatrspi'}) we can easily compute
elements
$\rho_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}(C_V)\in W_h({\frak b}_-)$.
For every finite--dimensional $\frak g$--module $V$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{todah}
\begin{array}{l}
\rho_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}(C_V)=(id\otimes tr_V)( e^{t_0}\prod_{\beta}
exp_{q_{\beta}^{-1}}[(q-q^{-1})a(\beta)^{-1}f_\beta \otimes
e_{\beta}e^{-h{1+s_\pi \over 1-s_\pi}\beta^\vee}]\times \\
\\
e^{t_0}\prod_{\beta}
exp_{q_{\beta}^{-1}}[(q-q^{-1})a(\beta)^{-1}{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}(e_{\beta}) \otimes
e^{h{1+s_\pi \over 1-s_\pi} \beta^\vee}f_{\beta}](1\otimes e^{2h\rho^\vee})),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $t_0=h\sum_{i=1}^l(Y_i\otimes H_i)$.
We denote by $W_h^{Rep}({\frak b}_-)$ the subalgebra in $W_h({\frak b}_-)$
generated by the elements
$\rho_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}(C_V)$, where $V$ runs through all finite--dimensional
representations of $\frak g$.
Note that for every finite--dimensional $\frak g$--module $V$
$\rho_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}(C_V)$ is a
polynomial in noncommutative elements $f_i,~e^{hx},~x\in {\frak h}$.
Now we shall realize elements of $W_h^{Rep}({\frak b}_-)$ as difference
operators.
Let $H_h\in U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak h})$ be the subgroup generated by elements
$e^{hx},~x\in {\frak h}$.
A difference operator on $A$ is an operator $T$ of the form
$T=\sum f_iT_{x_i}$ (a finite sum), where $f_i \in A$, and for every $y\in H_h~$
$T_{x}f(y)=(ye^{hx}),~x\in {\frak h}$.
\begin{proposition}{\bf (\cite{Et}, Proposition 3.2)}\label{diffh}
For any $Y \in U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak b}_-)$,
which is a polynomial in noncommutative elements $f_i,~e^{hx},~x\in {\frak h}$,
the operator $L(Y)$ is a difference operator on $A$.
In particular, the operators $L(I),~I\in W_h^{Rep}({\frak b}_-)$ are mutually
commuting
difference operators on $A$.
\end{proposition}
{\em Proof.} It suffices to verify that $L(f_i)$ are difference operators on
$H_h$.
Indeed,
$$
L(f_i)f(e^{hx})=f(e^{hx}f_i)=e^{-h\alpha_i(x)}f(f_ie^{hx})=\overline
\chi_h^{s_\pi}(f_i)e^{-h\alpha_i(x)}f(e^{hx}).
$$
This completes the proof.
Let $\jmath : H_h\rightarrow U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak h})$ be the canonical embedding.
Denote $A_h=\jmath^*(A)$.
Let $T$ be a difference operator on $A$. Then one can define a difference
operator $\jmath^*(T)$ on the space
$A_h$ by $\jmath^*(T)f(y)=T(\jmath(y))$.
Let $D_i^h=\jmath^*(L(\rho_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}(C_{V_i})))$, where $V_i,~i=1,\ldots
l$ are the fundamental representations of
$\frak g$.
Denote by $\varphi_h$ the operator of multiplication in
$A_h$ by the function $\varphi_h (e^{hx})=e^{h\rho(x)}$, where $x\in {\frak h}$.
The operators $M_i^h=\varphi_h D_i^h\varphi^{-1}_h, i=1,\ldots l$
are called the quantum deformed Toda Hamiltonians.
From now on we suppose that $\pi=id$ and that the ordering of positive roots
$\Delta_+$ is fixed as in
Proposition \ref{rootsh}. We denote $s_{id}=s$.
Now using formula (\ref{todah}) we outline computation of the operators $M_i^h$.
This computation is simplified by
the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}{ \bf (\cite{Et}, Lemma 5.2)}
Let $X=f_{\gamma_1}...f_{\gamma_n}$. If the roots
$\gamma_1,...,\gamma_n$ are not all simple
then $L(X)=0$.
Otherwise, if $\gamma_i=\alpha_{k_i}$, then
$$
\jmath^*(L(X))f(e^{hy})=e^{-h(\sum\alpha_{k_i},y)}f(e^{hy})\prod_i\overline
\chi_h^{s}(f_{k_i})
$$
\end{lemma}
{\em Proof } follows immediately from Proposition \ref{rootsh} and the
arguments used in the proof of
Proposition \ref{diffh}.
Using this lemma we obtain that if $\beta$ is not a simple root then the term in
(\ref{todah}) containing
root vector $f_\beta$ gives a trivial contribution to the operators
$L(\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}(C_{V_i}))$. Note also that by Proposition \ref{rootsh}
${\chi_h^{s}}(e_\beta)=0$ if
$\beta$ is not a simple root. Therefore from formula (\ref{todah}) we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
L(\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}(C_{V_i}))=\\
\\
L(id\otimes tr_V)( e^{t_0}\prod_{i}
exp_{q^{-2d_i}}[(q_i-q_i^{-1})f_i \otimes e_ie^{-hd_i{1+s \over 1-s}H_i}]\times
\\
\\
e^{t_0}\prod_{i}
exp_{q^{-2d_i}}[(q_i-q_i^{-1}){\chi_h^{s}}(e_i) \otimes
e^{hd_i{1+s \over 1-s}H_i}f_i](1\otimes e^{2h\rho^\vee})).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
In particular, let ${\frak g}=sl(n)$, $V_1=V$ the fundamental representation of
$sl(n)$.
Then direct calculation gives
$$
M_1f(e^{hy})=\left( \sum_{j=1}^n T_j^2-
(q-q^{-1})^2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}{\chi_h^{s}}(e_i){\overline \chi_h^{s}}(f_i)
e^{-h(y,\alpha_i)}T_{i+1}T_i\right) f(e^{hy}),
$$
where $T_i=T_{\omega_i}$, ${\omega_i}$ are the weights of $V$.
The last expression coincides with formula (5.7) obtained in \cite{Et}.
\chapter{Poisson--Lie groups and Whittaker model}\label{GWitt}
In this Chapter we introduce another quantum version of the Whittaker model.
We consider quantizations of algebras of regular functions on algebraic
Poisson--Lie
groups. We define the Whittaker model of the center of these quantum algebras.
The algebraic structure of this model is related to the structure of the set of
regular
elements in the corresponding algebraic group. This relation is parallel to the
one
established by Kostant for Lie algebras (see Section \ref{geomappr}). Our main
geometric
result is an analog of Theorem C for algebraic groups. A generalization of this
theorem
for loop groups is contained in \cite{SS}.
\section{Poisson--Lie groups}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
Recall some notions concerned with Poisson--Lie groups (see \cite{Dm},
\cite{fact}, \cite{dual}, \cite{ChP}).
Let $G$ be a finite--dimensional Lie group equipped with a Poisson bracket,
$\frak g$ its Lie algebra. $G$ is called
a Poisson--Lie group if the multiplication $G\times G \rightarrow G$ is a
Poisson map.
A Poisson bracket satisfying this axiom is degenerate and, in particular, is
identically zero
at the unit element of the group. Linearizing this bracket at the unit element
defines the
structure of a Lie algebra in the space $T^*_eG\simeq {\frak g}^*$.
The pair (${\frak g},{\frak g}^{*})$ is called the tangent bialgebra of $G$.
Lie brackets in $\frak{g}$ and $\frak{g}^{*}$ satisfy the following
compatibility condition:
{\em Let }$\delta: {\frak g}\rightarrow {\frak g}\wedge {\frak g}$ {\em be
the dual of the commutator map } $[,]_{*}: {\frak g}^{*}\wedge
{\frak g}^{*}\rightarrow {\frak g}^{*}$. {\em Then } $\delta$ {\em is a
1-cocycle on} $ {\frak g}$ {\em (with respect to the adjoint action
of } $\frak g$ {\em on} ${\frak g}\wedge{\frak g}$).
Let $c_{ij}^{k}, f^{ab}_{c}$ be the structure constants of
${\frak g}, {\frak g}^{*}$ with respect to the dual bases $\{e_{i}\},
\{e^{i}\}$ in ${\frak g},{\frak g}^{*}$. The compatibility condition
means that
$$
c_{ab}^{s} f^{ik}_{s} ~-~ c_{as}^{i} f^{sk}_{b} ~+~ c_{as}^{k}
f^{si}_{b} ~-~ c_{bs}^{k} f^{si}_{a} ~+~ c_{bs}^{i} f^{sk}_{a} ~~=
~~0.
$$
This condition is symmetric with respect to exchange of $c$ and
$f$. Thus if $({\frak g},{\frak g}^{*})$ is a Lie bialgebra, then
$({\frak g}^{*}, {\frak g})$ is also a Lie bialgebra.
The following proposition shows that the category of finite--dimensional Lie
bialgebras is isomorphic to
the category of finite--dimensional connected simply connected Poisson--Lie
groups.
\begin{proposition}{\bf (\cite{ChP}, Theorem 1.3.2)}
If $G$ is a connected simply connected finite--dimensional Lie group, every
bialgebra structure on $\frak g$
is the tangent bialgebra of a unique Poisson structure on $G$ which makes $G$
into a Poisson--Lie group.
\end{proposition}
Let $G$ be a finite--dimensional Poisson--Lie group, $({\frak g},{\frak g}^{*})$
the tangent bialgebra of $G$.
The connected simply connected finite--dimensional
Poisson--Lie group corresponding to the Lie bialgebra $({\frak g}^{*}, {\frak
g})$ is called the dual
Poisson--Lie group and denoted by $G^*$.
$({\frak g},{\frak g}^{*})$ is called a {\em factorizable Lie
bialgebra }if the following conditions are satisfied (see \cite{fact} ,
\cite{Dm}):
\begin{enumerate}
\item
${\frak g}${\em \ is equipped with a non--degenerate invariant
scalar product} $\left( \cdot ,\cdot \right)$.
We shall always identify ${\frak g}^{*}$ and ${\frak g}$ by means of this
scalar product.
\item {\em The dual Lie bracket on }${\frak g}^{*}\simeq {\frak g}${\em \
is given by}
\begin{equation}
\left[ X,Y\right] _{*}=\frac 12\left( \left[ rX,Y\right] +\left[ X,rY\right]
\right) ,X,Y\in {\frak g}, \label{rbr}
\end{equation}
{\em where }$r\in {\rm End}\ {\frak g}${\em \ is a skew symmetric linear
operator
(classical r-matrix).}
\item $r${\em \ satisfies} {\em the} {\em modified classical Yang-Baxter
identity:}
\begin{equation}
\left[ rX,rY\right] -r\left( \left[ rX,Y\right] +\left[ X,rY\right] \right)
=-\left[ X,Y\right] ,\;X,Y\in {\frak g}{\bf .} \label{cybe}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Define operators $r_\pm \in {\rm End}\ {\frak g}$ by
\[
r_{\pm }=\frac 12\left( r\pm id\right) .
\]
We shall need some properties of the operators $r_{\pm }$.
Denote by ${\frak b}_\pm$ and ${\frak n}_\mp$ the image and the kernel of the
operator
$r_\pm $:
\begin{equation}\label{bnpm}
{\frak b}_\pm = Im~r_\pm,~~{\frak n}_\mp = Ker~r_\pm.
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}{\bf (\cite{BD}, \cite{rmatr})}\label{bpm}
Let $({\frak g}, {\frak g}^*)$ be a factorizable Lie bialgebra. Then
(i) ${\frak b}_\pm \subset {\frak g}$ is a Lie subalgebra, the subspace ${\frak
n}_\pm$ is a Lie ideal in
${\frak b}_\pm,~{\frak b}_\pm^\perp ={\frak n}_\pm$.
(ii) ${\frak n}_\pm$ is an ideal in ${\frak {g}}^{*}$.
(iii) ${\frak b}_\pm$ is a Lie subalgebra in ${\frak {g}}^{*}$. Moreover ${\frak
b}_\pm ={\frak {g}}^{*}/ {\frak n}_\pm$.
(iv) $({\frak b}_\pm,{\frak b}_\pm ^*)$ is a subbialgebra of $({\frak
{g}},{\frak {g}}^{*})$ and
$({\frak b}_\pm,{\frak b}_\pm ^*)\simeq ({\frak b}_\pm,{\frak b}_\mp)$. The
canonical paring
between ${\frak b}_\mp$ and ${\frak b}_\pm$is given by
\begin{equation}
(X_\mp ,Y_\pm )_\pm=(X_\mp,r_\pm^{-1}Y_\pm ) ,~ X_\mp \in {\frak b}_\mp ;~ Y_\pm
\in {\frak b}_\pm .
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
The classical Yang--Baxter equation implies that $r_{\pm }$ , regarded as a
mapping from
${\frak g}^{*}$ into ${\frak g}$, is a Lie algebra homomorphism.
Moreover, $r_{+}^{*}=-r_{-},$\ and $r_{+}-r_{-}=id.$
Put ${\frak {d}}={\frak g\oplus {g}}$ (direct sum of two
copies). The mapping
\begin{eqnarray}\label{imbd}
{\frak {g}}^{*}\rightarrow {\frak {d}}~~~:X\mapsto (X_{+},~X_{-}),~~~X_{\pm
}~=~r_{\pm }X
\end{eqnarray}
is a Lie algebra embedding. Thus we may identify ${\frak g^{*}}$ with a Lie
subalgebra in ${\frak {d}}$.
Naturally, embedding (\ref{imbd}) extends to an embedding
$$
G^*\rightarrow G\times G,~~L\mapsto (L_+,L_-).
$$
We shall identify $G^*$ with the corresponding subgroup in $G\times G$.
\section{Poisson reduction}\label{poisred}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
In this section we recall basic facts on Poisson reduction (see \cite{W},
\cite{RIMS}).
These facts will be used in the proof of the group counterpart of Theorem E (see
Section \ref{geomappr}).
Let $M,~B,~B'$ be Poisson manifolds. Two Poisson surjections
$$
\begin{array}{ccccc}
& & M & & \\
& \stackrel{\pi^{\prime } }{\swarrow } & & \stackrel{\pi }{\searrow } & \\
B^{\prime } & & & & B
\end{array}
$$
form a dual pair if the pullback $\pi^{^{\prime
}*}C^\infty(B^{\prime })$ is the centralizer of $\pi^* C^\infty (B)$ in the
Poisson algebra
$C^\infty (M)$. In that case the sets $B^{\prime }_b=\pi^{\prime } \left( \pi
^{-1}(b) \right),~b\in
B$ are Poisson submanifolds in $B^{\prime }$ (see \cite{W}) called reduced
Poisson manifolds.
Fix an element $b\in B$. Then the algebra of functions $C^\infty (B^{\prime
}_b)$ may be described as
follows. Let $I_b$ be the ideal in $C^\infty (M)$ generated by elements
${\pi}^*(f),~f\in C^\infty (B),~f(b)=0$. Denote $M_b=\pi^{-1}(b)$. Then the
algebra $C^\infty (M_b)$
is simply the quotient of $C^\infty (M)$ by $I_b$. Denote by
$P_b:C^\infty (M)\rightarrow C^\infty (M)/I_b=C^\infty (M_b)$
the canonical projection onto the quotient.
\begin{lemma}\label{redspace}
Suppose that the map $f\mapsto f(b)$ is
a character of the Poisson algebra $C^\infty (B)$. Then one can define an action
of
the Poisson algebra $C^\infty (B)$ on the space $C^\infty (M_b)$ by
\begin{equation}\label{redact}
f\cdot \varphi=P_b(\{ {\pi}^*(f), \tilde \varphi \}),
\end{equation}
where $f\in C^\infty (B)$, $\varphi \in C^\infty (M_b)$, $\tilde \varphi \in
C^\infty (M)$ is a
representative of $\varphi$ in $C^\infty (M)$ such that $P_b(\tilde
\varphi)=\varphi$.
Moreover, $C^\infty (B^{\prime }_b)$ is the subspace of invariants in $C^\infty
(M_b)$
with respect to this action.
\end{lemma}
{\em Proof.}
Let $\varphi \in C^\infty (M_b)$. Choose a representative
$\tilde \varphi \in C^\infty (M)$ such that $P_b(\tilde \varphi)=\varphi$.
Since the map $f\mapsto f(b)$ is
a character of the Poisson algebra $C^\infty (B)$, Hamiltonian vector fields of
functions
${\pi}^*(f),~f\in C^\infty (B)$ are tangent to the surface $M_b$.
Therefore using the the definition of the dual
pair we obtain that
$\varphi={\pi^{\prime }}^*(\psi)$ for some $\psi \in C^\infty(B^{\prime }_b)$ if
and only if
$P_b(\{ {\pi}^*(f), \tilde \varphi\})=0$ for every $f\in C^\infty (B)$.
Note also that the r.h.s. of (\ref{redact}) only depends on $\varphi$ but not on
the representative
$\tilde \varphi$, and hence
formula (\ref{redact})
defines an action of the Poisson algebra $C^\infty (B)$ on the space $C^\infty
(M_b)$.
Finally we obtain that $C^\infty (B^{\prime }_b)$ is exactly the subspace of
invariants in $C^\infty (M_b)$
with respect to this action.
\begin{definition}
The algebra $C^\infty (B^{\prime }_b)$ is called a reduced Poisson algebra.
We also denote it by $C^\infty (M_b)^{C^\infty (B)}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{redpoisalg}
Note that the description of the algebra $C^\infty (M_b)^{C^\infty (B)}$
obtained in Lemma \ref{redspace}
is independent
of both the manifold $B^{\prime }$ and the projection $\pi^{\prime }$.
Observe also that the reduced space $B^{\prime }_b$ may be identified with a
cross--section
of the action of the Poisson algebra $C^\infty (B)$ on $M_b$ by Hamiltonian
vector fields.
In particular, $B^{\prime }_b$ may be regarded as a submanifold in $M_b$.
\end{remark}
An important example of dual pairs is provided by Poisson group actions.
Recall that a Poisson group action of a Poisson--Lie group $A$ on a Poisson
manifold $M$
is a group action $A\times M\rightarrow M$ which is also a Poisson map (as
usual, we suppose that $A\times M$ is equipped with the product Poisson
structure). In \cite{RIMS} it is proved that if the space $M/A$ is a smooth
manifold,
there exists a unique Poisson structure on $M/A$
such that the canonical projection $M\rightarrow M/A$ is a Poisson map.
Let $\frak a$ be the Lie algebra of $A$. Denote by $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$
the
canonical paring between ${\frak a}^*$ and $\frak a$.
A map $\mu :M\rightarrow A^*$ is called a moment map for a right Poisson group
action
$A\times M\rightarrow M$ if (\cite{Lu})
\begin{equation}
L_{\widehat X} \varphi =\langle \mu^*(\theta_{A^*}) , X \rangle (\xi_\varphi ) ,
\end{equation}
where $\theta_{A^*}$ is the universal right--invariant Maurer--Cartan form on
$A^*$, $X \in {\frak a}$,
$\widehat X$ is the corresponding vector field on $M$ and
$\xi_\varphi $ is the Hamiltonian vector field of $\varphi \in C^\infty (M)$.
By Theorem 4.9, \cite{Lu} one can always equip $A^*$ with a Poisson structure in
such a way
that $\mu$ becomes a Poisson mapping. Then
from the definition of the moment map it follows that if $M/A$ is a smooth
manifold then the canonical projection $M\rightarrow M/A$ and the moment map
$\mu:M\rightarrow A^*$
form a dual pair (see \cite{Lu} for details).
The main example of Poisson group actions is the so--called dressing action.
The dressing action may be described as follows (see \cite{Lu}, \cite{RIMS}).
\begin{proposition}\label{dressingact}
Let $G$ be a connected simply connected Poisson--Lie group with factorizable
tangent Lie bialgebra,
$G^*$ the dual group. Then there exists a unique right Poisson group action
$$
G^*\times G\rightarrow G^*,~~((L_+,L_-),g)\mapsto g\circ (L_+,L_-),
$$
such that the identity mapping $\mu: G^* \rightarrow G^*$ is the moment map for
this action.
Moreover, let $q:G^* \rightarrow G$ be the map defined by
$$
q(L_+,L_-)=L_-L_+^{-1}.
$$
Then
$$
q(g\circ (L_+,L_-))=g^{-1}L_-L_+^{-1}g.
$$
\end{proposition}
The notion of Poisson group actions may be generalized as follows.
Let $A\times M \rightarrow M$ be a Poisson group action of a Poisson--Lie
group $A$ on a Poisson manifold $M$.
A subgroup $K\subset A$ is called {\em admissible} if the set $%
C^\infty \left( M\right) ^K$ of $K$-invariants is a Poisson subalgebra in $%
C^\infty \left( M\right)$. If space $M/K$ is a smooth manifold, we may identify
the algebras
$C^\infty(M/K)$ and $C^\infty \left( M\right) ^K$. Hence there exists a Poisson
structure on $M/K$
such that the canonical projection $M\rightarrow M/K$ is a Poisson map.
\begin{proposition}\label{admiss}{\bf (\cite{RIMS}, Theorem 6; \cite{Lu}, \S 2)}
Let $\left( {\frak a},{\frak a}^{*}\right) $ be the tangent
Lie bialgebra of $A.$ A connected Lie subgroup $K\subset A$ with Lie algebra
${\frak k}\subset {\frak a}$ is admissible if ${\frak k}^{\perp }\subset
{\frak a}^{*}$ is a Lie subalgebra.
\end{proposition}
We shall need the following particular example of dual pairs arising from
Poisson group actions.
Let $A\times M \rightarrow M$ be a right Poisson group action of a Poisson--Lie
group $A$ on a manifold $M$.
Suppose that this action possesses a moment mapping $\mu : M\rightarrow A^*$.
Let $K$ be an admissible subgroup in $A$. Denote by $\frak k$ the Lie algebra of
$K$.
Assume that ${\frak k}^\perp \subset {\frak a}^*$ is a Lie subalgebra in ${\frak
a}^*$.
Suppose also that there is a splitting ${\frak a}^*={\frak t}\oplus {\frak
k}^\perp$, and that
$\frak t$ is a Lie subalgebra in ${\frak a}^*$. Then the linear space ${\frak
k}^*$ is naturally
identified with $\frak t$.
Assume that $A^*$ is the semidirect
product of the Lie subgroups $K^\perp , T$ corresponding to the Lie algebras
${\frak k}^\perp , {\frak t}$ respectively. Suppose that $K^\perp$ is a
connected subgroup in $A^*$.
Fix the decomposition
$A^*=K^\perp T$ and denote by $\pi_{K^\perp} , \pi_{T}$ the projections onto
$K^\perp$ and $T$ in this decomposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{QPmoment}
Define a map $\overline{\mu}:M\rightarrow T$ by
$$
\overline{\mu}=\pi_{T}\mu.
$$
Then
(i)
$\overline{\mu}^*\left( C^\infty \left( T\right)\right)$ is a Poisson subalgebra
in $C^\infty \left( M\right)$,
and hence one can equip $T$ with a Poisson structure such that
$\overline{\mu}:M\rightarrow T$ is
a Poisson map.
(ii)Moreover, the algebra $C^\infty \left( M\right) ^K$ is the centralizer of
$\overline{\mu}^*\left( C^\infty \left( T\right)\right)$ in the Poisson algebra
$C^\infty \left( M\right)$.
In particular, if $M/K$ is a smooth manifold the maps
\begin{equation}\label{dp}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
& & M & & \\
& \stackrel{\pi }{\swarrow } & & \stackrel{\overline{\mu}}{\searrow } & ,\\
M/K & & & & T
\end{array}
\end{equation}
form a dual pair.
\end{proposition}
{\em Proof.} (i)First, by Theorem 4.9 in \cite{Lu} there exists a Poisson
bracket on $A^*$ such that
$\mu :M\rightarrow A^*$ is a Poisson map. Moreover, we can choose this bracket
to be the sum of the standard
Poisson--Lie bracket of $A^*$ and of a left invariant bivector on $A^*$.
Denote by $A^*_M$ the manifold $A^*$ equipped with this Poisson structure.
Now observe that $T$ is identified with the quotient $K^\perp \setminus A^*_M$,
where $K^\perp$ acts on
$A^*_M$ by multiplications from the left. Therefore to prove part (i) of the
proposition it suffices to show
that $K^\perp$--invariant functions on $A^*_M$ form a Poisson subalgebra in
$C^\infty(A^*_M)$.
Observe that since $A^*$ is a Poisson--Lie group and the Poisson structure of
$A^*_M$ is obtained from that of
$A^*$ by adding a left--invariant term, the action of $A^*$ on $A^*_M$ by
multiplications from the left is
a Poisson group action. Note also that $K^\perp$ is a connected subgroup in
$A^*$ and $({\frak k}^\perp)^\perp
\cong {\frak k}$ is a Lie subalgebra in $\frak a$. Therefore by Proposition
\ref{admiss} $K^\perp$ is
an admissible subgroup in $A^*$. Therefore
$K^\perp$--invariant functions on $A^*_M$ form a Poisson subalgebra in
$C^\infty(A^*_M)$, and hence
$\overline{\mu}^*\left( C^\infty \left( T\right)\right)$ is a Poisson subalgebra
in $C^\infty \left( M\right)$.
This proves part (i).
(ii)By the definition of the moment map we have:
\begin{equation}\label{X5}
L_{\widehat X} \varphi =\langle \mu^*(\theta_{A^*}) , X \rangle (\xi_\varphi ) ,
\end{equation}
where $X \in {\frak a} , \widehat X$ is the corresponding vector field on $M$
and
$\xi_\varphi $ is the Hamiltonian vector field of $\varphi \in C^\infty (M)$.
Since $A^*$ is the semidirect product of $K^\perp$ and $T$ the pullback of the
right--invariant Maurer--Cartan form $\mu^*(\theta_{A^*})$ may be represented as
follows:
$$
\mu^*(\theta_{A^*})= {\rm Ad}(\pi_{K^\perp}\mu
)({\overline{\mu}}^*\theta_{T})+(\pi_{K^\perp}\mu )^*\theta_{K^\perp},
$$
where ${\rm Ad}(\pi_{K^\perp}\mu )({\overline{\mu}}^*\theta_{T})\in {\frak
t},~(\pi_{K^\perp}\mu )^*\theta_{K^\perp}\in {\frak k}^\perp$.
Now let $X \in {\frak k}$. Then $\langle (\pi_{K^\perp}\mu
)^*\theta_{K^\perp}),X\rangle =0$ and formula (\ref{X5}) takes the form:
\begin{equation}\label{+}
\begin{array}{l}
L_{\widehat X} \varphi =
\langle {\rm Ad}(\pi_{K^\perp}\mu )({\overline{\mu}}^*\theta_{T}),X \rangle
(\xi_\varphi )=\\
\\
\langle {\rm Ad}(\pi_{K^\perp}\mu )(\theta_{T}),X \rangle
({\overline{\mu}}_*(\xi_\varphi )) .
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Since ${\rm Ad}(\pi_{K^\perp}\mu )$ is a non--degenerate transformation,
$L_{\widehat X} \varphi =0$ for every $X\in {\frak k}$
if and only if ${\overline{\mu}}_*(\xi_\varphi )=0$, i.e. a function $\varphi
\in C^\infty (M)$ is
$K$--invariant if and only if $\{ \varphi ,\overline{\mu}^*(\psi) \}=0$ for
every
$\psi \in C^\infty (T)$. This completes the proof.
\begin{remark}\label{remred}
Let $t\in T$ be as in Lemma \ref{redspace}.
Assume that $\pi(\overline{\mu}^{-1}(t))$ is a smooth manifold ($M/K$ does not
need to be smooth). Then
the algebra $C^\infty(\pi(\overline{\mu}^{-1}(t)))$ is isomorphic to
the reduced Poisson algebra $C^\infty(\overline{\mu}^{-1}(t))^{C^\infty(T)}$.
\end{remark}
\section{Quantization of Poisson--Lie groups and Whittaker model}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
Let $\frak g$ be a finite--dimensional complex simple Lie algebra. Observe that
cocycle (\ref{cocycles}) equips
$\frak g$ with
the structure of a factorizable Lie bialgebra. For simplicity we suppose that
$\pi =id$, and denote $s_{id}=s$.
Using the identification
${\rm End}~{\frak g}\cong {\frak g}\otimes {\frak g}$ the corresponding
r--matrix may be represented as
$$
r^{s}=P_+-P_-+{1+s \over 1-s}P_0,
$$
where $P_+,P_-$ and $P_0$ are the projection operators onto ${\frak n}_+,{\frak
n}_-$ and $\frak h$ in
the direct sum
$$
{\frak g}={\frak n}_+ +{\frak h} + {\frak n}_-.
$$
Let $G$ be the connected simply connected simple Poisson--Lie group with the
tangent Lie bialgebra $({\frak g},{\frak g}^*)$,
$G^*$ the dual group. Observe that $G$ is an algebraic group (see \S 104,
Theorem 12 in \cite{Z}).
Note also that
$$
r^{s}_+=P_+ + {1 \over 1-s}P_0,~~r^{s}_-=-P_- + {s \over 1-s}P_0,
$$
and hence the subspaces ${\frak b}_\pm$ and ${\frak n}_\pm$ defined by
(\ref{bnpm}) coincide with
the Borel subalgebras in $\frak g$ and their nil--radicals, respectively.
Therefore every element $(L_+,L_-)\in G^*$ may be uniquely written as
\begin{equation}\label{fact}
(L_+,L_-)=(h_+,h_-)(n_+,n_-),
\end{equation}
where $n_\pm \in N_\pm$, $h_+=exp({1 \over 1-s}x),~h_-=exp({s \over 1-s}x),~x\in
{\frak h}$.
In particular, $G^*$ is a solvable algebraic subgroup in $G\times G$.
For every algebraic variety $V$ we denote by ${\cal F}(V)$ the algebra of
regular functions on $V$.
Our main object will be the algebra of regular functions on $G^*$, ${\cal
F}(G^*)$.
This algebra may be explicitly described as follows.
Let $\pi_V$ be a finite--dimensional representation of $G$. Then matrix
elements of $\pi_V(L_\pm)$ are well--defined functions on $G^*$, and ${\cal
F}(G^*)$ is the subspace
in $C^\infty(G^*)$ generated by matrix elements of $\pi_V(L_\pm)$, where $V$
runs through all finite--dimensional
representations of $G$.
The elements $L^{\pm,V}=\pi_V(L_\pm)$ may be viewed as elements of the space
${\cal F}(G^*)\otimes {\rm End}V$. For every two finite--dimensional ${\frak g}$
modules $V$ and $W$
we denote ${r^s_+}^{VW}=(\pi_V\otimes \pi_W)r^s_+$, where $r^s_+$ is regarded as
an
element of ${\frak g}\otimes {\frak g}$.
\begin{proposition}{\bf (\cite{dual}, Section 2)}
${\cal F}(G^*)$ is a Poisson subalgebra in the Poisson algebra $C^\infty(G^*)$,
the Poisson brackets
of the elements $L^{\pm,V}$ are given by
\begin{equation}\label{pbf}
\begin{array}{l}
\{L^{\pm,W}_{1},L^{\pm,V}_{2}\}~=~
2[{r_+^s}^{VW},L^{\pm,W}_{1}L^{\pm,V}_{2}],\\
\\
\{L^{-,W}_{1},L^{+,V}_{2}\}~=2[{r_{+}^s}^{VW},L^{-,W}_{1}L^{+,V}_{2}],
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where
$$
L^{\pm,W}_1=L^{\pm,W}\otimes I_V,~~L^{\pm,V}_2=I_W\otimes L^{\pm,V},
$$
and $I_X$ is the unit matrix in $X$.
Moreover, the map $\Delta:{\cal F}(G^*)\rightarrow {\cal F}(G^*)\otimes {\cal
F}(G^*)$ dual to the multiplication in $G^*$,
\begin{equation}\label{comultcl}
\Delta(L^{\pm,V}_{ij})=\sum_k L^{\pm,V}_{ik}\otimes L^{\pm,V}_{kj},
\end{equation}
is a homomorphism of Poisson algebras.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
Recall that a Poisson--Hopf algebra is a Poisson algebra which is also a Hopf
algebra such that the
comultiplication is a homomorphism of Poisson algebras. According to Proposition
\ref{pbf}
${\cal F}(G^*)$ is a Poisson--Hopf algebra.
\end{remark}
Now we describe a quantization of the Poisson--Hopf algebra ${\cal F}(G^*)$.
Let $\tilde U_h^{s}({\frak g})$ be the subalgebra in $U_h^{s}({\frak g})$
topologically
generated, in the sense of formal power series over ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$, by elements
$\tilde H_i=hH_i,~i=1,\ldots l,~\tilde e_{\beta}=he_{\beta},~\tilde
f_{\beta}=hf_{\beta},~\beta\in \Delta_+$.
In fact $\tilde U_h^{s_\pi}({\frak g})$
is a Hopf subalgebra in $U_h^{s}({\frak g})$, explicit formulas for the
comultiplication may be
obtained using Proposition 8.3 in \cite{kh-t}.
\begin{proposition}
$\tilde U_h^{s}({\frak g})$ is a quantum formal series Hopf algebra (or QFSH
algebra), i.e.
$\tilde U_h^{s}({\frak g})$ is isomorphic as a ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$--module to
$Map(I,{\Bbb C}[[h]])$ for
some set $I$, and
$\tilde U^{s}({\frak g})=\tilde U_h^{s}({\frak g})/h\tilde U_h^{s}({\frak
g})\cong {\Bbb C}[[\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots ]]$ as a
topological algebra, for some (possibly infinite) sequence of indeterminates
$\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots $.
\end{proposition}
{\em Proof} is similar to the proof of the same result for $U_h({\frak g})$ (see
Section 8.3 C in
\cite{ChP}).
Note that $\tilde U^{s}({\frak g})$ is naturally a Poisson--Hopf
algebra, the Poisson bracket is given by
\begin{equation}\label{quasipb}
\{x_1,x_2\}={[a_1,a_2] \over h}~(\mbox{mod }h),
\end{equation}
if $a_1,a_2\in \tilde U_h^{s}({\frak g})$ reduce to
$x_1,x_2\in \tilde U^{s}({\frak g})~(\mbox{mod }h)$.
For any finite--dimensional $U_h^{s}({\frak g})$ module $V[[h]]$ we denote by
${^h{L^{\pm,V}}}$ the following
elements of $U_h^{s}({\frak g})\otimes {\rm End}V[[h]]$ (see \cite{FRT}):
$$
{^h{L^{+,V}}}=(id\otimes \pi_V){{\cal R}_{21}^{s}}^{-1}=(id\otimes
\pi_VS^{s}){\cal R}_{21}^{s}
,~~ {^h{L^{-,V}}}=(id\otimes \pi_V){\cal R}^{s}.
$$
We also denote $R^{VW}=(\pi_V\otimes \pi_W){\cal R}^{s}$.
Observe that from formula (\ref{rmatrspi}) it follows that actually
${^h{L^{\pm,V}}}\in \tilde U_h^{s}({\frak g})\otimes {\rm End}V[[h]]$.
If we fix a basis in $V[[h]]$, ${^h{L^{\pm,V}}}$ may be regarded as matrices
with matrix
elements $({^h{L^{\pm,V}}})_{ij}$ being elements of $\tilde U_h^{s}({\frak g})$.
From the Yang--Baxter equation for $\cal R$ we get
relations between $L^{\pm,V}$:
\begin{equation}\label{ppcomm}
\begin{array}{l}
R^{VW}{^h{L^{\pm,W}_1}}{^h{L^{\pm,V}_2}}={^h{L^{\pm,V}_2}}{^h{L^{\pm,W}_1}}R^{VW
},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{pmcomm}
R^{VW}{^h{L^{-,W}_1}}{^h{L^{+,V}_2}}={^h{L^{+,V}_2}}{^h{L^{-,W}_1}}R^{VW}.
\end{equation}
By ${^h{L^{\pm,W}_1}},~{^h{L^{\pm,V}_2}}$ we understand the following matrices
in $V\otimes W$:
$$
{^h{L^{\pm,W}_1}}={^h{L^{\pm,W}}}\otimes I_V,~~{^h{L^{\pm,V}_2}}=I_W\otimes
{^h{L^{\pm,V}}},
$$
where $I_X$ is the unit matrix in $X$.
From (\ref{rmprop}) we can obtain the action of the comultiplication on the
matrices ${^h{L^{\pm,V}}}$:
\begin{equation}\label{comult}
\Delta_s({^h{L^{\pm,V}_{ij}}})=\sum_k {^h{L^{\pm,V}_{ik}}}\otimes
{^h{L^{\pm,V}_{kj}}}.
\end{equation}
We denote by ${\cal F}_h(G^*)$ the Hopf subalgebra in $\tilde U_h^{s}({\frak
g})$ generated in the sense of
$h$--adic topology by matrix elements
of ${^h{L^{\pm,V}}}$, where $V$ runs through all finite--dimensional
representations of $\frak g$.
\begin{proposition}\label{quantreg}
Denote by $p:\tilde U_h^{s}({\frak g})\rightarrow \tilde U^{s}({\frak g})$ the
canonical projection.
Then $p({\cal F}_h(G^*))$ is isomorphic to ${\cal F}(G^*)$ as a Poisson--Hopf
algebra.
\end{proposition}
{\em Proof.}
Denote ${\cal F}(G^*)'=p({\cal F}_h(G^*)),~{\tilde
L^{\pm,V}}=p({^h{L^{\pm,V}}})\in
{\cal F}(G^*)'\otimes {\rm End}V$.
First observe that the map
$$
\imath :{\cal F}(G^*)'\rightarrow {\cal F}(G^*),~~(\imath \otimes id){\tilde
L^{\pm,V}}={L^{\pm,V}}
$$
is a well--defined linear isomorphism.
Indeed, consider, for instance, element ${\tilde L^{-,V}}$.
From (\ref{rmatrspi}) it follows that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
{\tilde L^{-,V}}_{ij}=\{ exp\left[ \sum_{i=1}^l-2p(hY_i)\otimes \pi_V({s \over
1-s}H_i)\right]\times \\
\prod_{\beta}
exp[2(X_\beta,X_{-\beta})^{-1}p(he_{\beta}) \otimes
\pi_V(X_{-\beta})]\}_{ij}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
On the other hand (\ref{fact}) implies that every element $L_-$ may be
represented in the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
L_- = exp\left[ \sum_{i=1}^lb_i{s \over 1-s}H_i\right]\times \\
\prod_{\beta}
exp[b_{\beta}X_{-\beta}],~b_i,b_\beta\in {\Bbb C},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
L^{-,V}_{ij}=\{ exp\left[ \sum_{i=1}^lb_i\otimes \pi_V({s \over
1-s}H_i)\right]\times \\
\prod_{\beta}
exp[b_{\beta} \otimes
\pi_V(X_{-\beta})]\}_{ij}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Therefore $\imath$ is a linear isomorphism. We have to prove that $\imath$ is an
isomorphism of
Poisson--Hopf algebras.
Recall that ${\cal R}^{s}=1\otimes 1 +2hr_+^{s}$ (mod $h^2$). Therefore from
commutation relations (\ref{ppcomm}), (\ref{pmcomm}) it follows that ${\cal
F}(G^*)'$ is a commutative
algebra, and the Poisson brackets of matrix elements ${\tilde L^{\pm,V}}_{ij}$
(see (\ref{quasipb}))
are given by (\ref{pbf}), where $L^{\pm,V}$ are replaced by ${\tilde
L^{\pm,V}}$. From (\ref{comult})
we also obtain that the action of the comultiplication on the matrices ${\tilde
L^{\pm,V}}$ is given by
(\ref{comultcl}), where $L^{\pm,V}$ are replaced by ${\tilde L^{\pm,V}}$.
This completes the proof.
We shall call the map $p:{\cal F}_h(G^*) \rightarrow {\cal F}(G^*)$ the
quasiclassical limit.
Now using the Hopf algebra ${\cal F}_h(G^*)$ we shall define another quantum
version of
the Whittaker model $W({\frak b}_-)$.
Let ${\cal F}_h(N_\pm)$ be the subalgebras in ${\cal F}_h(G^*)$ generated by
matrix elements of the matrices
$N^{-,V}=(id\otimes \pi_V){\cal R}^{s}_\Delta,~N^{+,V}=(id\otimes \pi_V){{\cal
R}_{\Delta}^{s}}^{-1}_{21}$, where
$$
{\cal R}^{s}_\Delta=
\prod_{\beta}exp_{q_{\beta}^{-1}}[(q-q^{-1})a(\beta)^{-1} e_{\beta} \otimes
e^{h{1+s \over 1-s} \beta^\vee}f_{\beta}].
$$
Suppose that the ordering of the root system $\Delta_+$ is fixed as in
Proposition \ref{rootsh}.
Then by Proposition \ref{rootsh} the map $\chi_h^{s}:{\cal F}_h(N_-)\rightarrow
{\Bbb C}$
defined by
\begin{equation}\label{charq}
(\chi_h^{s}\otimes id)(N^{-,V})=
\prod_{i=1}^lexp_{q_{\alpha_i}^{-1}}[{(q_i-q_i^{-1})\over h}c_{i} \otimes
\pi_V(e^{hd_i{1+s \over 1-s}H_i}f_i)],
c_i\in {\Bbb C}[[h]],~c_i\neq 0
\end{equation}
is a character of ${\cal F}_h(N_-)$.
We also denote by ${\cal F}_h(H)$ the intersection $U_h^{s}({\frak h})\cap {\cal
F}_h(G^*)$.
Clearly, ${\cal F}_h(H)$ is a commutative subalgebra in ${\cal F}_h(G^*)$.
From commutation relations (\ref{pmcomm}) one can obtain the following weak
version of
the Poincar\'{e}--Birkhoff--Witt theorem for ${\cal F}_h(G^*)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{Pbw}
Multiplication defines an isomorphism of ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$--modules
$$
{\cal F}_h(N_+)\otimes {\cal F}_h(H)\otimes {\cal F}_h(N_-)\rightarrow {\cal
F}_h(G^*).
$$
\end{proposition}
Define ${\cal F}_h(B_\pm)={\cal F}_h(N_\pm){\cal F}_h(H)$.
Let ${{\cal F}_h(N_-)}_{\chi_h^{s}}$ be the kernel of the character $\chi_h^{s}$
so that one has a direct sum
\begin{equation}\label{ker}
{\cal F}_h(N_-)={\Bbb C}[[h]]\oplus {{\cal F}_h(N_-)}_{\chi_h^{s}}.
\end{equation}
From Proposition \ref{Pbw} and formula (\ref{ker}) we obtain also the direct sum
\begin{equation}\label{maindecqg}
{\cal F}_h(G^*)={\cal F}_h(B_+)\oplus I_{\chi_h^{s}},
\end{equation}
where $I_{\chi_h^{s}}={\cal F}_h(G^*){{\cal F}_h(N_-)}_{\chi_h^{s}}$ is the
left--sided
ideal generated by ${{\cal F}_h(N_-)}_{\chi_h^{s}}$.
Denote by $\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}$ the projection onto ${\cal F}_h(B_+)$ in the
direct sum
(\ref{maindecqg}).
Let $Z({\cal F}_h(G^*))$ be the center of ${\cal F}_h(G^*)$.
Similarly to the classical case we define a subspace $W_h(B_+)$ in ${\cal
F}_h(B_+)$ by
$W_h(B_+)=\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}(Z({\cal F}_h(G^*)))$.
To formulate the quantum version of Theorem A for $W_h(B_+)$ we recall that
for any finite--dimensional $\frak g$--module $V$ the element
$$
C_V=(id\otimes tr_V)((S^{s}\otimes id)(L^{+,V})L^{-,V}(1\otimes
e^{2h\rho^\vee})),
$$
where $tr_V$ is the
trace in $V[[h]]$, is central in ${\cal F}_h(G^*)$ (see formulas
(\ref{centrelv}) and (\ref{S})).
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Theorem $\bf A_q$}
{\em (i)The map
\begin{equation}\label{qgrho}
\rho_{\chi_h^{s_\pi}}:Z({\cal F}_h(G^*))\rightarrow W_h(B_+)
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism of algebras.
(ii) The algebra $W_h(B_+)$ is freely generated as a commutative topological
algebra over ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$ by
the elements
$C_{V_i}^{\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}}=\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}(C_{V_i}),~i=1,\ldots ,l$, where
$V_i,~i=1,\ldots l$ are the fundamental representations of $\frak g$.}
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\em Proof} of (i) is similar to that of Theorem A in the classical case.
Part (ii) will be proved in Section \ref{cross}.
\begin{corollary}
The algebra $Z({\cal F}_h(G^*))$ is freely generated as a commutative
topological algebra over ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$ by the
elements $C_{V_i}$,
where $V_i,~i=1,\ldots l$ are the fundamental representations of $\frak g$.
\end{corollary}
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Definition $\bf A_q$}
{\em The algebra
$$
W_h(B_+)=\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}(Z({\cal F}_h(G^*))).
$$
is called the Whittaker model of the center $Z({\cal F}_h(G^*))$.}
\vskip 0.3cm
Now following Section \ref{whitt} (see Lemma A) we equip ${\cal F}_h(B_+)$ with
a structure of a left ${\cal F}_h(N_-)$ module in such a
way that $W_h(B_+)$ is realized as the space of invariants with respect to this
action.
For every $v\in {\cal F}_h(B_+)$ and $x\in {\cal F}_h(N_-)$ we put
\begin{equation}\label{mainactqg}
x\cdot v =\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}([x,v]).
\end{equation}
Consider the space ${\cal F}_h(B_+)^{{\cal F}_h(N_-)}$ of ${\cal F}_h(N_-)$
invariants
in ${\cal F}_h(B_+)$ with respect to this
action. Clearly,
$W_h(B_+)\subseteq {\cal F}_h(B_+)^{{\cal F}_h(N_-)}$.
To formulate the quantum version of Theorem B for $W_h(B_+)$ we have to impose a
restriction on the coefficients
$c_i$ in (\ref{charq}).
Define an element $u\in N_-$ by
\begin{equation}\label{u}
u=\prod_{i=1}^lexp[2d_ic_{i}^0 X_{-\alpha_i}],~c_i^0=c_i~(\mbox{mod }h),
\end{equation}
where the terms in the product are ordered as in (\ref{charq}).
The motivation for this definition will be explained in the next section.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Theorem $\bf B_q$ }
{\em
Suppose that $u\in N_+sN_+\cap N_-$, where $s$ stands for a representative of
the Coxeter element in $G$.
Then the space of ${\cal F}_h(N_-)$ invariants
in ${\cal F}_h(B_+)$ with respect to the
action (\ref{mainactqg}) is isomorphic to $W_h(B_+)$, i.e.}
\begin{equation}\label{invqg}
{\cal F}_h(B_+)^{{\cal F}_h(N_-)}\cong W_h(B_+).
\end{equation}
\vskip 0.3cm
The proof of this theorem occupies two next sections.
\begin{remark}
The following lemma shows that the set $N_+sN_+\cap N_-$ is not empty.
\begin{lemma}{\bf (\cite{st}, Lemma 4.5)}\label{f}
Let $w_0\in W$ be the longest element; let $\tau \in Aut$ $\Delta _{+}$ be
the automorphism defined by $\tau \left( \alpha \right) =-w_0\alpha
,\alpha \in \Delta _{+}.$ Let $N_i\subset N_+$ be the 1-parameter subgroup
generated by the root vector $X_{\tau \left( \alpha _i\right) },i=1,\ldots l$.
Choose an element $u_i\in N_i,u_i\neq 1.$ Then we have
$w_0u_iw_0^{-1}\in B_+s_iB_+.$
We may fix $u_i$ in such a way that $w_0u_iw_0^{-1}\in N_+s_iN_+.$ Set
$x=u_1u_{2}...u_l$. Then $f=w_0xw_0^{-1}\in N_+sN_+\cap N_-.$
\end{lemma}
\end{remark}
Similarly to Proposition \ref{hkhom} we also have the following homological
description of $W_h(B_+)$.
\begin{proposition}
Suppose that the conditions of Theorem $B_q$ are satisfied. Then $W_h(B_+)$ is
isomorphic to
$Hk^0({\cal F}_h(G^*),{\cal F}_h(N_-),\chi_h^{s})^{opp}$ as an associative
algebra.
\end{proposition}
\section{Poisson reduction and the Whittaker model}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
In this section we start the proof of Theorem ${\rm B}_q$. We shall analyse the
quasiclassical limit of
the algebra ${\cal F}_h(B_+)^{{\cal F}_h(N_-)}$. Using results of Section
\ref{poisred}
we realize this limit algebra as the algebra of functions on a reduced
Poisson manifold.
Denote ${\cal F}(N_\pm)=p({\cal F}_h(N_\pm)),~{\cal F}(B_\pm)=p({\cal
F}_h(B_\pm)),
~{\cal F}(H)=p({\cal F}_h(H))$.
We denote by $\chi_h^{s}$ the character of the Poisson subalgebra ${\cal
F}(N_-)$ such that
$\chi^{s}(p(x))=\chi_h^{s}(x)~(\mbox{mod }h)$ for every $x\in {\cal F}_h(N_-)$.
From (\ref{charq}) we have
\begin{equation}\label{charcl}
(\chi^{s}\otimes id)p(N^{-,V})=
\prod_{i=1}^lexp[2d_ic_{i}^0 \otimes
\pi_V(X_{-\alpha_i})],~~c_i^0=c_i~(\mbox{mod }h).
\end{equation}
Let ${{\cal F}(N_-)}_{\chi^{s}}$ be the kernel of the character $\chi^{s}$
so that one has a direct sum
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}(N_-)={\Bbb C}\oplus {{\cal F}(N_-)}_{\chi^{s}}.
\end{equation}
Similarly to (\ref{maindecqg}) we have the direct sum
\begin{equation}\label{maindeccl}
{\cal F}(G^*)={\cal F}(B_+)\oplus I_{\chi^{s}},
\end{equation}
where $I_{\chi^{s}}={\cal F}(G^*){{\cal F}(N_-)}_{\chi^{s}}$ is the left--sided
ideal generated by ${{\cal F}(N_-)}_{\chi^{s}}$.
Denote by $\rho_{\chi^{s}}$ the projection onto ${\cal F}(B_+)$ in the direct
sum
(\ref{maindeccl}).
Using Lemma ${\rm A}_q$ we define the quasiclassical limit of action
(\ref{mainactqg}) by
\begin{equation}\label{mainactcl}
x\cdot v =\rho_{\chi^{s}}(\{x,v\} ),
\end{equation}
where $v\in {\cal F}(B_+)$ and $x\in {\cal F}(N_-)$.
We shall describe the space of invariants ${\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}$ with
respect to this action by analysing
``dual geometric objects''.
First observe that algebra ${\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}$ is a particular
example of the
reduced Poisson algebra introduced in Lemma \ref{redspace}.
Indeed, define a map $\mu_{N_-}:G^* \rightarrow N_-$ by
\begin{equation}\label{mun}
\mu_{N_+}(L_+,L_-)=n_-,
\end{equation}
where $n_-$ is given by (\ref{fact}). $\mu_{N_-}$ is a morphism of algebraic
varieties.
We also note that by definition ${\cal F}(N_-)=\{ \varphi\in {\cal
F}(G^*):\varphi=
\varphi(n_-)\}$. Therefore ${\cal F}(N_-)$ is generated by the pullbacks of
regular functions on $N_-$.
Since ${\cal F}(N_-)$ is a Poisson subalgebra in ${\cal F}(G^*)$, and regular
functions
on $N_-$ are dense in $C^\infty(N_-)$ on every compact subset, we can equip the
manifold $N_-$ with
the Poisson structure in such a way that $\mu_{N_+}$ becomes a Poisson mapping.
Let $u$ be the element defined by (\ref{u}),
\begin{equation}
u=\prod_{i=1}^lexp[2d_ic_{i}^0 X_{-\alpha_i}]~ \in N_-.
\end{equation}
Then from (\ref{charcl}) it follows that $\chi^s(\varphi)=\varphi (u)$
for every $\varphi \in {\cal F}(N_-)$. $\chi^s$ naturally extends to a character
of the
Poisson algebra $C^\infty(N_-)$.
Now applying Lemma \ref{redspace} for $M=G^*,~B=N_-,~\pi=\mu_{N_+},~b=u$ we can
define the
reduced Poisson algebra $C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))^{C^\infty(N_-)}$ (see also
Remark \ref{redpoisalg}).
Denote by $I_u$ the ideal in $C^\infty(G^*)$ generated by elements
$\mu_{N_+}^*\psi,~\psi \in C^\infty(N_-),
~\psi(u)=0$. Let $P_u:C^\infty(G^*)\rightarrow
C^\infty(G^*)/I_u=C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$ be the
canonical projection. Then the action (\ref{redact}) of $C^\infty(N_-)$ on
$C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$
takes the form:
\begin{equation}\label{actred}
\psi\cdot \varphi=P_u(\{ \mu_{N_+}^*\psi, \tilde \varphi\}),
\end{equation}
where $\psi \in C^\infty(N_-),~\varphi \in C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$ and
$\tilde \varphi \in C^\infty(G^*)$
is a representative of $\varphi$ such that $P_u\tilde \varphi=\varphi$.
\begin{lemma}\label{redreg}
$\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)$ is a subvariety in $G^*$. Moreover, the algebra
${\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}$ is isomorphic to the algebra of regular
functions on
$\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)$ which are invariant with respect to the action
(\ref{actred}) of
$C^\infty(N_-)$ on $C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$, i.e.
$$
{\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}={\cal F}(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))\cap
C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))^{C^\infty(N_-)}.
$$
\end{lemma}
{\em Proof.}
By definition $\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)$ is a subvariety in $G^*$. Next observe that
$I_{\chi^{s}}=
{\cal F}(G^*)\cap I_u$. Therefore the algebra ${\cal F}(B_+)={\cal
F}(G^*)/I_{\chi^{s}}$ is
identified with the algebra of regular functions on $\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)$.
Since ${\cal F}(N_-)$ is dense in $C^\infty(N_-)$ on every compact subset in
$N_-$ we have:
$$
C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))^{C^\infty(N_-)}\cong
C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))^{{\cal F}(N_-)}.
$$
Finally observe that action (\ref{actred}) coincides with action
(\ref{mainactcl}) when restricted to
regular functions.
We shall realize the
algebra $C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))^{C^\infty(N_-)}$ as the algebra of
functions on a reduced
Poisson manifold. In the spirit of Lemma \ref{redspace} we shall construct a map
that forms
a dual pair together with the mapping $\mu_{N_+}$. In this construction we use
the dressing
action of the Poisson--Lie group $G$ on $G^*$ (see Proposition
\ref{dressingact}).
Consider the restriction of the dressing action $G^*\times G \rightarrow G^*$ to
the subgroup $N_+\subset G$.
Note that by Proposition \ref{bpm} (i), (iii) and Proposition \ref{admiss} $N_+$
is an admissible
subgroup in $G$.
Therefore $C^\infty (G^*)^{N_+}$ is a subalgebra in the Poisson algebra
$C^\infty (G^*)$.
\begin{proposition}
The algebra $C^\infty (G^*)^{N_+}$ is the centralizer of
$\mu_{N_+}^*\left( C^\infty \left( N_-\right)\right)$ in the Poisson algebra
$C^\infty (G^*)$.
\end{proposition}
{\em Proof.}
We shall prove the proposition in a few steps. First we restrict the dressing
action of $G$ on $G^*$ the
the Borel subgroup $B_+$.
According to part (iii) of Proposition \ref{bpm} $({\frak b}_+,{\frak b}_-)$ is
a subbialgebra of
$({\frak g},{\frak g}^*)$. Therefore $B_+$ is a Poisson--Lie subgroup in $G$.
By Proposition
\ref{dressingact} for $X \in {\frak b}_+$ we have:
\begin{equation}
L_{\widehat X} \varphi(L_+,L_-) =( \theta_{G^*}(L_+,L_-) , X ) (\xi_\varphi )=
(r_-^{-1}\mu_{B_+}^*(\theta_{B_-}) , X) (\xi_\varphi ),
\end{equation}
where $\widehat X$ is the corresponding vector field on $G^*$,
$\xi_\varphi $ is the Hamiltonian vector field of $\varphi \in C^\infty (G^*)$,
and the map
$\mu_{B_+}:G^*\rightarrow B_-$ is defined by $\mu_{B_+}(L_+,L_-)=L_-$.
Now from Proposition \ref{bpm} (iv) and the definition of the moment map it
follows that
$\mu_{B_+}$ is a moment map for the dressing action of the subgroup $B_+$ on
$G^*$.
Observe that the orthogonal complement of the Lie subalgebra ${\frak n}_+
\subset {\frak b}_+$
in the dual space ${\frak b}_-$ coincides with the Lie subalgebra ${\frak
h}\subset {\frak b}_-$.
Hence by Proposition \ref{admiss} $N_+$ is an admissible subgroup
in the Lie--Poisson group $B_+$. Moreover the dual group $B_-$ is the semidirect
product of the Lie groups
$H$ and $N_-$ corresponding to the Lie algebras ${\frak n}_+^\perp ={\frak h}$
and
${\frak n}_+^*={\frak n}_-$ , respectively.
We conclude that all the conditions of Proposition \ref{QPmoment}
are satisfied with $A=B_+ , K=N_+ , A^*=B_-,
T=N_- , K^\perp = H, \mu =\mu_{B_+}$.
It follows that the algebra $C^\infty (G^*)^{N_+}$ is the centralizer of
$\mu_{N_+}^*\left( C^\infty \left( N_-\right)\right)$ in the Poisson algebra
$C^\infty (G^*)$.
This completes the proof.
Let $G^*/N_+$ be the quotient of $G^*$ with respect to the dressing action of
$N_+$,
$\pi:G^* \rightarrow G^*/N_+$
the canonical projection. Note that the space $G^*/N_+$ is not a smooth
manifold. However,
in the next section we will see that the subspace $\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))\subset
G^*/N_+$ is
a smooth manifold. Therefore by Remark \ref{remred} the algebra
$C^\infty(\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)))$
is isomorphic to $C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))^{C^\infty(N_-)}$. Moreover we will
see that
$\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$ has a structure of algebraic variety.
Using Lemma \ref{redreg} we will obtain that the algebra ${\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal
F}(N_-)}$
is the algebra of regular functions on this variety.
\section{Cross--section theorem}\label{cross}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
In this section we describe the reduced space $\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))\subset
G^*/N_+$ and the algebra
${\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}$. We also complete the proof of Theorem ${\rm
B}_q$.
First observe that using the embedding $q:G^*\rightarrow G$ (see Proposition
\ref{dressingact}) one can
reduce the study of the dressing action to the study of the action of $G$ on
itself by conjugations.
This simplifies many geometric problems. In particular, consider the restriction
of this action to
the subgroup $N_+$. Denote by $\pi_q:G\rightarrow G/N_+$
the canonical projection onto the quotient with respect to this action. Then we
can identify the reduced
space $\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$ with the subspace $\pi_q(q(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)))$
in $G/N_+$.
Using this identification we shall explicitly
describe the reduced space $\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$.
We start with description of the image of the ``level surface''
$\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)$ under the embedding
$q$.
\begin{proposition}\label{constrt}
Let $q:G^*\rightarrow G$ be the map introduced in Proposition \ref{dressingact},
$$
q(L_+,L_-)=L_-L_+^{-1}.
$$
Then $q(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$ is a subvariety in $N_+sN_+$.
\end{proposition}
{\em Proof.} First, using definition (\ref{mun}) of the map $\mu_{N_+}$ we can
describe the space
$\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)$ as
follows:
\begin{equation}\label{mun1}
\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)=\{(h_+n_+,s(h_+)u) | n_+ \in N_+ , h_+ \in H \},
\end{equation}
since by (\ref{fact}) $h_-=s(h_+)$. Therefore
\begin{equation}\label{dva}
q(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))=
\{ s(h_+)un_+^{-1}h_+^{-1}| n_+ \in N_+ , h_+ \in H \}.
\end{equation}
Now recall that $u \in N_+sN_+\cap N_-$, and hence
\begin{equation}\label{ras}
un_+^{-1}\in N_+sN_+.
\end{equation}
Next, the space $N_+sN_+$ is invariant with respect to
the following action of $H$:
\begin{equation}\label{tri}
h\circ L= s(h)Lh^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Indeed, let $L=vsu,~ v,u \in N_+$ be an element of $N_+sN_+$. Then
\begin{equation}
h\circ L=s(h)vs(h)^{-1}s(h)sh^{-1}huh^{-1}=s(h)vs(h)^{-1}shuh^{-1}.
\end{equation}
The r.h.s. of the last equality belongs to $N_+sN_+$ because $H$ normalizes
$N_+$.
Comparing action (\ref{tri}) with (\ref{dva}) and adding (\ref{ras}) we obtain
that
$q(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(f)) \subset N_+sN_+$. Since $q$ is an embedding,
$q(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(f))$ is a subvariety in $N_+sN_+$.
This concludes the proof.
We identify $\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)$ with the subvariety in
$N_+sN_+$ described in the previous proposition.
As we observed in the beginning of this section
the reduced space $\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$ is isomorphic to
$\pi_q(q(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)))$.
Note that by Proposition \ref{constrt} $q(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))\subset N_+sN_+$.
But the variety $N_+sN_+$
is stable under the action of $N_+$ by conjugations. Therefore to describe
the reduced space $\pi_q(q(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)))$ we have to study the structure
of the quotient
$N_+sN_+/N_+$. Our main geometric result is
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Theorem $\bf C_q$ (\cite{SS}, Theorem 3.1)}
{\em Let $N_+'=\{ v \in N_+|s^{-1}(v)\in N_- \}$.
Then the action of $N_+$ on $N_+sN_+$ by conjugations is free, and
$N_+'s$ is a cross--section for this action, i.e.
for each $L\in N_+sN_+$ there exists a unique
element $n\in N_+$ such that $n L n^{-1}\in N_+'s$.
Moreover, the projection $\pi_q: N_+sN_+\rightarrow N_+'s$ is a morphism of
varieties.}
\begin{lemma}{\bf (\cite {Ch}, Theorem 8.4.3, \cite{st} Lemma 7.2)}
$N_+'\subset N$ is an
abelian subgroup, $\dim N_+'=l.$ Moreover,
every element $L\in N_+sN_+$ may be uniquely represented in the form $L=vsu ,
v\in N_+' , u\in N_+$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent
{\em Proof of Theorem $ C_q$.}
Denote by $h$ the Coxeter number of $\frak g$. By definition $h$ is the order of
the Coxeter element,
$s^h=id$. Note that $h={2N \over l}$.
Let $C_s\subset W$ be the cyclic subgroup generated by the Coxeter element. $%
C_s$ has exactly $l$ different orbits in $\Delta$.
The proof depends on the structure of these orbits. For this
reason we have to distinguish several cases\footnote{ The proofs given below do
not apply when $\frak g$
is the simple Lie algebra of type $E_6$.}.
1.Let ${\frak g}$ be of type $ A_l.$
The following lemma is checked by straightforward calculation.
\begin{lemma}
(i) Each orbit of $C_s$ in $\Delta$ consists of exactly $h$ elements.
One can order these orbits in such a way
that $k$-th orbit contains all positive roots of height $k$ and all negative
roots of height $h-k.$
\end{lemma}
Put
\[
{\frak n}_k=\bigoplus_{\left\{ \alpha \in \Delta _{+},\;ht\,\alpha
=k\right\} }{\frak n}_\alpha ,N_k=\exp {\frak n}_k.
\]
For each $k$ we can choose $\gamma _k\in \Delta _{+}$ in such a way that
\[
{\frak n}_k=\bigoplus_{p=0}^{h-k-1}{\frak n}_{s^{-p}\left( \gamma_k\right) }.
\]
Put ${\frak n}_k^p={\frak n}_{s^{-p}\left( \gamma_k\right) },N_k^p=\exp {\frak %
n}_k^p.$
Let $L=vsu,v\in N_+',u\in N_+$. We must
find $n\in N_+$ such that
\begin{equation}
nvsu=v_0sn,~v_0\in N_+'. \label{nx}
\end{equation}
For any $n\in N_+$ there exists a factorization
\[
n=n_1n_2\ldots n_l,\mbox{ where } n_k\in N_k.
\]
Moreover, each $n_k$ may be factorized as
\[
n_k=n_k^0n_k^1\ldots n_k^{h-k-1},\;n_k^p\in N_k^p.
\]
For any $n\in N_+$ the element $nvsu$
admits a representation
\[
nvsu=\tilde vs\tilde u,\;\tilde v\in N_+',~
\tilde u\in N_+.
\]
Let
\[
\tilde u=\overrightarrow{\prod_{k=1}^l}\overrightarrow{\,\prod_{p=0}^{h-k-1}}%
\tilde u_k^p,\;\tilde u_k^p\in N_k^p,
\]
be the corresponding factorization of $\tilde u.$
\begin{lemma}
We have $\tilde u_k^p= s^{-1}\left( n_k^{p-1}\right) V_k^p,$ where the
factors $V_k^p\in N_k^p$ depend only on $u,v$ and on $n_j^q$ with $%
j<k.$
\end{lemma}
Assume now that $n$ satisfies (\ref{nx}). Then we have $\tilde v=v_0,\tilde
u=n.$ This leads to the following relations:
\begin{equation}
s^{-1}\left( n_k^{p-1}\right) V_k^p=n_k^p, \label{recur}
\end{equation}
where we set formally $n_k^{-1}=1.$
\begin{lemma}
The system (\ref{recur}) may be solved recursively starting with $k=1,$ $%
p=0. $
\end{lemma}
Clearly, the solution is unique. This concludes the proof for ${\frak g}$ of
type $A_l.$
2. Let now ${\frak g}$ be a simple Lie algebra of type other than $A_l$ and $%
E_6$.
\begin{lemma}
(i) The Coxeter number $h$ is even.
(ii) Each orbit
of $C_s$ in $\Delta$ consists of exactly $%
h$ elements and contains an equal number of positive and negative roots.
(iii) Put
\[
\Delta _{+}^p=\{\alpha \in \Delta _{+};s^{p}\alpha \notin \Delta
_{+}\},\;{\frak n}^p=\bigoplus_{\alpha \in \Delta _{+}^p}{\Bbb C}\cdot
X_\alpha ;
\]
then ${\frak n}^p\subset {\frak n}$ is an abelian subalgebra, $\dim {\frak n}%
^p=l.$
\end{lemma}
If $\frak g$ is not of type $D_{2k+1}$ this assertion follows from
Proposition 33, Chap.6, no. 1.11 and Corollary 3, Chap.5, no. 6.2 in \cite{Bur}.
For $\frak g$ of type $D_{2k+1}$ it may be
checked directly.
Put $N^p=\exp {\frak n}^p$. Let $N^p$ be the corresponding subgroup
of $G.$ Let $L=vsu,~v\in
N_+',~u\in N_+$. We must find $n\in N_+$ such that
\[
vsu=nv_0sn^{-1},~v_0\in N_+'.
\]
Put
\begin{equation}
n=n_1n_2\ldots n_{\frac h2},~~n_p\in {N}_p. \label{n}
\end{equation}
The elements $n_p$ will be determined recursively.
We have
\begin{equation}
vs\left( u\right) =\overrightarrow{\prod_p }n_p v_0 s\left(
\overleftarrow{\prod_p}n_p^{-1}\right).
\label{nnn}
\end{equation}
We shall say that an element $x\in G$ is in the big cell in $G$
if $x \in B_+N_-\subset G.$
\begin{lemma}
$vs\left( u\right) $ is in the big cell in $G$ and admits
a factorization
\[
vs\left( u\right) =x_{+}^1 x_{-}^1,\;x_{+}^1\in N_+%
,\;x_{-}^1\in N_-.
\]
\end{lemma}
Indeed, let $u=u_{h/2}u_{h/2-1}\ldots u_1,~u_p\in N^p$ be a
similar decomposition of $u$. Then we have simply $x_{-}=s\left(
u_1\right) .\ $(It is clear that $x_{+}^1\in B_+$ actually does not
have an $H$-component and so belongs to $N_+$
A comparison of the r.h.s in (\ref{nnn}) with the Bruhat decomposition of
the l.h.s. immediately yields that the first factor in (\ref{n}) is given by
$n_1=s^{-1}\left( x_{-}\right) ^{-1}.$
Assume that $n_1,n_2,\ldots ,n_{k-1}$ are already computed. Put
\[
m_k=n_1n_2\ldots n_{k-1}
\]
and consider the element
\begin{equation}
L^k:=s^{k-1}\left( m_k^{-1}vs(u)s(m_k)\right) .
\label{Lk}
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}
$L^k$ is in the big cell in $G$ and admits a factorization
\begin{equation}
L^k=x_{+}^kx_{-}^k,\;x_{+}^k\in N_+,\;x_{-}^k\in N_-.
\label{fk}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
The elements $x_{\pm }^k$ are computed recursively from the known
quantities. By applying a similar transform to the r.h.s. of (\ref{nnn}) we
get
\begin{eqnarray}
L^k &=&s^{k-1}\left( m_k^{-1}
\overrightarrow{\prod_p}n_p v_0s\left(
\overleftarrow{\prod_p}n_p^{-1}\right) s(m_k) \right)
= \label{Lrhs}
\end{eqnarray}
\[
s^{k-1}\left( \overrightarrow{\prod_{p\geq k}}n_p
v_0\right) s^{k}\left( \overleftarrow{\prod_{p\geq k+1}}
n_p^{-1}\right)s^{k}\left( n_k^{-1}\right) .
\]
Comparison of (\ref{Lrhs}) and (\ref{fk}) yields $x_{-}^k=s^{k}\left(
n_k^{-1}\right)$. Hence $n_k=s^{-k}\left( x_{-}^k\right)^{-1}$, which concludes
the induction.
Finally observe that by construction the map $\pi_q: N_+sN_+\rightarrow N_+'s$
is a morphism of varieties.
\begin{corollary}\label{var}
The space
$\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$ is a subvariety in $N_+'s$. The algebra
${\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}$ is isomorphic to the algebra of regular
functions on
$\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$.
\end{corollary}
{\em Proof.}
First observe that by construction
$\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))\cong \pi_q(q(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)))$ is a subvariety in
$N_+'s$.
In particular, $\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$ is a smooth manifold. Hence by Remark
\ref{remred}
the map
$$
C^\infty(\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)))\rightarrow
C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))^{C^\infty(N_-)},~~\psi \mapsto \pi^*\psi
$$
is an isomorphism.
Now observe that by construction the map $\pi: \mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)\rightarrow
\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$
is a morphism of varieties. Therefore if $\psi \in {\cal
F}(\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)))$ then
$\pi^*\psi$ is a regular function on $\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)$. Conversely, suppose
that $\varphi \in
{\cal F}(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))\cap C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))^{C^\infty(N_-)}$.
Note that $\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$ may be regarded as a subvariety in
$\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)$
(see Remark \ref{redpoisalg}). Then the restriction of
$\varphi$ to $\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))\subset \mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)$ is a regular
function.
Therefore the map
$$
{\cal F}(\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)))\rightarrow {\cal F}(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))\cap
C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))^{C^\infty(N_-)},~~\psi \mapsto \pi^*\psi
$$
is an isomorphism.
Finally observe that by Lemma \ref{redreg} the algebra ${\cal
F}(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))\cap
C^\infty(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))^{C^\infty(N_-)}$ is isomorphic to ${\cal
F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}$.
This completes the proof.
Theorem ${\rm C}_q$ is a group counterpart of Theorem C. Moreover the space
$N_+'s$ naturally appears in the study of regular elements in $G$. Recall that
an element of
$G$ is called regular if its centralizer in $G$ is of minimal possible
dimension. Let $R$ be
the set of regular elements in $G$. Clearly, $R$ is stable under the action of
$G$ on itself
by conjugations and in fact $R$
is the union of all $G$ orbits in $G$ of maximal dimension.
A function $\psi$ on $G$ is called a class function if $f(x)=f(y)$ whenever $x$
and $y$ are conjugate
points of definition of $\psi$.
We denote by ${\cal F}^G(G)$ the algebra of regular class functions on $G$.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Theorem $\bf D_q$ (\cite{st}, Theorems 1.4 and 6.1)}
{\em Let $G$ be a complex connected simply connected simple algebraic group.
Then
The space $N_+'s$ is contained in $R$ and is a cross--section for the action of
$G$ on $R$.
That is every $G$--orbit in $G$ of maximal dimension intersects $N_+'s$ in one
and only one point.
The algebra of regular class functions on $G$ is freely generated as a
commutative algebra
over $\Bbb C$ by the characters of fundamental representations of $G$,
$\chi_1,\ldots , \chi_l$.
Moreover, $N_+'s$ is an algebraic variety, and the algebra of regular functions
on $N_+'s$ is
freely generated as a commutative algebra over $\Bbb C$ by the restrictions of
the characters
$\chi_1,\ldots , \chi_l$ to $N_+'s$ .}
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\bf Theorem $\bf E_q$}
{\em For any $\psi \in {\cal F}^G(G)$ one has $\rho_{\chi^{s}}(p^*\psi) \in
{\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}$.
Furthermore the map
\begin{equation}\label{isoreg}
{\cal F}^G(G)\rightarrow {\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}, \psi \mapsto
\rho_{\chi^{s}}(p^*\psi)
\end{equation}
is an algebra isomorphism. In particular,
$$
{\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}={\Bbb C}[\rho_{\chi^{s}}(p^*\chi_1),\ldots ,
\rho_{\chi^{s}}(p^*\chi_l)]
$$
is a polynomial algebra in $l$ generators.}
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\em Proof.}
Let $\psi$ be an element of ${\cal F}^G(G)$. The restriction of $\psi$ to
the subvariety $\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))\cong \pi_q(q(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)))\subset
N_+'s \subset G$
is a regular function. Using the isomorphism
${\cal F}(\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)))\cong {\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}$ (see
Corollary \ref{var}) this
restriction may be identified with
$\rho_{\chi^{s}}(q^*\psi)\in {\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}$.
By Theorem ${\rm D}_q$ the
algebra ${\cal F}(N_+'s)$ is freely generated as a commutative algebra over
$\Bbb C$ by the restrictions of
the fundamental characters
$\chi_1,\ldots , \chi_l$. Since $\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u))$ is a subvariety in
$N_+'s$ the algebra
${\cal F}(\pi(\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)))$ is generated by the restrictions of the
fundamental characters
$\chi_1,\ldots , \chi_l$. Therefore the map (\ref{isoreg}) is surjective.
We have to prove that it is injective.
Let $\chi_i$ be a fundamental character.
Consider the restriction of the function $\rho_{\chi^{s}}(q^*\chi_i)$ to the
subspace in
$\mu_{N_+}^{-1}(u)$ formed by elements (see (\ref{mun1})):
$$
(h_+,s(h_+)u),~h_+\in H.
$$
Then $\rho_{\chi^{s}}(q^*\chi_i)(h_+,s(h_+)u)=\chi_i(s(h_+)uh_+^{-1})$. Since
$\chi_i$ is a character
we have $\chi_i(s(h_+)uh_+^{-1})=\chi_i(h_+^{-1}s(h_+)u)$. The element $u$ is
unipotent, and hence
$\chi_i(h_+^{-1}s(h_+)u)=\chi_i(h_+^{-1}s(h_+))$. Now recall that the
restrictions of the fundamental
characters to the Cartan subgroup are algebraically independent (they are given
by the well--known Weyl
formula). Therefore (\ref{isoreg}) is an isomorphism. This completes the proof.
\vskip 0.3cm
\noindent
{\em Proof of Theorem $B_q$.}
Let $p:{\cal F}_h(G^*)\rightarrow {\cal F}(G^*)$ be the map defined in
Proposition \ref{quantreg}.
Let $W_h^{Rep}(B_+)$ be the subalgebra in
$W_h(B_+)$ topologically generated by the elements
$C_{V_i}^{\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}}=\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}(C_{V_i}),~i=1,\ldots ,l$.
From the the definition of the elements $C_{V_i}^{\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}}$ it follows
that
$p(C_{V_i}^{\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}})=\rho_{\chi^{s}}(p^*\chi_i)$.
Therefore by Theorem ${\rm E}_q$ $p(W_h^{Rep}(B_+))={\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal
F}(N_-)}$,
and $W_h^{Rep}(B_+)$ is freely generated as a commutative topological algebra
over ${\Bbb C}[[h]]$ by the elements
$C_{V_i}^{\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}}=\rho_{\chi_h^{s}}(C_{V_i}),~i=1,\ldots ,l$.
On the other hand using the definitions of the algebras ${\cal F}_h(B_+)^{{\cal
F}_h(N_-)}$ and
${\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}$ it is easy to see that $p({\cal F}_h(B_+)^{{\cal
F}_h(N_-)})=
{\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}$. We shall prove that $W_h^{Rep}(B_+)$ is
isomorphic to
${\cal F}_h(B_+)^{{\cal F}_h(N_-)}$.
Let $I\in {\cal F}_h(B_+)^{{\cal F}_h(N_-)}$ be an invariant element.
Then $p(I)\in {\cal F}(B_+)^{{\cal F}(N_-)}$, and hence one can find an element
$K_0\in
W_h^{Rep}(B_+)$ such
that $I-K_0=hI_1,~I_1\in {\cal F}_h(B_+)^{{\cal F}_h(N_-)}$. Applying the same
procedure
to $I_1$ one can find elements $K_1\in W_h^{Rep}(B_+),
~I_2\in {\cal F}_h(B_+)^{{\cal F}_h(N_-)}$ such that $I_1-K_1=hI_2$, i.e.
$I-K_0-hK_1=0~(\mbox{mod }h^2)$.
We can continue this process. Finally we obtain an infinite sequence of elements
$K_i\in W_h^{Rep}(B_+)$ such that $I-\sum_{i=0}^p h^pK_p=0~(\mbox{mod
}h^{p+1})$. Since the space
${\cal F}_h(B_+)$ is complete in the $h$--adic topology the series
$\sum_{i=0}^\infty h^pK_p\in W_h^{Rep}(B_+)$
converges to $I$. Therefore $I\in W_h^{Rep}(B_+)$, and hence
${\cal F}_h(B_+)^{{\cal F}_h(N_-)}$ is isomorphic to $W_h^{Rep}(B_+)$.
We also have the following inclusions:
$$
W_h^{Rep}(B_+)\subseteq W_h(B_+)\subseteq {\cal F}_h(B_+)^{{\cal F}_h(N_-)}
\cong W_h^{Rep}(B_+).
$$
Therefore $W_h^{Rep}(B_+)$ coincides with $W_h(B_+)$.
This proves part (ii) of Theorem ${\rm A}_q$ and Theorem ${\rm B}_q$.
\chapter*{Acknowledgements}
The first words of gratitude are due to Professor Michael Semenov--Tian--Shansky
for guidance into
the world of Modern Mathematical Physics. This thesis is essentially based on
his ideas.
I am greatly indebted my advisor in Uppsala Doctor Anton Alekseev for his
continuous support,
for many insightful discussions and for continuous encouragement.
I gratefully acknowledge Prof. Antti Niemi and his research group at the
Department
of Theoretical Physics at Uppsala University for providing
an excellent working atmosphere.
The Department of Theoretical Physics in Uppsala University has provided
excellent
facilities for research, which are gratefully acknowledged.
I wish to thank MSc Mats Lilja for his patient help in many and various
practical matters
during my stay in Uppsala.
\pagestyle{plain}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Shortly after the launch of the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer ({\it RXTE})
in December 1995, observation with {\it RXTE}\ of neutron-star
low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) revealed that several sources had a
single, highly coherent, high-amplitude
brightness oscillation during at least one thermonuclear X-ray burst (for
reviews see Strohmayer, Zhang, \& Swank 1997; Strohmayer, Swank,
\& Zhang 1998a). The asymptotic frequency
of these oscillations in the tails of bursts is so similar in
different bursts from a single source, and the oscillation
is so coherent in the tail (see, e.g., Strohmayer \& Markwardt
1999), that it is almost certain that this
asymptotic frequency is the stellar spin frequency or its first
overtone. These burst oscillations therefore provided the first
direct evidence for the value of the spin frequencies of these
LMXBs, and they corroborate strongly the proposed evolutionary link
between LMXBs and millisecond rotation-powered pulsars. In addition,
the stability of the frequency in the tails of the bursts has
led to their application as promising probes of the binary systems
themselves (Strohmayer et al.\ 1998b).
The existence of burst oscillations indicates that the
emission from the surface, and hence the thermonuclear
burning, is not uniform over the entire star. This is in
accord with theoretical expectations (Joss 1978; Ruderman 1981;
Shara 1982; Livio \& Bath 1982; Fryxell \& Woosley 1982;
Nozakura, Ikeuchi, \& Fujimoto 1984; Bildsten 1995), and it suggests
that the properties of the burst oscillations, such as the
evolution of their
frequency or amplitude, may contain valuable information
about the propagation of thermonuclear burning over the
surface of the neutron star. The lessons learned
from study of the thermonuclear propagation in bursts may
ultimately further our understanding of thermonuclear propagation
in other astrophysical contexts, such as classical novae
and Type Ia supernovae. Unlike in
novae or Type Ia supernovae, burning in thermonuclear X-ray
bursts occurs near the surface and occurs often for a single
source, and is therefore relatively easy to observe. The detailed
study of burst brightness oscillations therefore has broad
importance.
Here we describe in detail the frequency behavior of the burst
oscillations in five bursts from 4U~1636--536, which is an
LMXB with an orbital period of 3.8 hours
(see, e.g., van Paradijs et al.\ 1990). This source is of
special interest because it produces detectable signals at
both the fundamental and the first overtone of the stellar
spin frequency (Miller 1999), and because near the beginning
of one burst the brightness oscillations reached the highest
amplitude ---50\% rms--- so far recorded for oscillations
during a thermonuclear burst (Strohmayer et al.\ 1998c).
In \S~2 we analyze the light curves of the bursts,
and the frequency and amplitude of the brightness oscillations
in the four of those five bursts that have strong brightness
oscillations for most of the duration of the burst.
We find that, despite apparent
similarities in the light curves of three of those four bursts, the
amplitude and frequency behavior of their brightness oscillations
are very different from each other. We also find compelling evidence
in one burst, and strong evidence in another burst, for an
interval in which the burst oscillation frequency decreases after
the peak in the light curve.
In \S~3 we focus on the initial portions of the bursts. Analyses
of bursts from many sources have shown that the oscillation
frequency often changes by a few Hertz over the first few
seconds of a burst (see Strohmayer et al.\ 1998a for a review).
The change is often a monotonic rise,
but there are indications of more complicated behavior in some
bursts. It has been pointed out that the magnitude of the
frequency change could be explained by a 20--50 meter expansion
of the burning layers followed by a slow settling, if the layers
conserve angular momentum (see, e.g., Strohmayer et al.\ 1998a),
but details have not been worked out. For example, it is not clear
how the layers would maintain their coherence throughout the 5--10
complete circuits relative to the body of the star that are implied by
the observations. Bildsten (1998) has suggested that the layers
may be stabilized by thermal buoyancy or mean molecular weight
stratification, but details have not been worked out.
In \S~3 we examine in detail the first
0.75 seconds of all five bursts, which was the interval used
to construct the candidate waveform for the $\sim$290~Hz
oscillation in 4U~1636--536 (Miller 1999). We examine models
of the frequency behavior that have increasing complexity:
a constant-frequency model; one with a frequency and frequency
derivative; a four-parameter model with an
initial frequency and frequency derivative
followed by a different frequency derivative after a break time;
and a five-parameter model with two different frequencies and
frequency derivatives separated by a break time. We find that
if the same type of frequency model applies to all five of
the bursts then the data do not require a model more complicated
than the constant-frequency model or, possibly, the model
with a single frequency and frequency derivative. Note, however,
that this is not inconsistent with the use of the five-parameter
model to construct a waveform used in the search for the
expected $\sim$290~Hz oscillation (Miller 1999); in such a search,
the only goal is to find the best fit to the $\sim$580~Hz
oscillations, and the extra parameters need not be justified
by a significantly better fit.
Finally, in \S~4 we discuss the implications of
these results for the current picture of the frequency changes,
in which the frequency change occurs because the burning layer
is lifted by 20--50 meters from the surface by the radiation
flux. We find that the simplest version of this picture has
difficulty explaining the observations.
\section{OVERVIEW OF THE BURSTS}
We used public-domain data
from the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research
Center. The data were taken in Single Bit Mode, which does
not record the energy of photons. We give
the starting times of the bursts in Table~1 and the
light curves in Figure~\ref{figLightcurves}.
In burst~d, the data dropouts are caused by telemetry saturation.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\bfseries Table~1:
Starting Time of Bursts}{\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}}\\
\tableline
\tableline
Burst&Date and Time\\
\tableline
a&22:39:24.188 UTC on 28 December 1996\\
b&23:54:02.876 UTC on 28 December 1996\\
c&23:26:46.813 UTC on 29 December 1996\\
d&17:36:52.941 UTC on 31 December 1996\\
e&09:57:25.938 UTC on 23 February 1997\\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=lightcurves.ps,height=6.0truein,width=6.0truein}
\caption[]{
\label{figLightcurves}
Light curves for the bursts. (a)~Burst beginning at
22:39:24 UTC on 28 December 1996. (b)~Burst beginning at
23:54:02 UTC on 28 December 1996. (c)~Burst beginning at
23:26:46 UTC on 29 December 1996. (d)~Burst beginning at
17:36:52 UTC on 31 December 1996. (e)~Burst beginning at
09:57:26 UTC on 23 February 1998. The data gaps in burst~d
are caused by telemetry saturation.}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{figDynamic} shows the peaks of the power spectra
of the first four bursts, as a function of time. The burst on
23 February 1997 does not have a strong brightness oscillation
for most of its duration, and we therefore do not analyze it in the
rest of this section. For each burst, the frequency of maximum
power in successive nonoverlapping one-second intervals is
shown by the solid triangles, and the Leahy et al.\ (1983)-normalized
power at this frequency is shown by the solid line. Here we plot
only those points with Leahy powers in excess
of 10 (chance probability for a single trial less than
$6\times 10^{-3}$). The horizontal bars on the frequency points
indicate the extent of the interval for which the power
density spectrum was calculated. In a few cases,
more than one peak exceeds this
threshold in a given power density spectrum. We then
represent the lower-power peak by an open circle. In burst~a
the secondary peak has a Leahy power of 21.2 (single-trial
significance $2.5\times 10^{-5}$); in burst~b the
secondary peaks have Leahy powers of 44.0 (first interval;
significance $2.8\times 10^{-10}$)
and 13.5 (second interval; significance $1.2\times 10^{-3}$);
and in burst~c the secondary peak has a Leahy power of 12.8
(significance $1.7\times 10^{-3}$).
Finally, Figure~\ref{figAmplitudes} shows the rms amplitude of
each oscillation, computed for one-second intervals 1/8 second apart.
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=dynamic.ps,height=6.0truein,width=6.0truein}
\caption[]{
\label{figDynamic}
Power spectra as a function of time for the four bursts with strong
brightness oscillations. Each solid triangle
is at the frequency
of maximum power and its $1\sigma$ uncertainties for nonoverlapping
1~second intervals. The frequency of a peak is only plotted
if its Leahy power exceeds 10. In bursts 1, 2, and 3 there are
intervals in which a second peak exceeds this threshold, and this
secondary peak is plotted with an open circle. The power of
the secondary peak in burst~(a) is 21.2 (single-trial
significance $2.5\times 10^{-5}$); the powers of
the secondary peaks in burst~(b) are 44.0 (significance
$2.8\times 10^{-10}$) and 13.5 (significance $1.2\times 10^{-3}$); and
the power of the peak in burst~(c) is 12.8 (significance
$1.7\times 10^{-3}$). The panels are labeled as in
Figure~\ref{figLightcurves}. Burst~(e) does not have
strong brightness oscillations for most of the burst, and is
therefore excluded from this analysis.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=amp.ps,height=6.0truein,width=6.0truein}
\caption[]{
\label{figAmplitudes}
Root mean square amplitude of the brightness oscillation
for each of the bursts. The amplitudes are calculated for
one-second intervals with starting times 1/8 second apart,
and the $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty bands are shown. The
amplitude is only plotted if
the Leahy power for the oscillation exceeds 10. The panels
are labeled as in Figure~\ref{figLightcurves}.}
\end{figure}
It is evident from these figures that the frequency behavior
can be very complex and can differ greatly from burst to burst.
The light curves for bursts~(a), (c), and (d)
appear similar to each other, although burst~(d) has a
slightly longer decay time than the other two. However,
the frequency and amplitude of the brightness oscillations
evolve very differently in the three bursts.
In burst~(a),
there is a strong oscillation near the beginning
which disappears for approximately one second, then the
oscillation reappears after the peak. The frequency
increases continuously, although there is some evidence
that in the initial $\sim$0.5 second of the burst the
frequency drops (this might help explain the presence of a
higher-frequency secondary peak in the power density spectrum).
In burst~(c), the brightness oscillation is present for
almost the entire time examined. The frequency increases rapidly
in the first two to three seconds, then appears to decrease
to an asymptotic value. A power density spectrum of a two-second interval
starting 1.75 seconds after the beginning of the burst reveals
a peak at 581.62$\pm$0.04~Hz. A power density spectrum of a
six-second interval starting four seconds after the beginning
of the burst has a peak at 581.47$\pm$0.01~Hz. If the latter
frequency is the asymptotic frequency of the oscillation, then
at a 3$\sigma$ level of certainty it is less than the maximum frequency
attained during the burst. The amplitude of the oscillation
in the burst tail is high and significant, and there is an
abrupt increase in the amplitude 6--8 seconds after the beginning
of the burst that is not accompanied by any apparent change
in the light curve.
In burst~(d) there is a clear {\it decrease} in the
frequency of the burst oscillation in the tail of the burst.
We explored this further by taking a power density spectrum of
a longer interval: five seconds, starting three seconds after
the beginning of the burst. We found that, at the 99.99\%
confidence level, the frequency change per second during this
interval is $-0.54\pm 0.08$~Hz~s$^{-1}$. The best-fit
frequency at the beginning of this five-second interval
depends on the frequency derivative, and is approximately
$\nu_0=581.39{\rm\ Hz}-2({\dot\nu}+0.62~{\rm Hz~s}^{-1})
{\rm\ Hz}$. This means that, relative to a brightness oscillation
with a constant frequency equal to the frequency at the
beginning of this five-second interval, the observed brightness
oscillation has a total phase lag of between $12\pi$ and
$16\pi$ radians. The total phase lag is comparable to what
is seen in many bursts, except that here the frequency inferred
in the tail of the burst is significantly less than the
spin frequency inferred from other bursts in this source.
There is no sign in this burst that the frequency has reached
an asymptotic value.
Burst~(b) is the only one with a clearly different
light curve. This is a weak burst. The frequency of the
brightness oscillation is consistent with what is observed
in, at least, bursts~(a) and (c): a rise in the
frequency near the beginning of the burst, followed by an
approximate leveling off. We note, however, that within
the uncertainties the frequency could also reach a maximum
and then decline, as appears to be the case for bursts~(c)
and (d).
\section{BRIGHTNESS OSCILLATIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BURST}
Previous analyses have shown that the brightness
oscillations in the initial
$\sim$second of the bursts are often of particular interest.
This is where the highest amplitudes (rms$\sim$50\%; Strohmayer
et al.\ 1998c) are reported, and where subharmonics of the
strong oscillation have been detected in 4U~1636--536
(Miller 1999) and possibly in the Rapid Burster (Fox \& Lewin
1999). It is therefore important to examine the initial portion
more closely to see what hints about the brightness oscillation
mechanism can be derived.
Before doing so, we need to emphasize an important distinction.
If the purpose of the analysis is to
characterize the frequency variations of the $\sim$580~Hz
oscillation then extra parameters can only be added if the
fit to the data is improved sufficiently to justify the additional
complexity. The situation is different when the goal is to
produce a matched filter for a search for
a harmonically related frequency, as in the search for a signal at
half of the $\sim$580~Hz dominant brightness oscillation in
4U~1636--536 (Miller 1999). For that purpose, it is not necessary to
justify the extra parameters used in the construction of the filter,
if no reference is made to the signal for which one is searching.
In the case of the search for the $\sim$290~Hz oscillation,
a five-parameter matched filter was used for each burst; matched
filters with fewer parameters also give a clear signal at
$\sim$290~Hz, although with lower significance because the filter
does not fit the data as well.
A general method to find the best-fit values of parameters and
their confidence regions employs a likelihood function. In this
approach, we suppose that we have a model in which the countrate
as a function of time is predicted to be $s(t)$, from which we
can predict the number of counts $s_i$ in one particular bin $i$
of the data, which in this case is 1/8192~s in duration. In
general, $s_i$ is not an integer. The actual number of counts
observed in bin $i$ is $c_i$, which is an integer. With these
definitions, the Poisson likelihood of the full data set given
the model $s(t)$ is
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}=\Pi {s_i^{c_i}\over{c_i!}}e^{-s_i}\; ,
\end{equation}
where the product is over all of the bins of the data. Note that
in normal applications of the point likelihood the bin sizes would
be so small that a given bin would have either zero or one
count, but the fixed bin size of 1/8192~s combined with the
high count rates during the bursts (up to $\sim$30,000~c/s;
see Figure~\ref{figLightcurves}) means that many of the bins
have multiple counts. The likelihood is maximized to determine
the best values of the parameters of the model waveform $s(t)$,
and approximate confidence contours can be estimated using
contours of constant log likelihood: $2\Delta\log{\cal L}=\Delta
\chi^2$ (Eadie et al.\ 1971, \S~9.4.3, p. 207).
The model waveform $s(t)$ will in general include components
related to the relatively slow change in the brightness of
the source as well as components related to the high-frequency
brightness oscillation. However, the frequency scales are
different enough ($\sim$1--5~Hz for the slowly rising component
versus $\sim$580~Hz for the fast oscillations) that the fitting
of the two components are nearly independent of each other. This
means that, when we analyze the behavior of the brightness
oscillations, we can simplify by assuming that the burst has
a constant average brightness. With this in mind, the model
we consider is
\begin{equation}
s(t)=c_{\rm av}\left(1+A\cos 2\pi[\nu(t)t+\phi_0]\right)\; ,
\end{equation}
where $c_{\rm av}$ is the average countrate, $A$ is the
amplitude of the signal (which we assume to be time-independent),
$\nu(t)$ is the frequency as
a function of time, and $\phi_0$ is the phase of the
oscillation at the beginning of the data interval analyzed.
In this section we explore four different models for the
frequency behavior in the initial 0.75 seconds of each of
the four bursts (this time was chosen to conform to the
analysis of Miller [1999], which was performed to look for
a weaker $\sim$290~Hz oscillation). The four models are:
\begin{equation}
\nu_1(t)=\nu_0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\nu_2(t)=\nu_0+{\dot\nu}t
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rl}
\nu_3(t) & =\nu_1+{\dot\nu_1}t\;,\;\; t<t_{\rm break}\\
& =\nu_2+{\dot\nu_2}t\;,\;\; t>t_{\rm break}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where continuity of the frequency is imposed, so that there
are four independent parameters, and finally
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rl}
\nu_4(t) & =\nu_1+{\dot\nu_1}t\;,\;\; t<t_{\rm break}\\
& =\nu_2+{\dot\nu_2}t\;,\;\; t>t_{\rm break}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where continuity of the frequency is not imposed, so that there
are five independent parameters.
For the purposes of this section the most interesting of
the parameters of the model waveform $s(t)$ is the frequency,
as opposed to the amplitude or the initial phase of the
brightness oscillation. If the amplitude $A\ll 1$, as it
is in this case, then a tremendous speed-up in the search
procedure is possible with the use of the cross-correlation
(see, e.g., Helstrom 1960 or Wainstein \& Zubakov 1962 for
details of cross-correlation and matched filtering techniques)
\begin{equation}
H=C\left|\int_{t_0}^{t_0+T}c(t)e^{-i\nu(t)t}dt\right|^2\; ,
\end{equation}
where $t_0$ is the start time of the burst, $T$=0.75~s is
the duration of the burst, and $C$ is a normalization constant.
In practice this integral is actually calculated as a sum over
all of the bins of the data, and $dt$=1/8192~s is the duration
of a bin. If $C=2/N_{\rm tot}$, where $N_{\rm tot}$ is the total
number of counts in the data set, then $H$ has the same
statistical properties as the Leahy power; $H$ is also related
to the $Z^2$ statistic used in pulsar period searches
(Buccheri et al.\ 1983; see Strohmayer \& Markwardt 1999 for a recent
use in the characterization of brightness oscillations during
thermonuclear X-ray bursts). To lowest order in the oscillation
amplitude $A$ this description is mathematically identical to
the likelihood description, but it is much faster to apply because no
search need be performed for the amplitude or oscillation phase.
It is therefore preferable for low-amplitude oscillations.
With this formalism, we can estimate the best values and
uncertainty regions for the different frequency models above.
The figures in the previous section, which were constructed using
a constant-frequency waveform, give this information
for the one-parameter, constant-frequency
model.
\subsection{Two-Parameter Frequency Model}
The best-fit values for the two-parameter frequency model are
given in Table~2. To estimate uncertainties on
these parameters, we performed a Monte Carlo analysis in which
we selected $10^6$ random values per burst of $\nu_1$,
${\dot\nu}_1$, ${\dot\nu}_2$, and $t_{\rm break}$, uniformly
sampled from, respectively, 576~Hz to 585~Hz; -12~Hz~s$^{-1}$
to 12~Hz~s$^{-1}$; -12~Hz~s$^{-1}$ to 12~Hz~s$^{-1}$; and 0~s
to 0.75~s. The quoted uncertainties for single parameters
were computed using a Bayesian viewpoint, in which the posterior
probability density
was calculated throughout the interval and then integrated over
the other three parameters to produce a marginalized probability
distribution. We have assumed a uniform prior probability
density over the whole space searched. This means that the
posterior probability density is simply proportional to the
likelihood. These confidence regions, which are the smallest
regions that encompass 68\% of the probability, are given in
Table~3. In some cases the maximum likelihood
value of a parameter obtained by extremization in the full two-dimensional
parameter space is outside the marginalized 68\% confidence
region. This is symptomatic of the fact that the
parameters are constrained only weakly by the data.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\bfseries Table~2: Best-Fit Parameters}
{\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}}\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\bfseries for
Two-Parameter Model}{\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}}\\
\tableline
\tableline
Burst&$\nu_1$ (Hz)&${\dot\nu}_1$ (Hz s$^{-1}$)\\
\tableline
a&579.0& 4.0\\
b&580.3& 2.0\\
c&581.0&-3.8\\
d&578.6& 4.2\\
e&581.1&-3.4\\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\bfseries Table~3: 68\% Confidence Regions}
{\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}}\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\bfseries for
Two-Parameter Model}{\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}}\\
\tableline
\tableline
Burst&$\nu_1$ (Hz)&${\dot\nu}_1$ (Hz s$^{-1}$)\\
\tableline
a&579.7--580.1&-8.0--8.0\\
b&580.9--581.2&-8.8--8.0\\
c&579.2--579.7&-8.0--8.0\\
d&578.8--579.9&-8.0--8.0\\
e&579.2--583.6&-8.0--8.0\\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Four-Parameter Frequency Model}
The best-fit values for the four-parameter frequency model are
given in Table~4. As for the two-parameter
model, the uncertainties were estimated by marginalizing over
all but the parameter of interest; the confidence regions
containing 68\% of the probability are given in
Table~5.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\bfseries Table~4: Best-Fit Parameters for
Four-Parameter Model}{\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}}\\
\tableline
\tableline
Burst&$\nu_1$ (Hz)&${\dot\nu}_1$ (Hz s$^{-1}$)
&${\dot\nu}_2$ (Hz s$^{-1}$)&$t_{\rm break}$ (s)\\
\tableline
a&581.3&-9.0&11.2&0.28\\
b&579.9& 4.0&0.5&0.32\\
c&579.1& 8.7&-6.7&0.20\\
d&579.7&-2.4&7.9&0.28\\
e&583.2&-12.0&-0.8&0.28\\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\bfseries Table~5: 68\% Confidence Regions for
Four-Parameter Model}{\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}}\\
\tableline
\tableline
Burst&$\nu_1$ (Hz)&${\dot\nu}_1$ (Hz s$^{-1}$)
&${\dot\nu}_2$ (Hz s$^{-1}$)&$t_{\rm break}$ (s)\\
\tableline
a&579.0--581.0&-8.8--2.4&2.4--6.4&0.16--0.42\\
b&578.8--580.6&-0.8--8.0&-4.0--3.2&0.13--0.63\\
c&579.0--581.6&-7.2--5.6&-5.6--4.0&0.13--0.64\\
d&578.0--579.8&-4.8--5.6&-4.0--6.4&0.11--0.64\\
e&579.2--582.0&-8.0--4.0&-5.6--4.8&0.14--0.63\\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Five-Parameter Frequency Model}
The best-fit values for the five-parameter frequency model are
given in Table~6. As for the two-parameter
model, the uncertainties were estimated by marginalizing over
all but the parameter of interest; the confidence regions
containing 68\% of the probability are given in
Table~7.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\multicolumn{6}{c}{\bfseries Table~6: Best-Fit Parameters for
Five-Parameter Model}{\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}}\\
\tableline
\tableline
Burst&$\nu_1$ (Hz)&$\nu_2$ (Hz)&${\dot\nu}_1$ (Hz s$^{-1}$)
&${\dot\nu}_2$ (Hz s$^{-1}$)&t$_{\rm break}$ (s)\\
\tableline
a&581.2&578.0&-7.6&6.4&0.34\\
b&579.0&579.6& 8.0&3.2&0.34\\
c&578.6&578.0& 6.8&0.8&0.41\\
d&578.0&582.6&-0.4&-5.2&0.25\\
e&582.0&585.0&-8.0&-0.4&0.41\\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\multicolumn{6}{c}{\bfseries Table~7: 68\% Confidence Regions for
Five-Parameter Model}{\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}}\\
\tableline
\tableline
Burst&$\nu_1$ (Hz)&$\nu_2$ (Hz)&${\dot\nu}_1$ (Hz s$^{-1}$)
&${\dot\nu}_2$ (Hz s$^{-1}$)&t$_{\rm break}$ (s)\\
\tableline
a&579.6--581.8&577.4--581.6&-8.8--4.8&0.0--6.4&0.11--0.48\\
b&577.8--580.6&579.4--582.0&-5.6--8.8&-2.4--3.2&0.08--0.52\\
c&577.8--581.2&577.4--581.8&-6.4--8.8&-5.6--1.6&0.09--0.63\\
d&579.2--581.6&577.0--581.6&-9.6--6.4&-2.4--6.4&0.08--0.34\\
e&579.0--582.8&577.6--582.4&-8.8--6.4&-4.8--3.2&0.08--0.56\\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Summary of Frequency Models}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\bfseries Table~8: Relative Log Likelihoods for
Different Models}{\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}}\\
\tableline
\tableline
Burst&1-Param&2-Param&4-Param&5-Param\\
\tableline
a&0.0&1.3&4.3&4.5\\
b&0.0&1.2&1.6&2.8\\
c&0.0&1.3&2.0&3.1\\
d&0.0&2.2&3.2&5.4\\
e&0.0&0.6&1.0&2.0\\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
The best-fit parameters and relative log likelihoods are
listed in Table~8; as indicated above,
$2\Delta\log{\cal L}\approx\Delta\chi^2$.
From this table, it is clear that for all but burst four
it is not necessary to use the five-parameter fit, and
for bursts 2, 3, and 4 it is not necessary to use a
model more complicated than the two-parameter model
in which the frequency and frequency derivative are
constant throughout the first 0.75 seconds. For burst~(d)
by itself the five-parameter model is preferred
at only the $2\sigma$ level compared to the four-parameter
model, and for all five bursts combined the five-parameter
model is preferred at less than the $1\sigma$ level relative
to the four-parameter model.
For all five bursts combined, the four-parameter model
is preferred at less than the $1\sigma$ level compared
to the two-parameter model, and the two-parameter model
is preferred at less than the $2\sigma$ level compared
to the one-parameter model.
\section{DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY}
What can be learned from this detailed characterization of
the burst brightness oscillations in
4U~1636--536? The clearest impression left
is that there are no simple statements about the frequency
behavior that are true for all of the bursts. In two of the
bursts, one can make an argument that the oscillation
frequency is initially 1--2~Hz below
the asymptotic frequency, and then rises. In this interpretation,
the asymptotic frequency is extremely close to the spin
frequency of the neutron star. This picture can be qualitatively
explained by the idea that the burning layer lifts
20--50 meters during the burst and settles down gradually.
However, the burst on 31 December 1996 does not follow
this pattern. The frequency in the initial second is
indeed lower than the maximum value attained, but the
significance of this initial signal is low (Leahy power of 10).
The maximum is followed by a clear decrease in the frequency over
several seconds, with a total phase change equivalent to
more than five complete circuits around the star. This
happens during a time when the countrate
decreases from approximately 2/3 of the maximum to approximately
1/3 of the maximum. The burst on 29 December 1996 has a
very strong and significant brightness oscillation in
its tail, which appears to level out to a constant frequency.
However, near the peak of the light curve for this burst
the oscillation frequency is higher than this asymptotic
frequency, at a 3$\sigma$ significance level.
Such a drop in frequency is not expected in the simplest
version of the hypothesis that the frequency changes are
caused by the rise of the burning layers. In this model,
the highest frequency should be observed when the layers
are fully coupled to the core of the star, which is expected
to occur when the frequency has reached its asymptotic
limit.
Another constraint on the hypothesis that the asymptotic
frequency equals the spin frequency (after correcting
for orbital Doppler
shifts) is that the variation in the observed asymptotic
frequency must be consistent with the possible modulation
due to the binary motion of the neutron star. From binary
evolution theory (see, e.g., Lamb \& Melia 1987;
Verbunt \& van den Heuvel 1995), an LMXB such as 4U~1636--536
with a 3.8~hr orbital
period (van Paradijs et al.\ 1990) that contains a neutron
star of mass $M_{\rm NS}$=1.4$M_\odot$ to 2.0$M_\odot$ has
a companion star of mass $M_c\approx$0.4$M_\odot$. Assuming that
the orbit is approximately circular, the orbital velocity
of the neutron star is therefore 90--130~km~s$^{-1}$,
implying a maximum frequency modulation of $\Delta\nu/\nu
=4.3\times 10^{-4}$, or approximately 0.25~Hz if $\nu$=580~Hz.
Therefore, the observed asymptotic frequency cannot be different
by more than 0.5~Hz for two different bursts. The analysis
of the 31 December 1996 burst reported in \S~2 indicates
that eight seconds after the start of the burst the frequency
is less than 579.0~Hz. The asymptotic frequency in the
burst on 29 December 1996 is 581.43~Hz, so the frequency in
the 31 December 1996 burst must rise by 2~Hz to reach a
plausible spin frequency.
It is difficult to reconcile this frequency behavior with
what is expected in the simplest version of the rising burning layer
hypothesis. One possibility is that the observed
frequency changes are not simply indicative of the spin
frequency of the burning layer, but also include a time-dependent
change in the phase at which the photons emerge relative
to the phase of the burning layer. This would be observationally
indistinguishable from a pure frequency change, and would add
an extra degree of freedom to the model.
Even this, however, is subject to significant observational
restrictions. To see this, consider the following observational
trends, which have been observed in many bursts from several
sources (see, e.g., Strohmayer et al.\ 1998 for a summary).
In the remainder of this section we assume that all
quantities (e.g., frequencies, times, and phases) are
measured at infinity.
(1) There are several bursts in which burst
oscillations are seen for the entire burst, and
do not disappear during the time of peak countrate.
(2) Aside from an early phase in which there may
be a frequency decrease, the frequency increases
smoothly as the burst progresses.
(3) The total phase lag of the oscillations
compared with a hypothetical oscillation that
has a constant frequency equal to the frequency
in the burst tail is as much as $10\pi$.
The total amount of energy in a burst is $\sim 10^{39}$~ergs.
If expansion of a layer and angular momentum conservation
are to explain the $\sim$0.3\%--1\% change in the observed
angular frequency, then the layer must rise by a distance
that is a fraction $\sim$0.2\%--0.5\% of the radius of
the star, or 20 to 50 meters. The surface gravity of
a neutron star is $\sim 2\times 10^{14}$~cm~s$^{-2}$, so
the largest amount of mass that can be lifted to the
required 20--50 meter height above the surface is
$\sim$1--2$\times 10^{21}$~g. If most of the $\sim 10^{13}$~cm$^2$
surface area of the star is involved, this implies that the
greatest column depth which could be lifted to the required
height is roughly $10^8$~g~cm$^{-2}$, which is comparable
to the expected $10^6-10^8$~g~cm$^{-2}$depth of ignition
(see, e.g., Fushiki \& Lamb 1987; Brown \& Bildsten 1998).
One may therefore distinguish two
scenarios: (1)~the burning layer rotates with the core
of the star at a constant spin frequency and the observed
frequency shifts are caused by phase shifts induced by
radiation transport through more slowly rotating layers,
and (2)~the burning layer itself is lifted and rotates more
slowly than the core of the star. We now treat these in
order.
Suppose for simplicity that the burning layer has an infinitesimal
vertical extent, that it has some restricted azimuthal extent,
and that it all rotates with the same angular frequency
$\omega_{\rm burn}(t)$.
The energy from this layer propagates upwards through the
atmosphere, which in general may be composed of layers with
different angular frequencies. Therefore, the phase of
emergence of the radiation may differ from the phase of the
burning layer at the time of the emission of the radiation.
Under the rising burning layer hypothesis, it is expected that
the angular frequency of higher layers is less than the
angular frequency of lower layers ($d\omega/dh<0$). Hence, there is expected
to be a lag $\phi_{\rm lag}>0$ between the phase of emergence
and the phase of emission. This phase lag will, in general,
have a time-dependence, as the scale height of the atmosphere
and the angular frequency of different layers in the atmosphere
changes throughout the burst. An observer at infinity will
therefore see a net angular frequency of a hot spot that is
equal to $\omega_{\rm burn}(t)-{\dot\phi}_{\rm lag}(t)$.
Consider first a burning layer that rotates with the stellar
core throughout the burst. Then $\omega_{\rm burn}(t)$
=const=$\omega_{\rm spin}$. If neither
$\omega(h)$ nor the density or height of the envelope
changes with time, then $\phi_{\rm lag}$ is a constant and
the observed frequency is just $\omega_{\rm spin}$.
Hence, in order to have an apparent frequency shift in
this situation, the structure or angular velocity of the
envelope must change with time.
Now consider an envelope that does change with time.
For us to observe a frequency less than $\omega_{\rm spin}$,
it is necessary that ${\dot\phi}_{\rm lag}(t)>0$, so
the characteristic phase of emergence of the radiation
must lag the phase of the source of heat by a greater and
greater amount with increasing time (the increase of this phase lag
with time must itself decrease with time to produce the observed
increase in frequency). But how is this possible? As the
envelope settles down, the phase lag should {\it decrease},
because $d\omega(t)/dh<0$.
But if the phase lag decreases, the observed
frequency should be {\it higher} than the spin frequency. This
is not seen in most bursts, and even in the burst on 29 December 1996
where there does appear to be a short period of spindown, the total
phase lead implied by the spindown is much smaller than the total
phase lag implied by the spinup near the beginning of the burst.
Thus, the preceding set of assumptions is inconsistent with the data.
This demonstrates that the observed frequency behavior is
inconsistent with the source of heat (i.e., the burning
layer) rotating at
a constant frequency equal to $\omega_{\rm spin}$. Instead,
the source of heat must change its frequency during the burst.
To analyze this situation, let us now consider a burning
layer with a finite thickness, so that the observed photons
are a superposition of the photons from many infinitesimal
layers such as discussed above. The observed frequency of
oscillation is then a superposition of the frequencies due
to the infinitesimal layers.
Consider two of these infinitesimal slices, labeled 1 and 2,
where slice 1 is higher than slice 2. Suppose that these
slices are not coupled to each other. Then, by assumption, the
angular frequency $\omega_{\rm burn,1}$ of slice 1 is less than
the angular frequency $\omega_{\rm burn,2}$ of slice 2.
In addition, because the
photons from slice 2 have to travel through the same atmospheric
layers as the photons from slice 1 in addition to the layers
between 2 and 1, the phase lag $\phi_{\rm lag,1}$ of photons
from slice 1 is expected to be less than the phase lag
$\phi_{\rm lag,2}$ of photons from slice 2. Hence, as the
atmospheric scale height decreases, it is expected that
$\phi_{\rm lag,2}$ will decrease more rapidly than
$\phi_{\rm lag,1}$ does, so that
\begin{equation}
{\dot\phi}_{\rm lag,2}<{\dot\phi}_{\rm lag,1}<0\; .
\end{equation}
Therefore, the difference between the angular frequency of
the photons from slice 2 and the angular frequency of the
photons from slice 1 is
\begin{equation}
\omega_{\rm burn,2}-\omega_{\rm burn,1}+
{\dot\phi}_{\rm lag,1}-{\dot\phi}_{\rm lag,2}>
\omega_{\rm burn,2}-\omega_{\rm burn,1}\; .
\end{equation}
This means that the phases
of emergence of radiation diverge rapidly from each other,
which leads quickly
to a low amplitude unless the heat source has a small vertical
extent. The requirement that the amplitude be significant
means that the total azimuthal phase subtended by the emergent
radiation has to be much less than $2\pi$. The integrated
phase lag relative to the stellar core is often $10\pi$ or
larger, hence the average vertical extent of the heat source
must be much less than 1/5 of the vertical distance from the
original location of the heat source to its location during
the burst. An alternative to having the vertical extent of
the layer be small is that the burning layer may be tightly
coupled to itself, so that its angular frequency is
approximately constant over a significant vertical distance.
To summarize, several conclusions may be drawn about the standard model for
frequency changes during burst oscillations, which we take to
be the picture that at least part of the
burning layer is lifted and then settles gradually to the surface as
the flux drops, producing an observed asymptotic frequency equal to the
spin frequency of the neutron star Doppler-shifted by the
orbital motion of the neutron star. (1)~The burning region
itself (and not just overlaying optically thick layers) must
be lifted by 20--50 meters from the surface, (2)~this region
must remain decoupled from the rest of the star, presumed to
be rotating at the original spin frequency, for several seconds,
(3)~to produce the observed coherence of the brightness oscillations
during the rise in frequency, the burning layer must either have
a vertical extent much smaller than its height above the surface
or be strongly coupled to itself to prevent relative azimuthal
motion, and (4)~the existence of a frequency greater than the
asymptotic frequency (as in the 29 December 1996 burst) implies
that something other than differential rotation (e.g., variation
in the phase lag) must account for
at least part of the observed frequency change. The prolonged
decrease in frequency in the tail of the 31 December 1996 burst
is not straightforwardly fit into this picture.
Despite these difficulties, the high stability (Strohmayer et al.\ 1998)
and coherence (Markwardt \& Strohmayer 1999) of the brightness
oscillations in the tails of bursts from sources such as
4U~1728--34 argue persuasively that the frequency in the tail
of the bursts is close to either the fundamental or the first overtone
of the neutron star spin frequency. Moreover, the general
picture in which frequency changes are attributed to changes in the height
of the emitting layer accounts approximately for the magnitude of the
frequency change and explains why the frequency tends to
rise near the beginning of the burst. However, in its current
form it suffers from apparently serious problems. It is extremely
important that there be a detailed investigation of, e.g., the coupling
between differentially rotating layers, and that other ideas
be explored so that the strengths and weaknesses of the rising
layer model are put into sharper focus.
\acknowledgements
We thank Don Lamb and Fred Lamb for discussions about models
of the frequency change, and Don Lamb, Dimitrios Psaltis, and
Carlo Graziani for comments on a previous version of this paper.
This research has made use of data
obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive
Research Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard
Space Flight Center. This work was supported in part by NASA grant
NAG~5-2868, NASA AXAF contract SV~464006, and NASA ATP grant
number NRA-98-03-ATP-028.
|
\section{\ Introduction}
Unconventional anisotropic pairing is evidently realized in high temperature
superconductors ($HTS$) - see review \cite{KulicRev}, and probably in some
heavy Fermion superconductors ($HFS$) - see review \cite{Sauls}. There are
good evidences for d-wave pairing in optimally doped $HTS$ oxides \cite
{KulicRev} but the type of pairing in HFS is still unclear \cite{Sauls}. The
effect of impurities on unconventional pairing is an important tool in
analyzing the symmetry of the pairing amplitude, and is the subject of a
number of experimental and theoretical works \cite{Pokrovskii}, \cite{Hotta}%
. Most of calculations were done assuming an s-wave impurity scattering
potential $u_{imp}({\bf p},{\bf p}^{\prime })=const$, and taking either the
Born limit ($N(0)u_{imp}\ll 1$) or unitarity limit ($N(0)u_{imp}\gg 1$).
Surprisingly, a number of experiments on the optimally $HTS$ oxides have
shown that $d-wave$ pairing is quite robust, i.e. not very sensitive to
various kinds of impurities and defects. For instance, the decrease of the
critical temperature $T_{c}(\rho _{imp})$, with increasing residual
resistivity, $\rho _{imp}$, is much smaller than the theory with the $s-wave$
impurity scattering predicts \cite{Pokrovskii}, \cite{Hotta}, \cite{Sun1}. A
way out of this experimental and theoretical discrepancy of pair-breaking
effects by impurities in $HTS$ oxides was proposed by the authors of Refs.
\cite{KuOudo}, \cite{Haran}, who invoked a momentum dependent impurity
scattering potential with an appreciable contribution in the d-channel. The
microscopic theory in Ref. \cite{KuOudo} accounts for the renormalization of
the impurity potential by strong correlations, which gives rise to a
pronounced forward scattering peak, while backward scattering is suppressed,
as first proposed in Ref. \cite{Kulic1} (see also \cite{KulicRev}).
Application of this theory to impurity scattering \cite{Kulic1} shows that
in addition to the contribution in the s-channel there is a significant
contribution to the Born amplitude from the d-channel of the same magnitude
, in particular for low (hole) doping concentration, $\delta <0.2$. As a
consequence, the decrease of $T_{c}(\rho _{imp})$ with increasing $\rho
_{imp}$ is much slower than the theory with exclusively s-wave impurity
scattering predicts \cite{Hotta}. This renormalization effect explains the
robustness of d-wave pairing in $HTS$ oxides.
One may rise the question whether this robustness also holds far away from $%
T_{c}$ and for very strong scattering potential, for instance in the
unitarity limit. To answer this question we shall analyze a class of models
by calculating the scattering $T$-matrix with an impurity potential that
depends on the scattering angles.
A related class of problems, which we study in section III, is related to
the impurity scattering in the two-band model. Recently, several models for
the pairing mechanism in HTS oxides based on two-band and multi-band models
\cite{Hofmann}, \cite{Gajic}, \cite{Golubov}, \cite{Combescot} were
suggested, and impurity effects studied in Born approximation. Magnetic and
non-magnetic interband scattering can lead in this model to a lowering of
the critical temperature and also to a relative sign change of the order
parameters in different bands \cite{Golubov}. In section III we analyze the
changes in the two-band model when going beyond the Born limit. It was shown
that in the unitarity limit the Anderson theorem holds.
In previous sections we studied a homogeneous superconductor with
homogeneously distributed impurities. Selected inhomogeneous problems are
studied in section IV, such as the bound states at an impurity, and the
pinning energy at an impurity (defect) of singly- and double-quantized
vortices.
\section{Anisotropic scattering in anisotropic and homogeneous
superconductors}
In the following we analyze superconducting properties of anisotropic
superconductors in the presence of momentum-dependent nonmagnetic impurity
scattering by the quasiclassical equations of Eilenberger,
Larkin-Ovchinnikov \cite{Eilenberger}, \cite{Larkin} ($ELO$ equations ). For
a homogeneous distribution the quasiclassical Green's function matrix, $\hat{%
g}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R},\omega _{n})$, is independent of ${\bf R}$, and the
quasiclassical equations read
\begin{equation}
\lbrack i\omega _{n}\hat{\tau}_{3}-\hat{\Delta}({\bf p}_{F},\omega _{n})-%
\hat{\sigma}_{imp}({\bf p}_{F},\omega _{n}),\hat{g}({\bf p}_{F},\omega
_{n})]=0 \label{elohom}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\hat{g}^{2}({\bf p}_{F},\omega _{n})=-\hat{1}. \label{norm}
\end{equation}
We assume weak-coupling superconductivity with $\hat{\Delta}({\bf p}%
_{F})(=i\Delta ({\bf p}_{F})\hat{\tau}_{2})$, where $\Delta ({\bf p}_{F})$
is real. The $2\times 2$ matrices$\ \hat{\tau}_{0}\equiv \hat{1}$ and $\hat{%
\tau}_{1,2,3}$ are Nambu-Gor'kov matrices. The effect of nonmagnetic
impurities is described by the self-energy, $\hat{\sigma}_{imp}$, given in
terms of the forward scattering part, $\hat{t}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf p}%
_{F}^{\prime },\omega _{n})$, of the T-matrix \cite{Eilenberger}, \cite
{Larkin}, \cite{Serene}
\begin{equation}
\hat{\sigma}_{imp}({\bf p}_{F},\omega _{n})=c\hat{t}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf p}%
_{F},\omega _{n}), \label{sigma}
\end{equation}
where $c(\ll 1)$ is the impurity concentration.
For simplicity we assume an isotropic Fermi surface but pairing and impurity
scattering are angle-dependent, i.e. $\Delta ({\bf p}_{F})\equiv \Delta (%
{\bf s})$, $\hat{g}({\bf p}_{F},\omega _{n})\equiv \hat{g}({\bf s},n)$ and $%
\hat{t}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf p}_{F}^{\prime },\omega _{n})\equiv \hat{t}({\bf s,s%
}^{\prime }{\bf ,}n)$ where ${\bf s=p}_{F}/p_{F}$.The T-matrix is the
solution of the equation
\begin{equation}
\hat{t}({\bf s,s}^{\prime }{\bf ,}n)=u({\bf s,s}^{\prime })\hat{1}+N(0)\int d%
{\bf s}^{\prime \prime }u({\bf s,s}^{\prime \prime })\hat{g}({\bf s}^{\prime
\prime },n)\hat{t}({\bf s}^{\prime \prime }{\bf ,s}^{\prime }{\bf ,}n),
\label{tmatrix}
\end{equation}
where for the $2D$ systems, which we consider here, one has $\int d{\bf %
s\{..\}}\equiv \int {\bf \{..\}}d\theta /2\pi $. Since $\Delta ({\bf s})$ is
real one has $\hat{g}=g_{2}\hat{\tau}_{2}+g_{3}\hat{\tau}_{3}$ and $\hat{t}$
is given by $\hat{t}=t_{0}\hat{\tau}_{0}+t_{1}\hat{\tau}_{1}+t_{2}\hat{\tau}%
_{2}+t_{3}\hat{\tau}_{3}$.
Because the unperturbed solution has the form ($\omega _{n}=\pi T(2n+1)$)
\begin{equation}
\hat{g}^{(0)}({\bf s},n)=-\frac{i\omega _{n}\hat{\tau}_{3}-i\Delta _{0}({\bf %
s})\hat{\tau}_{2}}{\sqrt{\omega _{n}^{2}+\Delta _{0}^{2}({\bf s})}}
\label{g0}
\end{equation}
then $\hat{g}({\bf s},n)$ is searched for in the form
\begin{equation}
\hat{g}({\bf s},n)=-\frac{i\tilde{\omega}_{n}({\bf s})\hat{\tau}_{3}-i\tilde{%
\Delta}({\bf s,}\omega _{n})\hat{\tau}_{2}}{\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}_{n}^{2}(%
{\bf s})+\tilde{\Delta}^{2}({\bf s,}\omega _{n})}}, \label{g}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\omega}_{n}({\bf s})=\omega _{n}({\bf s})+ic_{i}t_{3}({\bf s,s,}n)
\label{omega}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Delta}({\bf s,}\omega _{n})=\Delta ({\bf s})-ic_{i}t_{2}({\bf s,s,}%
n). \label{delta}
\end{equation}
The self-consistency equation for $\Delta ({\bf s})$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta ({\bf s})=N(0)T\sum_{n}\int d{\bf s}^{\prime }V{\bf (s,s}^{\prime }%
{\bf )}g_{2}({\bf s}^{\prime },n), \label{selfcons}
\end{equation}
where the pairing potential $V_{p}{\bf (s,s}^{\prime }{\bf )=}V_{p}Y({\bf s}%
)Y({\bf s}^{\prime })$ is assumed in the factorized form with $<Y^{2}({\bf s}%
)>_{{\bf s}}=1$. The latter implies that the order parameter has the form $%
\Delta ({\bf s})=\Delta \cdot Y({\bf s})$. For convenience we define $\Gamma
_{u}(\equiv c\gamma _{u})=c(\pi N(0))^{-1}$ and $v({\bf s,s}^{\prime
})\equiv \pi N(0)u({\bf s,s}^{\prime })$. In what follows we consider the
effects of anisotropic impurity scattering on the anisotropic pairing where $%
<Y({\bf s})>_{{\bf s}}=0$.
{\bf 1}. {\bf Anisotropic impurity scattering and nodeless anisotropic
pairing}
First, we consider the nodeless d-wave like pairing $\Delta ({\bf s})=\Delta
\cdot Y({\bf s})$ which is characterized by $\langle Y({\bf s})\rangle _{%
{\bf s}}=0$ and $Y^{2}({\bf s})=1$. This means that there is a finite gap
everywhere on the Fermi surface, i.e. $\Delta ({\bf s})\neq 0$. It is
interesting to mention, that besides the simplicity of this kind of pairing
and its adequacy in some qualitative understanding of d-wave pairing it also
appears to be a solution of the spin-bag model \cite{SWZ} for $HTS$ oxides.
In this model the nodeless $d-wave$ like pairing is due to residual
(longitudinal and transverse) spin fluctuations on the antiferromagnetic
background, where the $AF$ order is distorted locally by hole doping and the
spin-bag is formed around doped holes. The impurity scattering potential is
assumed to have the form
\begin{equation}
v({\bf s,s}^{\prime })=v_{0}+v_{2}Y({\bf s})Y({\bf s}^{\prime }),
\label{vsep}
\end{equation}
i.e. it contains an anisotropic contribution in the same channel as the
unconventional pairing. The solution of $Eq.(\ref{tmatrix})$ for $t_{3}$ and
$t_{2}$ is searched in the form
\begin{equation}
t_{3}({\bf s,s}^{\prime })=[\tilde{t}_{30}(n)+\tilde{t}_{32}(n)Y({\bf s})Y(%
{\bf s}^{\prime })]g_{3}, \label{t3}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
t_{2}({\bf s,s}^{\prime })=\tilde{t}_{2}(n)[g_{2}({\bf s},n)+g_{2}({\bf s}%
^{\prime },n)]. \label{t2}
\end{equation}
(Note, in this model $g_{2}({\bf s},n)=\tilde{g}_{2}(n)Y({\bf s})$, $%
g_{2}^{2}({\bf s},n)=\tilde{g}_{2}^{2}(n)$, $g_{3}({\bf s},n)=g_{3}(n)$ and
due to $Eq.(\ref{norm})$ one has $g_{3}^{2}({\bf s},n)+\tilde{g}_{2}^{2}(%
{\bf s},n)=-1$.) The solution is given by
\begin{equation}
\tilde{t}_{30}(n)=\gamma _{u}v_{0}^{2}\frac{1+v_{2}^{2}}{%
(1+v_{0}^{2})(1+v_{2}^{2})+(v_{0}-v_{2})^{2}\tilde{g}_{2}^{2}(n)},
\label{t30}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{t}_{2}(n)=\gamma _{u}v_{0}v_{2}\frac{1+v_{0}v_{2}}{%
(1+v_{0}^{2})(1+v_{2}^{2})+(v_{0}-v_{2})^{2}\tilde{g}_{2}^{2}(n)},
\label{t2n}
\end{equation}
while $\tilde{t}_{32}(n)=\tilde{t}_{30}(n,v_{0}\leftrightarrow v_{2})$. \
Several interesting results comes out in this case.
({\bf a}) {\bf The} {\bf critical temperature} $T_{c}$
In the limit $T\rightarrow T_{c}$ $Eqs.(\ref{selfcons},\ref{t30}-\ref{t2n})$
become
\begin{equation}
\ln \frac{T_{c}}{T_{c0}}=\Psi (\frac{1}{2})-\Psi (\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\Gamma
_{pb}}{2\pi T_{c}}), \label{tc}
\end{equation}
where the pair-breaking parameter $\Gamma _{pb}$ is given by ($\Gamma
_{u}=c\pi /N(0)$)
\begin{equation}
\Gamma _{pb}=\Gamma _{u}\frac{(v_{0}-v_{2})^{2}}{(1+v_{0}^{2})(1+v_{2}^{2})}.
\label{gamapb}
\end{equation}
Note that $T_{c}$ vanishes for $\Gamma _{pb}^{c}\approx 0.88T_{c0}$ and this
pairing is in some respects similar to d-wave pairing. It is apparent from $%
Eqs.(\ref{tc}-\ref{gamapb})$ that the pair-breaking effect of impurities is
weakened in the presence of momentum-dependent scattering and it is even
zero for $v_{0}=v_{2}$. The latter result has been previously derived in the
Born approximation \cite{KuOudo}. For $v_{2}\approx v_{0}$ the slope $%
dT_{c}/d\rho _{imp}$ can be very small even for appreciable values of $\rho
_{imp}\sim \Gamma _{tr}=\Gamma _{u}(\bar{\sigma}_{0}+\bar{\sigma}_{2}),$
because in that case $\Gamma _{pb}\ll \Gamma _{tr}$ as indicate the
experimental results of \cite{Sun1}. The parameters $\bar{\sigma}_{i}$ are
given by
\begin{equation}
\bar{\sigma}_{i}=\frac{v_{i}^{2}}{1+v_{i}^{2}}\text{, \ \ }i=0,1,2...
\label{sig}
\end{equation}
The resistivity, $\rho _{imp}$, and the reduction of $T_{c}$ due to impurity
scattering, $T_{c}(\rho _{imp})$, depend on the classical transition rate, $%
W({\bf s,s}^{\prime })=\Gamma _{u}\mid t_{N}({\bf s,s}^{\prime },n)\mid ^{2}$%
in the normal state \cite{Rainer}. This transition rate comprises all the
needed information on impurity scattering for either solving the normal
state Boltzmann equation to determine $\rho _{imp}$ or the linearized gap
equation $Eq.(\ref{selfcons})$ to determine $T_{c}$. For the latter purpose
one needs linear (integral) equation for $g_{2}({\bf s},n)$ which reads
\begin{equation}
\mid \omega _{n}\mid g_{2}({\bf s},n)-\Delta ({\bf s})+\int d{\bf s}^{\prime
}W({\bf s,s}^{\prime })[g_{2}({\bf s},n)-g_{2}({\bf s}^{\prime },n)]=0,
\label{g2w}
\end{equation}
where the normal state t-matrix $t_{N}({\bf s,s}^{\prime },n)$ is the
solution of the equation
\begin{equation}
t_{N}({\bf s,s}^{\prime },n)=v({\bf s,s}^{\prime })-i\pi sign(\omega
_{n})\int d{\bf s}^{\prime \prime }v({\bf s,s}^{\prime \prime })t_{N}({\bf s}%
^{\prime \prime }{\bf ,s}^{\prime },n). \label{tN}
\end{equation}
Hence, measurements of $T_{c}(\rho _{imp})$ curve carry not enough
informations on the microscopic scattering data, i.e. the scattering
T-matrix. More such informations are contained in spectroscopic data on
anisotropic superconductors at temperatures $T\ll T_{c}$, such as tunneling
data or optical data at about gap frequency.
{\bf (b) }The density of states{\bf , }$N(\omega )=N(0)%
\mathop{\rm Im}%
\int d{\bf s}$ $g_{3}({\bf s,}i\omega _{n}\rightarrow \omega -i\eta )$,
depends in the presence of pair-breaking impurities significantly on the
values $v_{0}$ and $v_{1}$. It is known \cite{Preosti} that in the case of
s-wave scattering only ($v_{2}=0$) one has $N(\omega =0)\neq 0$ for $\Gamma
_{u}v_{0}^{2}>\Delta $, and the highest value, $N(\omega
=0)=N(0)/[0.5+0.5(1+(2\Delta /\Gamma )^{2})^{1/2}]^{1/2}$, where $\Gamma
\equiv \Gamma _{u}\bar{\sigma}_{0}$, is reached in the unitarity limit. On
the other hand, one obtains in the limiting case, $v_{0}=v_{2}$, a
restoration of the gap, $N(\omega =0)=0$. Despite of the strong scattering
limit $N(\omega )$ is BCS-like.
{\bf 2. Isotropic impurity scattering and }${\bf d-wave}${\bf \ pairing}
Let us study a two-dimensional superconductor with the pairing function $%
\Delta ({\bf s})\equiv \Delta (\varphi )(=\Delta \cdot Y_{2}(\varphi ))\sim
\cos 2\varphi $ - $d-wave$ pairing. Note this case seems to be more
realistic for HTS oxides than the previous one, because the ''$\cos 2\varphi
$'' pairing has nodes at the simply connected Fermi surface. We assume that
the isotropic impurity potential depends on the transferred scattering angle
\begin{equation}
v(\varphi ,\varphi ^{\prime })=v_{0}+2v_{1}\cos (\varphi -\varphi ^{\prime
})+2v_{2}\cos 2(\varphi -\varphi ^{\prime }), \label{vfi}
\end{equation}
where $v(\varphi ,\varphi ^{\prime })$ contains the pairing channel ($\sim
Y_{2}(\varphi )Y_{2}(\varphi ^{\prime })$) too. (This problem but with $%
v_{2}=0$ is studied in \cite{Haas} but there is an inappropriate sign in the
$t_{2}$-matrix, which in fact corresponds to a magnetic impurity
scattering). From $Eqs.(\ref{t30}-\ref{t2n})$ one obtains the pair-breaking
parameter $\Gamma _{pb}$
\begin{equation}
\Gamma _{pb}=\Gamma _{u}[\bar{\sigma}_{0}\frac{(1-\alpha )^{2}+\alpha
^{2}(1+v_{0}^{2})}{1+\alpha ^{2}v_{0}^{2}}+\bar{\sigma}_{1}], \label{gamafi}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha =v_{2}/v_{0}$ and $\bar{\sigma}_{i}$ are given by $Eq.(\ref
{sig})$.
In order to analyze $T_{c}(\rho _{imp})$ dependence, where the residual
impurity resistivity $\rho _{imp}\sim \Gamma _{tr}$, we need the transport
scattering $\Gamma _{tr}$ which is in this case given by
\begin{equation}
\Gamma _{tr}=\Gamma _{u}\{\bar{\sigma}_{0}^{2}+2\bar{\sigma}_{1}^{2}+2\bar{%
\sigma}_{2}^{2}-2\bar{\sigma}_{0}[\bar{\sigma}_{1}(1+\frac{1}{v_{0}v_{1}})+%
\bar{\sigma}_{2}(1+\frac{1}{v_{0}v_{2}})]\}\text{.} \label{gamatrans}
\end{equation}
If one wants to interpret depairing effects of impurities and robustness of
pairing in HTS oxides in terms of the above results then the experiments
\cite{Sun1} imply that the ratio, $\Gamma _{pb}/\Gamma _{tr}$, should be
minimum. In the case when $v_{2}\ll v_{1}$ one obtains, $\Gamma _{pb}/\Gamma
_{tr}=2$, in both, the Born and unitarity, $v_{0},v_{1}\rightarrow \infty $,
limits. For, $v_{1}\ll v_{2},$ $\ $the pair-breaking parameter, $\Gamma
_{pb} $, is minimized for $\alpha =1/2$ which gives, $\Gamma _{pb}/\Gamma
_{tr}\approx 1/3$, in both limits. This means that the latter case is more
appropriate candidate, than the case, $v_{2}\ll v_{1}$, for the qualitative
explanation of robustness of d-wave pairing in $HTS$ oxides.
\section{\bf Two-band model with nonmagnetic impurities}
The interest in two(multi)-band models and in the impurity effects is
renewed after the discovery of $HTS$ oxides \cite{Hofmann}, \cite{Gajic},
\cite{Combescot}, \cite{Golubov}, where various kinds of the intra- and
inter-band pairing and impurity scattering are considered. By assuming only
intra-band pairing $\Delta _{\alpha }$ ($\alpha =1,2$) the effect of the
nonmagnetic impurities in the Born approximation is described by the
equations ($n$ enumerates Matsubara frequencies)
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\omega}_{\alpha n}=\omega _{n}+\sum_{\beta }\frac{\tilde{\omega}%
_{\beta n}}{2Q_{\beta n}}\gamma _{\alpha \beta } \label{omega2b}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Delta}_{\alpha n}=\Delta _{\alpha }+\sum_{\beta }\frac{\tilde{\Delta}%
_{\beta n}}{2Q_{\beta n}}\gamma _{\alpha \beta } \label{delta2b}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Delta _{\alpha }=\pi T\sum_{\beta ,n}^{-\omega _{D}<\omega _{n}<\omega
_{D}}\lambda _{\alpha \beta }\frac{\tilde{\Delta}_{\beta n}}{Q_{\beta n}},
\label{self2b}
\end{equation}
where $Q_{\alpha n}=\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}_{\alpha n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}%
_{\alpha n}^{2}}$, $\gamma _{\alpha \beta }=u_{\alpha \beta }^{2}N_{\beta
}(0)$ for the nonmagnetic impurity scattering and $\lambda _{\alpha \beta
}=V_{\alpha \beta }^{p}N_{\beta }(0)$ are corresponding coupling constants.
In Ref. \cite{Golubov} are considered various possibilities for the
suppression of the critical temperature, as well as the relative sign of $%
\Delta _{1}$ and $\Delta _{2}$, in the Born limit for nonzero values of $%
\lambda _{\alpha \beta }$ and $\gamma _{\alpha \beta }$. We note some
interesting conclusions obtained in Born approximation which shall be
compared with the results obtained in the unitarity limit: $(i)$ the
diagonal scattering rate $\gamma _{11}$ and $\gamma _{22}$ disappear from
the linearized $Eq.(\ref{self2b})$ for $T_{c}$; $(ii)$ in the case $\lambda
_{11}\neq 0,\lambda _{22}=\lambda _{12}=\lambda _{21}=0$ the depression of $%
T_{c}$ is given by $\delta T_{c}/T_{c}=-\pi \gamma _{12}/8T_{c}$; $(ii)$ for
$\lambda _{11}=\lambda _{22}\neq 0$ and $\lambda _{12}=\lambda _{21}=\lambda
_{\perp }<0$ one has $sign(\Delta _{1}/\Delta _{2})=-1$ and $\delta
T_{c}/T_{c}=-\pi (\gamma _{12}+\gamma _{21})/8T_{c}$, while the sign of $%
\Delta _{1}$ and $\Delta _{2}$ is unchanged by the impurities.
The $t$-matrix equation in the two-band model has the form ($\alpha ,\beta
,\gamma =1,2$) ( we consider a rather small impurity concentration and
neglect an interband hybridization)
\begin{equation}
{\bf \hat{t}}(n)={\bf \hat{u}}+\sum_{\gamma }{\bf \hat{u}N}(0){\bf \hat{g}}%
(n){\bf \hat{t}}(n), \label{t2b}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf \hat{t}}(n)=\sum_{i=0}^{3}{\bf t}_{i}{\bf \otimes }\hat{\tau}%
_{i} $, ${\bf \hat{g}}(n)={\bf g}_{3}{\bf \otimes }\hat{\tau}_{3}+{\bf g}_{2}%
{\bf \otimes }\hat{\tau}_{2}$ and ${\bf \otimes }$ is the direct product of
matrices in the band space (bold) and in the Nambu space (hat). ${\bf g}_{2},%
{\bf g}_{3}$ and ${\bf N}(0)$ are diagonal matrices in the band space.
In the case of nonmagnetic impurities one has ${\bf \hat{u}}^{N}={\bf u}^{N}%
{\bf \otimes }\hat{\tau}_{0}$ and since ${\bf g}_{1}=0$ one has
\[
{\bf t}_{0}^{N}(n)={\bf u}^{N}+{\bf u}^{N}{\bf N}(0)[{\bf g}_{3}(n){\bf t}%
_{3}^{N}(n)+{\bf g}_{3}(n){\bf t}_{3}^{N}(n)]
\]
\[
{\bf t}_{1}^{N}(n)={\bf u}^{N}{\bf N}(0)[-i{\bf g}_{3}(n){\bf t}_{2}^{N}(n)+i%
{\bf g}_{2}(n){\bf t}_{3}^{N}(n)]
\]
\[
{\bf t}_{2}^{N}(n)={\bf u}^{N}{\bf N}(0)[i{\bf g}_{3}(n){\bf t}_{1}^{N}(n)+%
{\bf g}_{2}(n){\bf t}_{0}^{N}(n)]
\]
\begin{equation}
{\bf t}_{3}^{N}(n)={\bf u}^{N}{\bf N}(0)[{\bf g}_{3}(n){\bf t}_{0}^{N}(n)-i%
{\bf g}_{2}(n){\bf t}_{1}^{N}(n)] \label{ti2b}
\end{equation}
Let us consider for simplicity the case when $u_{11}^{N},u_{22}^{N}=0$ but
interband scattering, $u_{12}^{N}=u_{21}^{N}=u$ $\neq 0$, and introduce
three parameters
\begin{equation}
\sigma =\frac{\pi ^{2}N_{1}(0)N_{2}(0)u^{2}}{1+\pi ^{2}N_{1}(0)N_{2}(0)u^{2}}
\label{sig2b}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Gamma _{i}=\frac{c\cdot \sigma }{\pi N_{i}(0)},\text{ \ }i=1,2.
\label{Gama2b}
\end{equation}
After some straightforward calculations one obtains the renormalized
frequencies, $\tilde{\omega}_{in}$, and order parameters $\tilde{\Delta}%
_{in} $
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\omega}_{1n}=\omega _{n}+\Gamma _{1}\frac{(\sigma -1)(\tilde{\omega}%
_{1n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}_{1n}^{2})\tilde{\omega}_{2n}-\sigma \tilde{\omega}%
_{1n}\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}_{1n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}_{1n}^{2}}\sqrt{\tilde{%
\omega}_{2n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}_{2n}^{2}}}{\det 1} \label{omega1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Delta}_{1n}=\Delta _{1}+\Gamma _{1}\frac{(\sigma -1)(\tilde{\omega}%
_{1n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}_{1n}^{2})\tilde{\Delta}_{2n}-\sigma \tilde{\Delta}%
_{1n}\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}_{1n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}_{1n}^{2}}\sqrt{\tilde{%
\omega}_{2n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}_{2n}^{2}}}{\det 1}, \label{delta1}
\end{equation}
where
\[
\det 1=2(\sigma -1)\sigma \sqrt{\tilde{\omega}_{1n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}%
_{1n}^{2}}(\tilde{\Delta}_{1n}\tilde{\Delta}_{2n}+\tilde{\omega}_{1n}\tilde{%
\omega}_{2n})-
\]
\begin{equation}
-[2(\sigma -1)\sigma +1](\tilde{\omega}_{1n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}_{1n}^{2})%
\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}_{2n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}_{2n}^{2}}. \label{det1}
\end{equation}
The solution for the second band is obtained from $Eqs.(\ref{omega1}-\ref
{det1})$ by replacing $1\Longleftrightarrow 2$. In the Born limit one gets
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\omega}_{1n}=\omega _{n}+\Gamma _{1}\frac{\sigma \tilde{\omega}_{2n}}{%
\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}_{2n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}_{2n}^{2}}} \label{omegab}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Delta}_{1n}=\Delta _{1}+\Gamma _{1}\frac{\sigma \tilde{\Delta}_{2n}}{%
\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}_{2n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}_{2n}^{2}}}, \label{deltab}
\end{equation}
i.e. the interband scattering mixes both bands. In the unitarity limit $%
\sigma \rightarrow 1$ ($u\rightarrow \infty $) the bands are decoupled, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\omega}_{\alpha n}=\omega _{n}+\Gamma _{\alpha }\frac{\tilde{\omega}%
_{\alpha n}}{\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}_{\alpha n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}_{\alpha
n}^{2}}} \label{omegauni}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Delta}_{\alpha n}=\Delta _{\alpha n}+\Gamma _{\alpha }\frac{\tilde{%
\Delta}_{\alpha n}}{\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}_{\alpha n}^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}%
_{\alpha n}^{2}}}. \label{deltauni}
\end{equation}
So, in this case the Anderson theorem is restored, i,e, the thermodynamic
properties are impurity independent.
The latter result can be generalize to the case
\begin{equation}
{\bf u}^{N}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha u & u \\
u & u_{22}
\end{array}
\right) . \label{un}
\end{equation}
For $u\rightarrow \infty $ but $\alpha $ and $u_{22}$ finite, $\alpha $ and $%
u_{22}$ drop out from equations and the bands are decoupled with $\tilde{%
\omega}_{\alpha n}$ and $\tilde{\Delta}_{\alpha n}$ given by $Eqs.(\ref
{omegauni}-\ref{deltauni})$. At $T_{c}$ one has
\[
\tilde{\omega}_{1n}=\omega _{n}+\Gamma _{1}sign(\omega _{n})
\]
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Delta}_{1n}=\Delta _{1}+\Gamma _{1}(\frac{\tilde{\Delta}_{1n}}{\mid
\tilde{\omega}_{1n}\mid }+\frac{(1-\sigma )\tilde{\Delta}_{2n}}{\mid \tilde{%
\omega}_{2n}\mid }). \label{omdel}
\end{equation}
From $Eq.(\ref{omdel})$ it is seen that in the unitarity limit, $\sigma
\rightarrow 1$, the renormalized order parameters are decoupled and $T_{c}$
is unrenormalized. For $\sigma <1$ it can be easily shown that $T_{c}$ is
reduced.
\section{Small anisotropic defect in anisotropic superconductors}
In what follows we consider the effect of a single impurity (small defect)
with small scattering length $a$, which is supposed to be much smaller than
the superconducting coherence length, $\mid a\mid \ll \xi _{0}$. Hence, the
impurity can be considered as a localized perturbation, but with negligible
renormalization of $\hat{\Delta}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R})$, giving rise to the
quasiclassic equations \cite{Thuneberg}, \cite{Thuneberg2}
\[
\lbrack (i\omega _{n}+e{\bf v}_{F}\cdot {\bf A(R)})\hat{\tau}_{3}-\hat{\Delta%
}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R}),\delta \hat{g}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R},\omega _{n})]+i%
{\bf v}_{F}\nabla _{{\bf R}}\delta \hat{g}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R},\omega _{n})=
\]
\begin{equation}
=[\hat{t}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf p}_{F},\omega _{n}),\hat{g}_{imt}({\bf p}_{F},%
{\bf R},\omega _{n})]\delta ({\bf R-R}_{imp}). \label{eloinhom}
\end{equation}
Here, $\delta \hat{g}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R},\omega _{n})=\hat{g}({\bf p}_{F},%
{\bf R},\omega _{n})-\hat{g}_{imt}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R},\omega _{n})$. The
extra term proportional to $\delta ({\bf R-R}_{imp})$ describes a jump in $%
\hat{g}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R},\omega _{n})$ at the site ${\bf R}_{imp}$ of the
impurity (defect), while the intermediate Green's function $\hat{g}_{imt}(%
{\bf p}_{F},{\bf R},\omega _{n})$ describes the quasiclassic motion in the
absence of impurity (defect) and it is the solution of $Eq.(\ref{eloinhom})$
by putting the right-side to zero. $\hat{g}_{imt}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R},\omega
_{n})$ is normalized according to $Eq.(\ref{norm})$. The t-matrix is the
solution of $Eq.(\ref{tmatrix})$ where $\hat{g}({\bf p}_{F},\omega _{n})$ is
replaced by $\hat{g}_{imt}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R=R}_{imp},\omega _{n})$. The
change of the superconducting free-energy in the presence of a single
impurity (defect) is given by \cite{Thuneberg}, \cite{Thuneberg2}
\begin{equation}
\delta F({\bf R}_{imp})=N(0)T\sum_{n}\int_{0}^{1}d\lambda \int \frac{d^{2}%
\hat{k}_{F}}{4\pi }\int d^{3}RTr[\delta \hat{g}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R},\omega
_{n})\hat{\Delta}_{b}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R})], \label{deltafg}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\Delta}_{b}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R})$ and the vector potential ${\bf %
A}_{b}({\bf R})$ are calculated in the absence of the impurity. The Green's
function, $\delta \hat{g}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R},\omega _{n})$, must be
evaluated for an order parameter $\hat{\Delta}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R})=\lambda
\hat{\Delta}_{b}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R})$.
In the following we study the consequences of anisotropic impurity
scattering for three selected examples of inhomogeneous anisotropic
superconductors.
{\bf 1}. {\bf Bound states due to the anisotropic impurity}
Let us consider the local change of superconductivity in the presence of a
single anisotropic impurity with the potential $v({\bf s,s}^{\prime })$
given by $Eq.(\ref{vsep})$ and analyze the impurity-induced quasiparticle
bound state{\bf \ }and the change in the free-energy $\delta F({\bf R}%
_{imp}) ${\bf . }By assuming that{\bf \ }$2\pi \bar{\sigma}_{i}\ll
E_{F}/\Delta _{0}$ , where $i=0,2$ and $\bar{\sigma}%
_{i}=v_{i}^{2}/(1+v_{i}^{2})$, the t-matrix is given by the same expression
as $Eqs.(\ref{t30}-\ref{t2n})$, but with $\tilde{g}_{2}(n)$ is replaced by $%
g_{2}^{(0)}(n)$. The bound state energy $\omega _{B,anis}<\Delta _{0}$,
which is due to the pair-breaking impurity effects, can be obtained as a
pole of the $t$-matrix which gives
\begin{equation}
\omega _{B,anis}=\Delta _{0}\sqrt{1-\bar{\sigma}_{pb},} \label{bound}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\bar{\sigma}_{pb}=\bar{\sigma}_{0}\bar{\sigma}_{2}\frac{(v_{0}-v_{2})^{2}}{%
v_{0}^{2}v_{2}^{2}}. \label{sigpb}
\end{equation}
In the unitarity limit for both channels, i.e. $v_{0}\gg 1$, $v_{2}\gg 1$
but $v_{2}/v_{0}$ finite, one has $\omega _{B,anis}\rightarrow \Delta _{0}$
contrary to the unitarity limit for the s-wave scattering ($v_{0}\gg 1$, $%
v_{2}=0$) where $\omega _{B,iso}\rightarrow 0$. However, the zero-energy
bound state $\omega _{B,anis}\rightarrow 0$ appears when $v_{0}v_{2}=-1$,
i.e. if one channel is in the unitarity limit the other one must be in the
Born limit.
Due to the bound state there is a change (increase) of the free-energy $%
\delta F({\bf R}_{imp})\equiv \delta F_{imp}$. By solving $Eq.(\ref{eloinhom}%
)$ with $\hat{g}_{imt}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R},\omega _{n})$ given by $Eq.(\ref
{g0})$ and $\hat{t}$ given by $Eqs.\ref{t3}-\ref{t2n})$ one gets $\delta
F_{imp}$ from $Eq.(\ref{deltafg})$
\[
\delta F_{imp}=T\sum_{n}\int_{0}^{1}d\lambda \bar{\sigma}_{pb}\frac{\lambda
\Delta _{0}^{2}\omega _{n}^{2}}{[\omega _{n}^{2}+\lambda ^{2}\Delta
_{0}^{2}][\omega _{n}^{2}+\omega _{B,anis}^{2}]}=
\]
\begin{equation}
=2T\ln \frac{\cosh (\Delta _{0}/2T)}{\cosh [(1-\sigma _{pb})^{1/2}\Delta
_{0}/2T]}, \label{deltafimp}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\sigma}_{pb}$ is given in $Eq.(\ref{sigpb})$. It is seen that
there is a loss in the condensation energy,$\delta F({\bf R}_{imp})>0$,
which is related to the pair-breaking effect of impurity. For $v_{0}=v_{2}$
such an impurity does not affect superconductivity and $\delta F({\bf R}%
_{imp})=0$.
The obtained results tell us that in for angle-dependent impurity scattering
even a strong impurity potential may have very weak effect on $T_{c}$, the
bound state, and the free-energy of anisotropic and unconventional pairing.
In that case the anisotropic pairing is robust in the presence of impurities.
{\bf 2. Pinning of single-vortex by a small anisotropic defect}
Because in $HTS$ oxides strong correlations give rise to strong
momentum-dependent charge scattering processes it is interesting to analyze
the elementary-flux-pinning potential of a small defect by using the
approach of Thuneberg et al., \cite{Thuneberg}, \cite{Thuneberg2}, who
showed that in s-wave superconductors the pinning energy of a small defect ($%
a\ll \xi _{0}$) is dominated by scattering processes at the defect. It is
proportional to the product of the scattering cross section and coherence
length ($\propto a^{2}\xi _{0}$), instead of (naively believed) $a^{3}$. The
case of anisotropic pairing with s-wave impurities and near $T_{c}$ was
recently studied in \cite{Friesen}.
In what follows we study the effect of scattering anisotropy on the pinning
energy of a small defect in an anisotropic superconductor at any temperature
below $T_{c}$. We use the model potential given in $Eq.(\ref{vsep})$ and
assume that the vortex is placed at the defect. In order to calculate the
elementary flux-pinning energy one has to solve the quasiclassical equations
for various ballistic trajectories with ${\bf R}$-dependent the vector
potential, ${\bf A(R)}$, and order parameter,
\begin{equation}
\Delta _{b}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R})=\mid \Delta ({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R})\mid
e^{i\theta }Y(\theta ) \label{deltaR}
\end{equation}
In the gauge where $\theta $ is the angle with respect to the X-axis then $%
{\bf A(R)}$ has no radial component. The solution of $Eq.(\ref{eloinhom})$
requires for a realistic vortex numerical calculations. For a qualitative
discussion we will adopt a simplified vortex model \cite{Thuneberg}, \cite
{Thuneberg2} which neglects the suppression of the order parameter in the
vortex core and sets $\mid \Delta _{b}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R})\mid =\Delta _{0}(%
{\bf p}_{F})$, i.e. independent of ${\bf R}$. Hence, the order parameter
along a trajectory passing through the vortex center has constant magnitude
but its phase changes abruptly by $\pi $ when going through the vortex core.
This ''zero-core model'' gives the right order of magnitude of the pinning
energy, $\delta F_{pin}({\bf R}_{imp})$, when compared with the numerical
calculations \cite{Thuneberg2}. In order to calculate $\delta F_{pin}({\bf R}%
_{imp})$ two quantities are needed: $\hat{g}_{imt}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R=R}%
_{imp},\omega _{n})\equiv \hat{g}_{v}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R=R}_{imp},\omega
_{n})$ in the presence of the zero-core vortex and the impurity $t$-matrix
calculated with the Green's function, $\hat{g}_{v}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R=R}%
_{imp},\omega _{n})$, of the zero-core model. The solution is
straightforward \cite{Thuneberg2} and gives
\begin{equation}
\hat{g}_{v}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R=R}_{imp},\omega _{n})=\frac{1}{\omega _{n}}%
[(-\Delta _{2}\hat{\tau}_{1}+\Delta _{1}\hat{\tau}_{2})Y(\theta )+(-i\alpha
_{n})\hat{\tau}_{3}], \label{gv}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\hat{t}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf p}_{F},\omega _{n})=t_{3}\hat{\tau}_{3}=-i\gamma
_{u}\alpha _{n}\omega _{n}[\frac{\bar{\sigma}_{0}}{\omega _{n}^{2}+\bar{%
\sigma}_{0}\Delta _{0}^{2}}+\frac{\bar{\sigma}_{2}}{\omega _{n}^{2}+\bar{%
\sigma}_{2}\Delta _{0}^{2}}]\hat{\tau}_{3}. \label{tv}
\end{equation}
Here, $\alpha _{n}=\sqrt{\omega _{n}^{2}+\Delta _{0}^{2}}$. $Eq.(\ref
{eloinhom})$ can be solved by the Fourier (or Laplace) transform which gives
the expression for the pinning free-energy
\begin{equation}
\delta F_{pin}=\delta F_{pin}^{(stiff)}(\bar{\sigma}_{0},\bar{\sigma}%
_{2})+\delta F_{pin}^{(pb)}(\sigma _{pb}) \label{deltafpin}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\delta F_{pin}^{(stiff)}=-2T\ln \{\cosh \frac{\sqrt{\bar{\sigma}_{0}}\Delta
_{0}}{2T}\cdot \cosh \frac{\sqrt{\bar{\sigma}_{2}}\Delta _{0}}{2T}\},
\label{stif}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\delta F_{pin}^{(imp)}=-2T\ln \frac{\cosh (\Delta _{0}/2T)}{\cosh [(1-\bar{%
\sigma}_{pb})^{1/2}\Delta _{0}/2T]}. \label{pinimp}
\end{equation}
$Eqs.(\ref{deltafpin}-\ref{pinimp})$ imply that, $\delta F_{pin}<0$, and the
vortex is attracted (pinned) by the defect. A comparison of $Eq.(\ref
{deltafpin})$ with the corresponding results for $s-wave$ superconductors
with an s-wave scattering potential shows, that in the former case two
additional terms are present. The first one, depending on $\bar{\sigma}_{2}$%
, appears also in s-wave superconductors with anisotropic scattering
accounted for. In fact $\delta F_{pin}^{(stiff)}$ describes the reduction of
the superconducting stiffness in the presence of impurities. For instance
near $T_{c}$ $Eq.(\ref{stif})$ gives
\begin{equation}
\delta F_{pin}^{(stiff)}=-(\bar{\sigma}_{0}+\bar{\sigma}_{2})\cdot \frac{%
\Delta _{0}^{2}(T)}{4T_{c}}\approx -7.6\frac{\bar{\sigma}_{0}+\bar{\sigma}%
_{2}}{v_{F}^{2}}\xi _{0}^{2}\cdot T_{c}\Delta _{0}^{2}(T), \label{stiff}
\end{equation}
and $\delta F_{pin}^{(stiff)}$ is proportional to the total scattering
amplitude $\bar{\sigma}_{0}+\bar{\sigma}_{2}$. For vortex far away from the
impurity there is loss in the condensation energy $\delta F_{pin}^{(pb)}(%
\bar{\sigma}_{pb})$ due to pair-breaking effect of the impurity, i.e. $%
\delta F_{pin}^{(pb)}(\bar{\sigma}_{pb})=-\delta F_{imp}(\bar{\sigma}_{pb})$
where $\delta F_{imp}(\bar{\sigma}_{pb})$ is given by $Eq.(\ref{deltafimp})$%
. Therefore this part enters in $Eq.(\ref{deltafpin})$ with the negative
sign, thus increasing the pinning energy when vortex is sitting on the
defect and stabilizing it additionally. Near $T_{c}$ one has
\begin{equation}
\delta F_{pin}^{(pb)}(\sigma _{eff})=-\bar{\sigma}_{pb}\cdot \frac{\Delta
_{0}^{2}(T)}{4T_{c}}, \label{cond}
\end{equation}
For the s-wave scattering only, $v_{2}=0$, one has $\bar{\sigma}_{2}=0$, $%
\bar{\sigma}_{pb}=\bar{\sigma}_{0}$, and the pair-breaking effect is maximal
while the condensation energy is gained maximally for vortex sitting on the
defect. However, for, $v_{2}=v_{0}$ the pair-breaking of impurity is absent $%
\bar{\sigma}_{pb}=0$ and $\delta F_{pin}^{(pb)}=0$, i.e. in this case the
pinning by the small defect is similar to that in s-wave superconductors.
The physical picture of the vortex pinning by small defect given above is
based on the known results based on the microscopic derivation of the
Ginzburg-Landau equations in the presence of impurities. An explanation
based on the quasiclassical approach is given in \cite{Thuneberg}, \cite
{Thuneberg2} and we briefly discuss it in order to develop an intuition for
the case of a double-vortex pinning, which is studied below. Because the
order parameter changes its phase by $\pi $ along the trajectories across
the vortex core it leads to the phase change of $\hat{g}_{v}({\bf p}_{F},%
{\bf R},\omega _{n})(\equiv \hat{g}_{imt}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R},\omega _{n}))$
on the distance $\xi _{0}$, thus causing a cost in the condensation energy,
i.e. the maximal increase of the free-energy. Note, the function $\hat{g}%
_{v}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R},\omega _{n})$ describes the quasiclassical motion
of particles (or pairs) along trajectories across the vortex core where the
maximal phase change ($\pi $) occurs. In the presence of defect the motion
of particles is described by the function $\hat{g}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R}%
,\omega _{n})$ which contains scattering of particles to new directions
where the phase change (mismatch) is less than $\pi $ and it costs less
condensation energy. Therefore the vortex is attracted to the defect because
scattering helps superconductivity to sustain abrupt changes in the order
parameter. The latter explains the contribution $\delta F_{pin}^{(stiff)}$,
while in the anisotropic superconductors, due to pair-breaking effects of
impurities, there is a gain of condensation energy $-\delta F_{imp}(\sigma
_{eff})$ for vortex sitting on the defect.
{\bf 3. Pinning of double-vortex by small defect}
We extend the calculations in \cite{Thuneberg2} to the pinning of
multiply-quantized vortices on small defects. First, a s-wave superconductor
is considered and we put the question - is it possible to pin the
double-flux-vortex ($\Phi =2\Phi _{0}$) by the small defect, which is for
simplicity characterized by the parameter $\bar{\sigma}_{0}$ for s-wave
scattering only? The ''zero-core model'' is assumed again. In that case the
order parameter can be parametrized in the form
\begin{equation}
\Delta _{b}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R})=\mid \Delta ({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R})\mid
e^{2i\theta }. \label{delta2R}
\end{equation}
For particle motion across the double-vortex core the order parameter does
not change phase and in that case the solutions for $\hat{g}_{imt}({\bf p}%
_{F},{\bf R=R}_{imp},\omega _{n})(\equiv \hat{g}_{2v}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R=R}%
_{imp},\omega _{n}))$ and for $\hat{t}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf p}_{F},\omega _{n})$
are given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{g}_{2v}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R=R}_{imp},\omega _{n})=\frac{i}{\alpha _{n}}%
[\Delta _{1}\hat{\tau}_{1}+\Delta _{2}\hat{\tau}_{2}+(-\omega _{n})\hat{\tau}%
_{3}] \label{g2v}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\hat{t}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf p}_{F},\omega _{n})=t_{3}\hat{\tau}_{3}=-i\omega
_{n}\alpha _{n}\gamma _{u}\frac{\bar{\sigma}_{0}}{\omega _{n}^{2}+\tilde{%
\sigma}_{0}\Delta _{0}^{2}}\hat{\tau}_{3}, \label{t2v}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\sigma}_{0}=\bar{\sigma}_{0}/v_{0}^{2}$. Then by solving $Eq.(%
\ref{eloinhom})$ and by using $Eq.(\ref{deltafg})$ and this solutions one
obtains the pinning energy of the double-vortex within the zero-core model
\begin{equation}
\delta F_{2v,pin}=2T\sum_{n}\int_{0}^{1}d\lambda \frac{\lambda \Delta
_{0}^{2}\omega _{n}^{2}\bar{\sigma}_{0}}{\alpha _{n}^{2}[\omega _{n}^{2}+%
\tilde{\sigma}_{0}\lambda ^{2}\Delta _{0}^{2}]}>0. \label{f2vpi}
\end{equation}
The main conclusion coming out from $Eq.(\ref{f2vpi})$ is that because $%
\delta F_{pin}>0$ the double-vortex in s-wave superconductors is repelled
from the defect - i.e. the zero-core double-vortex can not be pinned.
Contrary to the single-vortex, where the defect scatters particles to new
directions where the phase change is smaller, in the case of double-vortex
the particles are scattered to directions where the phase change is larger.
However, it might be that the above obtained results are an artefact of the
''zero-core model'', where there is no suppression of the superconducting
order due to the vortex core, and numerical calculations are required for a
realistic double-vortex structure \cite{Endres}.
In the case of an unconventional pairing, like that in Section $II.1$, the
order parameter is given by $\Delta _{b}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R})=\mid \Delta (%
{\bf p}_{F},{\bf R})\mid \exp (2i\theta )Y(\theta )$ and the t-matrix
contains also terms $t_{1},t_{2}\neq 0$ leading to a decrease of the jump $[%
\hat{t}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf p}_{F},\omega _{n}),\hat{g}_{imt}({\bf p}_{F},{\bf R%
},\omega _{n})]$ in $Eq.(\ref{eloinhom})$. In this case the pinning energy
contains the additional term (gain in energy) due to the pair-breaking
effect of the impurity, $-\delta F_{imp}$, i.e. $\delta F_{pin}=\delta
F_{2v,pin}-\delta F_{imp}$. Since $\delta F_{2v,pin}$ is less positive
(repulsive) than for a s-wave superconductor in $Eq.(\ref{f2vpi})$, and
because $-\delta F_{imp}<0$ one can happen that $\delta F_{pin}<0$\ and even
the zero-core double-vortex can be pinned by the defect. A realistic
calculation of $\delta F_{pin}$ for anisotropic superconductors with
anisotropic scattering of single and double-vortex will be discussed
elsewhere \cite{Endres}.
In conclusion the anisotropic impurity scattering gives rise to new
qualitative effects in unconventional and anisotropic superconductors, where
for instance it ''screens'' the strength of the scattering in some
quantities (like $T_{c}$ - robustness of pairing, bound states, pinning,
etc.) even in the unitarity limit. It seems that this situation is partly
realized in $HTS$ oxides where the d-wave pairing is robust in the presence
of even very strong impurity scattering. In two-band models nonmagnetic
impurities do not affect thermodynamic properties of s-wave superconductors
in the unitarity limit for the interband scattering, contrary to the Born
limit, i.e. in this case the Anderson theorem is restored in the unitarity
limit.
{\bf Acknowledgments}
M. L. K. thanks Dierk Rainer for valuable discussions, suggestions and for
careful reading and correcting the manuscript. M. L. K. acknowledges
gratefully the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the
Forschergruppe ''Transportph\"{a}nomene in Supraleitern und Suprafluiden''.
O.V. D. thanks Nils Schopohl for valuable discussions and support.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:one}
Experiments at the high energy frontier require a good understanding of
jets, their distribution in phase space with respect to each other and to
the leptons and photons produced in mixed electroweak-QCD processes. The
internal structure of jets is equally important. Internal jet structure
is intimately related to the number of jets reconstructed by different
jet-defining algorithms. It also is an issue in reconstructing the kinematic
properties of single jets, such as their transverse momentum or direction,
and the invariant mass of two- or three-jet systems. Both
aspects are important when searching for signs of new physics in hadron
collider experiments.
One measure of internal jet structure is the transverse energy flow
inside jets. This internal jet shape is defined
as the fraction of a jet's transverse energy, $E_T$, which is deposited
inside a sub-cone of radius $r<R$, where $R$ is the cone size of the jet
in the $\eta$-$\phi$ plane. Such jet shape measurements
have been performed in the past at $p\bar p$ colliders~\cite{ua1,tevatron}
and also in photo-production and deep-inelastic-scattering (DIS) events
at HERA~\cite{h1,zeusgamma,zeusdis}, and have been compared to theoretical
calculations~\cite{eks,kramer,giele,seymour}. Comparisons of the shape
of gluon-rich jets at hadron colliders with the quark-dominated jets produced
in $ep$ and $e^+e^-$ collisions~\cite{opal} confirm the broader structure
of gluon jets, which is expected because the larger color charge of gluons
as compared to quarks leads to enhanced collinear radiation.
A major obstacle for a precise comparison of jet shape data to perturbative
QCD predictions is the fact that, at tree level, QCD jets are single,
massless partons. Hence, a nontrivial jet shape only arises
at higher order, where a jet may contain two or more partons. Two partons
inside a jet, which appear in typical NLO cross section calculations,
produce jet shapes at lowest order only. Jets with three partons first appear
in two-loop calculations and thus a determination of jet shapes at true NLO,
in a given physical process, is extremely demanding theoretically.
Photo-production of jets~\cite{kramer} or dijet production at the
Tevatron~\cite{eks} is a case in point: the kinematics of the event requires
at least two hard jets in the final state, with balancing transverse momentum.
A NLO jet shape, with jets consisting of three partons, thus requires
four-parton final states at tree
level and one-loop corrections to all $2\to 3$ processes involving quarks
and gluons. These corrections are only now becoming available~\cite{nlo3jet}.
In this letter we perform a full NLO jet shape calculation in a
kinematically simpler situation: DIS at HERA. At sufficiently large $Q^2$,
the scattered electron or positron in a DIS event provides the transverse
momentum which is required to balance a high-$E_T$ jet. A three-parton final
state then suffices to generate jets containing three colored partons. The
soft and collinear divergences, which are generated by integrating the
three-parton
contributions over the entire phase space, are canceled by one-loop
corrections to two-parton final states and two-loop corrections to one-parton
contributions. However, a single parton cannot produce internal jet structure
and thus all true two-loop effects can be neglected when determining
differential jet shapes for up to three partons.
The full one-loop QCD corrections for two- and three-parton final states
in DIS are implemented in the MEPJET Monte
Carlo program~\cite{mepjet}. Consequently, it is possible to extract
full NLO jet shapes for the current jet in DIS with MEPJET.
In the following, we analyze NLO corrections to the differential jet shape
$\rho(r,R,E_{Tj},\eta_j)$ for events with a single jet of transverse
energy $E_{Tj}$ and pseudo-rapidity $\eta_j$. The differential jet shape
is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rho}
\rho(r,R,E_{Tj},\eta_j) = {1\over d^2\sigma_{NLO}/dE_{Tj}\, d\eta_j}
\sum_{n}\; \int dr_n\; {E_{Tn} \over E_{Tj}}
\delta(r-r_n) {d^3 \sigma \over dE_{Tj}\, d\eta_j\, dr_n}\; .
\end{equation}
Here the sum runs over all partons, $n$, belonging to the jet, which have a
separation $r_n = \sqrt{(\eta_n-\eta_j)^2+(\phi_n-\phi_j)^2}=r<R$ from the
axis of the jet in the legoplot. In practice, both the data and the Monte
Carlo calculation replace the differential distributions by integrals over
finite bin sizes in $E_{Tj}$, $\eta_j$ and $r$.
Since we want to compare our NLO results with the ZEUS data, we follow the
ZEUS event selection~\cite{zeusdis} and study current jets in neutral
current (NC) DIS events with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cutszeus}
E_e>10\;{\rm GeV}\;, \qquad Q^2>100\;{\rm GeV}^2\; ,
\qquad E_{Tj}>14\;{\rm GeV}\;, \qquad -1<\eta_j<2\; ,
\end{equation}
where $E_e$ is the energy of the scattered electron in the laboratory frame.
The default jet cone size is $R=1$ and cone slices of width $\Delta r = 0.1$
are considered.
Because of the modest jet $E_T$, $b$-quarks are unlikely to appear inside
a current jet. Production of massive $\bar bb$ pairs via photon-gluon
fusion is small also, for the cuts considered below. Thus it is appropriate
to perform the calculations in a fixed 4-flavor scheme, neglecting any
$b$-quark contributions. Matching 4-flavor parton distributions are provided
by the CTEQ4F4 set~\cite{cteq4f4}; for consistency with the parton
distribution functions we use two-loop expressions for the running strong
coupling constant, with $\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline {\rm MS}}=292\;{\rm MeV}$.
For the theoretical jet shapes, the factors in the denominator of
Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho}) are determined using NLO DIS cross
sections at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$, within a given set of
selection cuts. Therefore, they correspond to 1-jet exclusive cross
sections for the 1-jet cuts described below. For the ZEUS cuts, 2-jet
events also enter with single weight only. The numerator is determined at full
${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ for the NLO results and at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$
for the LO calculations.
The default version of the MEPJET2.2 program is written for the calculation
of NLO dijet cross sections in DIS, i.e. allowing for one soft or collinear
parton in the final state. For the calculation of jet shapes at NLO, up to
two soft and/or collinear partons must be generated.
We have modified the MEPJET
phase space generator to cover this enlarged phase space region for two- and
three-parton final states.
The matrix elements needed for the calculation of NLO jet shapes are identical
to the ones used for the NLO dijet cross section and have been tested
previously~\cite{mepjet,graudenz}. The cancellation of collinear and infrared
singularities employs the phase space slicing method of Giele, Glover, and
Kosower~\cite{ggk}, which removes soft and/or collinear regions of the
three-parton phase space, where some pair of final and/or initial parton
momenta
satisfies $2p_i\cdot p_j < s_{min}$. Contributions from these regions are
approximated by the appropriate asymptotic expressions and added analytically
to the two-parton contributions, where they cancel the soft and collinear
singularities of the virtual contributions. The final result must be
independent of the choice of $s_{min}$, for values of this soft cutoff
sufficiently small to make the asymptotic approximations valid.
Numerical $s_{min}$
independence is a powerful test for the correct implementation of observables
and of the phase space generator, as well as for the infrared stability of the
jet clustering algorithms~\cite{nlo3jet}.
Results of this $s_{min}$ test are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:smin} for the
differential jet shapes at $r=0.15$, 0.45, 0.65, and 0.95 in the successive
combination algorithm of Ellis and Soper~\cite{es} (see below). Within
Monte Carlo statistical errors of about 1-5\%, results are
independent of $s_{min}$ below $s_{min}\approx 0.01\;{\rm GeV}^2$.
We have checked that similar
results hold for our implementation of the PUCELL jet algorithm employed by
ZEUS~\cite{zeusgamma}. We will use $s_{min}=0.01\;{\rm GeV}^2$ in the
following.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace*{0.5in}
\begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)
\special{psfile=fig1.ps
voffset=-300 hoffset=590 hscale=75 vscale=75 angle=90}
\end{picture}
\vspace{7.0cm}
\caption{$s_{min}$ dependence of jet shapes $\rho(r)$ in four representative
$r$-bins. The Ellis-Soper $k_T$ algorithm~\protect\cite{es} has been used,
within the cuts of Eqs.~(\protect\ref{eq:cutszeus},\protect\ref{eq:cutsopt})
and requiring that only one hard jet, of $E_{Tj}>5$~GeV is seen in the
pseudo-rapidity range $-2.5<\eta_j<2.5$.
Errors represent Monte Carlo statistics only. Note that results in three of
the four bins have been rescaled by the factors given in parentheses.
}
\vspace*{0.2in}
\label{fig:smin}
\end{figure}
In our NLO calculation of jet shapes, the current jet contains up to three
partons, which provides a much more detailed simulation of internal
jet structure than is possible in a LO analysis. The extra detail suggests
a direct comparison of NLO theory with
data, with the $E_T$ flow of hadrons in the data replaced by
parton $E_T$. Previous LO analyses modeled hadronization effects
by introducing a phenomenological parameter, $R_{sep}$, which controlled
the clustering of partons with legoplot separations between $R$
and $2R$\cite{rsep}. Our analysis implements the full experimental jet
algorithms at the parton level, without introducing extra, tunable parameters.
We have studied two algorithms in detail, the successive
combination algorithm of Ellis and Soper~\cite{es}, called $k_T$ algorithm
in the following, and the PUCELL algorithm used by the ZEUS
Collaboration~\cite{zeusgamma,zeusdis}, for default cone sizes of $R=1$.
The $k_T$ algorithm successively combines pairs of nearest partons/protojets
to new protojets, up to a distance $R$ in the legoplot. Initially all
partons are classified as protojets of transverse energy $E_T=p_T$. The
algorithm then compares the $E_T$'s of protojets, via $d_i=E_{Ti}R$, with the
$E_T$ weighted distances, $d_{ij}= {\rm min}(E_{Ti},E_{Tj})
\sqrt{(\eta_i-\eta_j)^2+(\phi_i-\phi_j)^2}$, of pairs of
protojets in the legoplot.
The pair of protojets with the smallest $d_{ij}$ is recombined if
$d_{ij}$ is smaller than all the $d_i$ (which implies that their distance
in the legoplot is smaller than $R$). Otherwise the protojet with the smallest
$E_T$, and hence the smallest $d_i$, is called
a jet and eliminated from the list of protojets. This process is iterated
until all protojets have been assigned to jets. Note that some of these
jets may be eliminated by subsequent selection cuts, as in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:cutszeus}). Some freedom exists in the assignment of jet momenta,
i.e. in the recombination scheme. For the $k_T$ algorithm we use the
$E$-scheme, i.e. the jet four-momentum is the sum of the four-momenta of the
partons belonging to the jet and the jet $E_T$ is the sum of the parton
$p_T$'s.
Apart from the definition of recombined momenta, our $k_T$ algorithm is
identical to the ones described in Refs.~\cite{seymour,es}.
The PUCELL algorithm is an iterative fixed cone algorithm. In a first step
all partons with $p_T>300$~MeV are considered as seeds for the formation
of pre-clusters. Starting with the highest $p_T$ seed, a pre-cluster is
formed, containing this seed and all seeds within a cone of radius $R$
around it. This procedure is iterated with the remaining seeds, which do
not yet belong to a pre-cluster, in order of decreasing $p_T$. All the seeds
belonging to a given pre-cluster are then merged, according to the Snowmass
convention~\cite{snowmass}, i.e., the legoplot variables of the pre-clusters
are defined as the $E_T$-weighted averages over the seeds,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:snowmass1}
E_{T,p.c.} & = & \sum_i E_{Ti} \;,\\
\label{eq:snowmass2}
\eta_{p.c.}& = & {1\over E_{T,p.c.}} \sum_i E_{Ti}\;\eta_i \;,\\
\label{eq:snowmass3}
\phi_{p.c.}& = & {1\over E_{T,p.c.}} \sum_i E_{Ti}\;\phi_i \;.
\end{eqnarray}
In a second step, all partons are considered, even if they fall below the
seed threshold of 300~MeV. A new cluster axis is calculated as in
(\ref{eq:snowmass1}-\ref{eq:snowmass3}),
in terms of all partons inside a cone of radius $R$ of the old
(pre)cluster axis. This second step is iterated until the contents of
all clusters stabilize.
A third step deals with overlapping clusters, i.e. with clusters which share
partons. If the energy of the common partons is more than 75\% of the
energy of the lower-energy cluster, the two clusters are merged to a single
jet. Otherwise two separate jets are formed and common partons are
assigned to the nearest jet.
We can now compare the jet shape predictions for these jet algorithms at
both leading and next-to-leading order.
One way to assess the improvements from a NLO calculation is to study the
scale dependence of observables. The process at hand is inclusive DIS which
basically has a single scale only, $Q$, the momentum transfer carried by
the virtual photon. $Q$ is the obvious choice for the factorization scale
and we fix $\mu_f^2=Q^2$ throughout. On the other hand, we are investigating
the inner structure of jets,
and the average jet mass or the average transverse momentum of partons,
with respect to the jet axis, appear as reasonable scale
choices\footnote{The mass of the jet in an individual event appears as
an integration variable in the determination of $\rho(r)$ and is not
a physical scale of the observable.}. These
scales are proportional to the intrinsic scale of the entire process, $Q$,
and become different from zero only at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$, thus
suggesting $\alpha_s Q^2$ as a scale choice.
This leads us to investigate variations of the renormalization scale
$\mu_r^2=\xi \alpha_s(Q^2)Q^2$ with the scale factor $\xi$. Searching
for minimal sensitivity~\cite{stevenson} of $\rho(r)$, a ``correct''
scale $\mu_r=Q$ would appear as a flat $\xi$-dependence near $\xi=1/\alpha_s$.
Thus, for all practical purposes, our choice is general enough.
For the PUCELL algorithm
and two representative bins in $r$, the scale variation of the differential
jet shape, $\rho(r)$, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scale.PUC}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace*{0.5in}
\begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)
\special{psfile=fig2a.ps
voffset=-280 hoffset=460 hscale=65 vscale=65 angle=90}
\special{psfile=fig2b.ps
voffset=-280 hoffset=680 hscale=65 vscale=65 angle=90}
\end{picture}
\vspace{7.0cm}
\caption{Renormalization scale dependence of the differential jet shape
$\rho(r)$ at (a) $r=0.15$ and (b) $r=0.45$, using the PUCELL algorithm.
\Blue{The dash-dotted and dashed
lines are the LO and NLO results for the acceptance cuts of
Eq.~(\protect\ref{eq:cutszeus})}. \Red{Also shown are LO (dotted line) and
NLO (solid line) results for events with one single jet only of $E_T>5$~GeV
(see Eqs.~(\protect\ref{eq:jetveto},\protect\ref{eq:cutsopt}))}.
}
\vspace*{0.2in}
\label{fig:scale.PUC}
\end{figure}
The dash-dotted and dashed lines show the LO and NLO results for the
generic ZEUS acceptance cuts of Eq.~(\ref{eq:cutszeus}). The $E_T$ flow is
somewhat higher at NLO, i.e. jets are broader. However, the renormalization
scale dependence is almost as large at NLO as for the LO case. This
disappointing result can be traced to a large contribution from events with
an additional low $E_T$ jet. In DIS events with two jets, at
${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$, at best one jet can contain two partons, and, hence,
the jet shape is modeled at LO only. In order to enhance the contribution
from jets with the maximal number of partons, which then are truly modeled
at NLO, events which contain additional jets should be eliminated.
We achieve this goal by vetoing events containing any additional jets with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:jetveto}
E_{Tj}>5\;{\rm GeV}\;, \qquad -2.5<\eta_j<2.5\; .
\end{equation}
These veto cuts are chosen such that they can be easily implemented
experimentally. A further reduction of events with hadronic activity
beyond the current jet is achieved by requiring the scattered lepton
and the observed hard jet to be back-to-back in azimuth. Allowing for
finite detector resolution we require
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cutsopt}
\Delta\phi_{ej}=|\phi_e-\phi_j|>3\;.
\end{equation}
Also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scale.PUC} is the scale dependence of $\rho(r)$
for events with the jet veto cut of Eq.~(\ref{eq:jetveto}) and the
back-to-back cut of Eq.~(\ref{eq:cutsopt}). In the following we call these
restrictions ``1-jet cuts''. For these 1-jet events the scale independence
of $\rho(r)$ is significantly improved at NLO, out to distances
of $r\approx 0.6$.
The factors in the denominator
of Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho}) are very stable against scale
variations for inclusive DIS events, i.e. within the ZEUS cuts of
Eq.~(\ref{eq:cutszeus}). The 1-jet cuts, however, lead to a sizable
reduction of $d^2\sigma_{NLO}/dE_{Tj}\, d\eta_j$ in the denominator of
Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho}), corresponding to a subtraction of two-parton final states
with dijet-type kinematics. This subtraction term is modeled at leading
order only and is strongly scale dependent. However, it can be
calculated at ${\cal O} (\alpha_s^2)$ also, which results in a more
reliable determination.
For the 1-jet cuts we find minimal scale sensitivity~\cite{stevenson}
near $\mu_r^2= \alpha_s(Q^2)Q^2$, and at this value the
${\cal O} (\alpha_s)$ and ${\cal O} (\alpha_s^2)$ results for the subtraction
terms virtually agree. We therefore use $\mu_r^2= \alpha_s(Q^2)Q^2$ in
the denominator, which increases the normalization of the resulting jet
shapes by 10-15\% as compared to the choice $\mu_r=Q$.
The renormalization scale dependences of jet shapes in the PUCELL and
the $k_T$ algorithm are compared in Fig.~\ref{fig:scale.opt}, using the
1-jet cuts. Results are shown for four representative
$r$-bins, at LO (dash-dotted and dotted lines) and at NLO (dashed and solid
lines).
The LO curves are virtually identical for the two algorithms. This
is to be expected, since the criterion for merging two partons is the same
at LO, namely their separation in the legoplot must be less than $R=1$.
Small differences are either statistical or due to the different recombination
schemes for parton momenta.
At NLO, the PUCELL and the $k_T$ algorithm produce quite
similar results for the central part of the jet (at small $r$). In this
region, sensitivity to the choice of renormalization scale is minimal
near $\xi=1$ which confirms our basic choice of $\mu_r^2=\alpha_s Q^2$.
At distances from the jet axis beyond $r\approx 0.5$,
the iterative nature of the PUCELL algorithm is more likely
to gather a third parton into the jet, making it somewhat broader on average
than jets reconstructed by the $k_T$ algorithm.
Since this broadening effect requires three partons
and is therefore only modeled at tree level in our NLO calculation, the
NLO enhancement of $\rho(r)$ at large $r$ shows a pronounced scale
dependence, which is significantly stronger in the PUCELL than in the $k_T$
algorithm.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace*{0.5in}
\begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)
\special{psfile=fig3a.ps
voffset=-190 hoffset=457 hscale=60 vscale=55 angle=90}
\special{psfile=fig3b.ps
voffset=-190 hoffset=657 hscale=60 vscale=55 angle=90}
\special{psfile=fig3c.ps
voffset=-380 hoffset=450 hscale=60 vscale=55 angle=90}
\special{psfile=fig3d.ps
voffset=-380 hoffset=650 hscale=60 vscale=55 angle=90}
\end{picture}
\vspace{11.0cm}
\caption{Renormalization scale dependence of the differential jet shape
$\rho(r)$ at (a) $r=0.15$, (b) $r=0.55$, (c) $r=0.75$, and (d) $r=0.95$,
for events satisfying the 1-jet cuts of
Eqs.~(\protect\ref{eq:jetveto},\protect\ref{eq:cutsopt}).
Results are shown for the \Blue{PUCELL algorithm at LO (dash-dotted line) and
NLO (dashed line)} and for the \Red{$k_T$ algorithm at LO (dotted line) and NLO
(solid line)}.
}
\label{fig:scale.opt}
\end{figure}
Differential jet shapes in DIS, as a function of $E_T$ and pseudo-rapidity
of the jet, have been measured by ZEUS~\cite{zeusdis}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:zeus}(a) we compare our LO and NLO QCD predictions with the
ZEUS measurements for
events with at least one hard jet. This jet is identified with the PUCELL
algorithm and must lie in the interval 14~GeV~$<E_T<$~21~GeV and
$-1<\eta<2$. The agreement between data and theory in the $0.1<r<1$ range
is improved significantly at NLO.
Calculation of the jet shape at $r=0$ is currently not possible, since it
would require the inclusion of two-loop
contributions and the resummation of multiple soft and collinear emission.
As discussed previously, the scale dependence of the NLO results is
quite large within the ZEUS acceptance cuts. The ZEUS data (and our NLO
simulations) show, on the other hand, that the jet shapes depend
very little on the jet pseudo-rapidity, and modestly on jet $E_T$. Imposing
the 1-jet cuts of Eqs.~(\protect\ref{eq:jetveto},\protect\ref{eq:cutsopt})
does not significantly change $\rho(r)$ for the default scale choice of
$\mu_r^2=\alpha_s Q^2$, but it reduces the scale uncertainty.
Included in Fig.~\ref{fig:zeus} are the NLO results using the 1-jet cuts.
The NLO QCD predictions
for $\rho(r)$ agree very well with the data, up to values around
$r\approx 0.8$ for the 1-jet cuts and $r\approx 0.6$ for the generic ZEUS
cuts. This corresponds to the regions where we have found a small
scale dependence. In other words, the differences between data and NLO
QCD are consistent with higher order QCD effects. Note that the agreement
between theory and data is much worse at LO.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace*{0.5in}
\begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)
\special{psfile=fig4a.eps
voffset=-210 hoffset=-10 hscale=50 vscale=50 angle=0}
\special{psfile=fig4b.eps
voffset=-210 hoffset=230 hscale=50 vscale=50 angle=0}
\end{picture}
\vspace{7.0cm}
\caption{Comparison of ZEUS jet shape data~\protect\cite{zeusdis} with
QCD predictions for DIS jets reconstructed by the PUCELL algorithm. Jet
cuts are: $-1<\eta<2$ and (a,b) 14~GeV~$<E_T<$~21~GeV,
(b) 37~GeV~$<E_T<$~45~GeV. ZEUS data (circles and squares) are
compared in the lower $E_T$ range (a) with \Red{LO (lower band)} and
\Blue{NLO (dashed line)} QCD predictions. The upper band in (a) and
the two lines
in (b) represent NLO jet shapes within the 1-jet cuts
of Eqs.~(\protect\ref{eq:jetveto},\protect\ref{eq:cutsopt}).
The width of the bands corresponds to varying the
renormalization scale between $\mu_r^2=\alpha_s Q^2/4$ and
$\mu_r^2=4\alpha_s Q^2$.
}
\vspace*{0.2in}
\label{fig:zeus}
\end{figure}
Similar agreement between true NLO QCD and ZEUS data is found for
different jet $E_T$ and $\eta$ ranges. One example is
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:zeus}(b), where jet shapes for jets with
14~GeV~$<E_T<$~21~GeV and 37~GeV~$<E_T<$~45~GeV are compared.
The data and the NLO QCD predictions clearly show
that higher $E_T$ jets are narrower.
It should be noted that the excellent agreement between data and theory,
at the 10\% level, is obtained only when applying the minimal sensitivity
criteria~\cite{stevenson} to pick the renormalization scale. A na\"{\i}ve
choice, like $\mu_r=Q$ (roughly corresponding to $\xi\approx 10$ in
Fig.~\ref{fig:scale.opt}) would lead to substantially larger deviations
from the experimental results.
We have performed a first analysis of true NLO jet shapes in DIS. We find
excellent agreement between NLO QCD and data. This agreement is achieved
without introducing extra phenomenological parameters describing hadronization
effects, like $R_{sep}$. For the PUCELL and the $k_T$ algorithm we have
shown that the scale uncertainty of the QCD predictions for jet shapes is
substantially reduced at NLO. A precise comparison of experiment with
theory is facilitated by cuts which suppress multi-jet events.
Our analysis can be easily extended to other jet algorithms and
momentum recombination schemes and allows one to investigate questions
like the infrared safety of jet algorithms or the reconstruction of kinematical
variables from jets at full NLO. Their effect on the matching of theory
and data for $ep$ collisions at HERA and more generally at hadron colliders
can now be investigated at the one-loop level.
\acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by the University of Wisconsin Research
Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and
in part by the U.~S.~Department of Energy under Contract
No.~DE-FG02-95ER40896.
|
\section{Introduction}
The covariances of algebraic structures are of central importance
for the physical and mathematical theories constructed by using
these algebraic
structures. The investigation of quantum group covariant structures gives rise
to the introduction of braided groups
(a self contained review can be found in \cite{marev})
which are obtained from quantum
groups by a covariantization process called transmutation . Quantum groups
of function algebra type
are not invariant under their own transformation, i.e.,
the quantum algebra $A(R)$ is not a comodule algebra under
the adjoint coaction. However, it is possible to obtain an $A(R)$-comodule
algebra called braided algebra $B(R)$ obtained by covariantizing the
algebra of
the coacted copy keeping the coalgebra
unchanged. This covariantization process deforms the
notion of tensor product and leads to the generalization of the
usual Hopf algebra axioms called braided Hopf algebra axioms \cite{majid1}.
Thus the
braided Hopf
algebras can be used to generalize the supersymmetric structures via the
generalization of super tensor product and super Hopf algebras \cite{dunne}
or to introduce oscillators with braid statistics \cite{ali}.
In this work, we investigate the covariance properties of the algebra
satisfied by the entries of the braided matrix $BSL_q(2)$. In other words,
we investigate
if there is any Hopf algebra other the quantum algebra
the coaction of which makes the braided algebra
a comodule algebra. Since the coacting and the coacted
algebras have the same coalgebra structure in transmutation theory, we first
investigate the general braided Hopf algebra structure. We find that there
is one more braided Hopf algebra other the one given in the literature.
We also find
that the nonbraided Hopf algebra whose coproduct is the same as the braided
one is a two parameter deformed Hopf algebra. This algebra, like the
quantum algebra, is not a comodule algebra under the adjoint coaction.
For a certain value of one of the deformation parameters it turns out that
the braided algebra becomes a comodule algebra under the coaction
of this one parameter nonbraided algebra. We explicitly construct the
transmutation of the noncovariant (nonbraided) algebra to the covariant
(braided) one.
\section{Prelimineries and Review}
The right coaction of a Hopf algebra $A$ on $H$ is a linear map
$\beta :H\rightarrow H\otimes A$, i.e.,
\be\label{eq:coaction9}
\beta (h)=\Sigma h^{(i)}\otimes a^{(i)},\quad h^{(i)}\in H,\quad a^{(i)}\in A
\ee
\noindent satisfying
\be \label{eq:beta}
(\beta \otimes id)\circ \beta =(id\otimes \Delta )\circ \beta \quad
(id\otimes \epsilon )\circ \beta =id.
\ee
\noindent The algebra $H$ is a right $A$-comodule algebra if the map $\beta$
is an algebra homomorphism such that
\be
\beta (h\cdot g)=\beta (h)\cdot \beta (g) \quad \forall h,g\in H.
\ee
\noindent The consistency of the algebra homomorphism requires that
$\beta (1_H)=1_H\otimes 1_A $.
The right adjoint coaction of a Hopf algebra on itself is defined
by
\be\label{eq:adaction}
\beta (h)=\Sigma h_{(2)}\otimes S(h_{(1)})\cdot h_{(3)}
\ee
\noindent where $h_{(1)},h_{(2)},h_{(3)}$ are given by
\be
\Delta ^{2}(h)= \Sigma h_{(1)}\otimes h_{(2)}\otimes h_{(3)}.
\ee
\noindent The quantum algebra ($A(R)$) of the quantum matrix $SL_q(2)$
is generated by $a,b,c,d$ and $1$
satisfying the relations
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:quantumgrouprelations}
a\cdot b &=& q^{-1}b\cdot a, \nonumber \\
a\cdot c &=& q^{-1}c\cdot a,\nonumber \\
b\cdot d &=& q^{-1}d\cdot b,\nonumber \\
c\cdot d &=& q^{-1}d\cdot c, \\
b\cdot c &=& c\cdot b, \nonumber \\
a\cdot d-d\cdot a &=& (q^{-1}-q)b\cdot c \nonumber \\
a\cdot d-q^{-1}b\cdot c &=& =1 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent the Hopf structure of which is given by the coproducts
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:cop2}
\Delta (a) &=& a\otimes a+b\otimes c, \nonumber \\
\Delta (b) &=& a\otimes b+b\otimes d, \nonumber \\
\Delta (c) &=& c\otimes a+d\otimes c, \\
\Delta (d) &=& c\otimes b+d\otimes d \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent the counits
\be
\epsilon (a)=1,\ \ \epsilon (b)=0,\ \ \epsilon (c)=0,\ \ \epsilon (d)=1,
\ee
\noindent and by the antipodes
\be
S(a)=d,\ \ S(b)=-qb,\ \ S(c)=-q^{-1}c,\ \ S(d)=a.
\ee
\noindent The $*$-algebra structure with real $q$ is given by
\be
a^{*}=d,\ \ b^{*}=-qb,\ \ c^{*}=-q^{-1}c,\ \ d^{*}=a.
\ee
\noindent The adjoint coaction of $A(R)$ on itself is then calculated to give
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:coaction1}
\beta (a) &=& a\otimes d\cdot a+b\otimes d\cdot c+c\otimes(-qb\cdot a)+d\otimes(-qb\cdot c) \nonumber \\
\beta (b) &=& a\otimes d\cdot b+b\otimes d\cdot d +c\otimes (-qb\cdot c)+d\otimes (-qb\cdot d)\nonumber \\
\beta (c) &=& a\otimes (-q^{-1}c\cdot a)+b\otimes (-q^{-1}c\cdot c)+c\otimes a\cdot a+d\otimes a\cdot c \\
\beta (d) &=& a\otimes (-q^{-1}c\cdot b)+b\otimes(-q^{-1}c\cdot d)+c\otimes a\cdot b+d\otimes a\cdot d. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent It can easily be seen that these mappings do not define an algebra
homomorphism. Hence $A(R)$ itself is not an $A(R)$-comodule algebra. However,
the multiplication ($\cdot $) of the coacted copy
(first elements in the tensor product)
is replaced by a multiplication ($\underline{\cdot } $) such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:braidedmultiplication}
a\underline{\cdot }a &=& a\cdot a\nonumber \\
a\underline{\cdot }b &=& a\cdot b\nonumber \\
a\underline{\cdot }c &=& qc\cdot a\nonumber \\
a\underline{\cdot }d &=& a\cdot d+(q-q^{-1})c\cdot b\nonumber \\
b\underline{\cdot }a &=& q^2a\cdot b\nonumber \\
b\underline{\cdot }b &=& qb\cdot b\nonumber \\
b\underline{\cdot }c &=& q^{-1}b\cdot c+(1-q^{-2})(d-a)\cdot a\nonumber \\
b\underline{\cdot }d &=& qb\cdot d-(1-q^{-2})a\cdot b\\
c\underline{\cdot }a &=& q^{-1}c\cdot a\nonumber \\
c\underline{\cdot }b &=& q^{-1}c\cdot b\nonumber \\
c\underline{\cdot }c &=& qc\cdot c\nonumber \\
c\underline{\cdot }d &=& qc\cdot d\nonumber \\
d\underline{\cdot }a &=& d\cdot a\nonumber \\
d\underline{\cdot }b &=& d\cdot b\nonumber \\
d\underline{\cdot }c &=& d\cdot c-q^{-1}(1-q^{-2})c\cdot a\nonumber \\
d\underline{\cdot }d &=& d\cdot d-q^{-1}(1-q^{-2})c\cdot b.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent Then the algebra ($B(R)$) satisfied by $a,b,c,d$ and $1$ with this
new multiplication
($\underline{\cdot }$)
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:braidedgrouprelations}
b\underline{\cdot }a&=& q^2a\underline{\cdot }b, \nonumber \\
c\underline{\cdot }a&=& q^{-2}a\underline{\cdot }c, \nonumber \\
a\underline{\cdot }d&=& d\underline{\cdot }a, \\
b\underline{\cdot }c&=& c\underline{\cdot }b\ +\ (1-q^{-2})a\underline{\cdot }(d-a), \nonumber \\
d\underline{\cdot }b&=& b\underline{\cdot }d\ +\ (1-q^{-2})a\underline{\cdot }b, \nonumber \\
c\underline{\cdot }d&=& d\underline{\cdot }c\ +\ (1-q^{-2})c\underline{\cdot }a, \nonumber \\
a\underline{\cdot }d-q^2c\underline{\cdot }b &=& 1. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent is an $A(R)$-comodule algebra under the coaction (\ref{eq:coaction1}).
This covariantization process is called transmutation. The transformation
under a noncommutative algebra ($A(R)$ for instance) deforms
the notion of tensor product because the transformed algebras are
no longer independent. The deformed tensor product is called the braided
tensor product and denoted by $ \underline{\otimes}$.
The coalgebra of the transmuted algebra
$B(R)$ is of the same form as the original algebra $A(R)$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:cop1}
\underline{\Delta} (a)&=&a\underline{\otimes} a+b\underline{\otimes} c, \nonumber \\
\underline{\Delta} (b)&=&a\underline{\otimes} b+b\underline{\otimes} d, \nonumber \\
\underline{\Delta} (c)&=&c\underline{\otimes} a+d\underline{\otimes} c, \\
\underline{\Delta} (d)&=&c\underline{\otimes} b+d\underline{\otimes} d \nonumber \\
\underline{\epsilon} (a)&=&\underline{\epsilon} (d)=1,\ \underline{\epsilon} (b)=\underline{\epsilon} (c)=0. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent The antipodes
of the generators of $B(R)$ are given by
\be \label{eq:ant3}
\underline{S}(a)=q^{2}d+(1-q^{2})a,\ \ \underline{S}(b)=-q^{2}b,\ \ \underline{S}(c)=-q^{2}c,\ \ \underline{S}(d)=a
\ee
\noindent The coproducts define an algebra homomorphism
in the braided tensor product
space with the braided tensor product algebra
such that
\be
(x\underline{\otimes }y)\underline{\cdot }(w\underline{\otimes} z)=x\psi(y\underline{\otimes} z)d\quad x,y,w,z \in B.
\ee
\noindent where $\psi $ is a generalization of the permutation map in
boson algebras. The braiding relations define a nontrivial statistics
between copies of algebras. The braiding relations for the braided algebra
(\ref{eq:braidedgrouprelations}) with the coalgebra (\ref{eq:cop1})
are given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:braiding1}
\psi (a\underline{\otimes} a)&=&a\underline{\otimes} a+(1-q^2)b\underline{\otimes} c \nonumber\\
\psi (a\underline{\otimes} b)&=&b\underline{\otimes} a \nonumber\\
\psi (a\underline{\otimes} c)&=&c\underline{\otimes} a+(1-q^2)(d-a)\underline{\otimes} c \nonumber\\
\psi (a\underline{\otimes} d)&=&d\underline{\otimes} a+(1-q^{-2})b\underline{\otimes} c \nonumber\\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes} a)&=&a\underline{\otimes} b+(1-q^2)b\underline{\otimes} (d-a) \nonumber\\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes} b)&=&q^2b\underline{\otimes} b \nonumber\\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes} c)&=&q^{-2}c\underline{\otimes} b+(1+q^2)(1-q^2)^2b\underline{\otimes}
c-(1-q^{-2})(d-a)\underline{\otimes} (d-a) \nonumber\\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes} d)&=&d\underline{\otimes} b+(1-q^{-2})b\underline{\otimes} (d-a) \nonumber\\
\psi (c\underline{\otimes} a)&=&a\underline{\otimes} c \nonumber\\
\psi (c\underline{\otimes} b)&=&q^{-2}b\underline{\otimes} c \\
\psi (c\underline{\otimes} c)&=&q^2c\underline{\otimes} c \nonumber\\
\psi (c\underline{\otimes} d)&=&d\underline{\otimes} c \nonumber\\
\psi (d\underline{\otimes} a)&=&a\underline{\otimes} d+(1-q^{-2})b\underline{\otimes} c \nonumber\\
\psi (d\underline{\otimes} b)&=&b\underline{\otimes} d \nonumber\\
\psi (d\underline{\otimes} c)&=&c\underline{\otimes} d+(1-q^{-2})(d-a)\underline{\otimes} c \nonumber\\
\psi (d\underline{\otimes} d)&=&d\underline{\otimes} d-q^{-2}(1-q^{-2})b\underline{\otimes} c. \nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent The central element $q^{-1}a+qd$ in quantum algebra
(which is the quantum trace in the matrix algebra)
is not only central in the braided algebra but also
bosonic in the sense that
\be
\psi((q^{-1}a+qd)\underline{\otimes}x)=x\underline{\otimes}(q^{-1}a+qd), \ \ \psi(x\underline{\otimes}(q^{-1}a+qd))=(q^{-1}a+qd)\underline{\otimes}x\ \ \forall x\in B(R).
\ee
\noindent The algebras in the braided category satisfy the braided Hopf
algebra axioms \cite{majid1}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:bhopf}
m\circ (id\otimes m)&=&m\circ (m\otimes id) \nonumber \\
m\circ (id\otimes \eta )&=&m\circ (\eta \otimes id) = id \nonumber \\
(id\otimes \Delta )\circ \Delta &=&(\Delta \otimes id)\circ \Delta \nonumber \\
(\epsilon \otimes id)\circ \Delta &=&(id\otimes \epsilon )\circ \Delta = id \nonumber \\
m\circ (id\otimes S)\circ \Delta &=&m\circ (S\otimes id)\circ \Delta =\eta \circ \epsilon \nonumber \\
\psi \circ (m \otimes id) &=& (id \otimes m)\circ (\psi \otimes id)\circ (id \otimes \psi) \nonumber \\
\psi \circ (id \otimes m) &=& (m \otimes id)\circ (id \otimes \psi)\circ (\psi \otimes id)\nonumber \\
(id \otimes \Delta)\circ \psi &=& (\psi \otimes id)\circ (id \otimes \psi )\circ (\Delta \otimes id) \nonumber \\
(\Delta \otimes id)\circ \psi &=& (id \otimes \psi )(\psi \otimes id)\circ (id \otimes \Delta) \nonumber \\
\Delta \circ m &=& (m \otimes m)(id\otimes \psi \otimes id)\circ (\Delta \otimes \Delta ) \\
S\circ m &=& m\circ \psi \circ (S\otimes S)\nonumber \\
\Delta \circ S &=& (S\otimes S)\circ \psi \circ \Delta \nonumber \\
\epsilon \circ m &=& \epsilon \otimes \epsilon \nonumber \\
(\psi \otimes id)\circ (id \otimes \psi)\circ (\psi \otimes id)&=&(id \otimes \psi)\circ (\psi \otimes id)\circ (id \otimes \psi) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and the $\underline{*}$ algebras in the same category with real
deformation parameter also satisfy \cite{majid2}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:*1}
\Delta \circ * &=& \pi \circ (* \otimes *)\circ \Delta\nonumber \\
S\circ * &=& *\circ S \\
(x\otimes y)^{*} &=& y^{*}\otimes x^{*},\ \forall x,y\in B \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where we omit the underlining for the sake of clarity and
all mappings
are
in the
braided sense in the axioms (\ref{eq:bhopf})-(\ref{eq:*1}).
Note that in the $\psi\rightarrow \pi$
limit
the axioms
(\ref{eq:bhopf})
reduce to the usual
Hopf algebra axioms. It is also possible to define more general
Hopf algebras where the counit map is no longer an algebra homomorphism
\cite{durdevic}.
The involutions for (\ref{eq:braidedgrouprelations})
\be \label{eq:star1}
a^{\underline{*}}=a,\ \ b^{\underline{*}}=c,\ \ c^{\underline{*}}=d,\ \ d^{\underline{*}}=d
\ee
\noindent complete the braided Hopf $\underline{*}$-algebra structure.
\section{A New Braided Hopf Algebra Solution}
Expressing the braided algebra in terms of a central and bosonic
element
\be \label{eq:p}
p\equiv q^{-2}a+d
\ee
\noindent and three other generators $a,b,c$ makes a lot simplification in the
calculations.
The algebra (\ref{eq:braidedgrouprelations}) can equivalently be
expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ba1}
b\underline{\cdot }a &=& q^2a\underline{\cdot }b \nonumber \\
a\underline{\cdot }c &=& q^2c\underline{\cdot }a \\
b\underline{\cdot }c &=& c\underline{\cdot }b-(1-q^{-4})a^2+(1-q^{-2})p\underline{\cdot }a \nonumber \\
q^{-2}a\underline{\cdot }a+a\underline{\cdot }p-q^2c\underline{\cdot } b &=& 1 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent The $\underline{*}$-structure (\ref{eq:star1}) implies
\be
a^{\underline{*}}=a,\ \ b^{\underline{*}}=c,\ \ c^{\underline{*}}=b,\ \ p^{\underline{*}}=p.
\ee
\noindent We write the general forms of the coproducts
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:gbha}
\underline{\Delta }(a) &=& A_1a\underline{\otimes } a+A_2b\underline{\otimes } c
+A_3c\underline{\otimes } b+A_4p\underline{\otimes } a+A_5a\underline{\otimes } p
+A_61\underline{\otimes } a \nonumber \\
& &+A_7a\underline{\otimes } 1+A_81\underline{\otimes } 1+A_9p\underline{\otimes }
p+A_{10}1\underline{\otimes } p+A_{11}p\underline{\otimes } 1, \nonumber \\
\underline{\Delta }(b) &=& B_1a\underline{\otimes } b+B_2b\underline{\otimes } a+B_3b\underline{\otimes } p+B_4p\underline{\otimes }
b+B_51\underline{\otimes } b+B_6b\underline{\otimes } 1, \\
\underline{\Delta }(c) &=& B_1c\underline{\otimes } a+B_2a\underline{\otimes }
c+B_3p\underline{\otimes } c+B_4c\underline{\otimes } p+B_5c
\underline{\otimes } 1+B_61\underline{\otimes } c, \nonumber \\
\underline{\Delta }(p) &=& C_1a\underline{\otimes } a+C_2b\underline{\otimes } c+C_3c
\underline{\otimes } b+C_4p\underline{\otimes } a+C_5a\underline{\otimes } p \nonumber \\
& & +C_61\underline{\otimes } a
+C_7a\underline{\otimes } 1+C_81\underline{\otimes } 1+C_9p\underline{\otimes }
p+C_{10}1\underline{\otimes } p+C_{11}p\underline{\otimes } 1 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent the counits
\begin{eqnarray}
\underline{\epsilon }(a) &=& e_1, \nonumber \\
\underline{\epsilon }(b) &=& \underline{\epsilon }(c)=e_2, \\
\underline{\epsilon }(p) &=& e_3 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent the antipodes
\begin{eqnarray}
\underline{S}(a) &=& k_1a+k_2b+k_3c+k_4p+k_5, \nonumber \\
\underline{S}(b) &=& m_1a+m_2b+m_3c+m_4p+m_5, \\
\underline{S}(c) &=& m_1a+m_2c+m_3b+m_4p+m_5, \nonumber \\
\underline{S}(p) &=& n_1a+n_2b+n_3c+n_4p+n_5 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent the braidings
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:babraidings}
\psi (a\underline{\otimes } a) &=& g_1a\underline{\otimes } a+g_2b\underline{\otimes } c
+g_3c\underline{\otimes } b+g_4p\underline{\otimes } a+g_5a\underline{\otimes } p \nonumber \\
& &+g_61\underline{\otimes } a+g_7a\underline{\otimes } 1+g_81\underline{\otimes } 1+g_9p\underline{\otimes }
p+g_{10}1\underline{\otimes } p+g_{11}p\underline{\otimes } 1, \nonumber \\
\psi (a\underline{\otimes } b) &=& d_1b\underline{\otimes } a+d_2a\underline{\otimes } b+d_3p\underline{\otimes }
b+d_4b\underline{\otimes } p+d_51\underline{\otimes } b+d_6b\underline{\otimes } 1, \nonumber \\
\psi (a\underline{\otimes } c) &=& f_1c\underline{\otimes }
a+f_2a\underline{\otimes } c+f_3p\underline{\otimes } c+f_4c
\underline{\otimes } p+f_51\underline{\otimes } c+f_6c\underline{\otimes } 1, \nonumber \\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes } b) &=& z_1b\underline{\otimes } b, \\
\psi (c\underline{\otimes } b) &=& c_1a\underline{\otimes } a+c_2b\underline{\otimes } c
+c_3c\underline{\otimes } b+c_4p\underline{\otimes } a+c_5a\underline{\otimes } p \nonumber \\
& & +c_61\underline{\otimes } a+c_7a\underline{\otimes } 1+c_81\underline{\otimes } 1+c_9p\underline{\otimes }
p+c_{10}1\underline{\otimes } p+c_{11}p\underline{\otimes } 1, \nonumber \\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes } c) &=& a_1a\underline{\otimes } a+a_2b\underline{\otimes } c
+a_3c\underline{\otimes } b+a_4p\underline{\otimes } a+a_5a\underline{\otimes } p \nonumber \\
& & +a_61\underline{\otimes } a+a_7a\underline{\otimes } 1+a_81\underline{\otimes } 1 +a_9p\underline{\otimes } p+a_{10}1\underline{\otimes }
p+a_{11}p\underline{\otimes } 1 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and their $\underline{*}$-involutions to find the solutions
for the braided Hopf algebra structure.
The
symbols with a subscript are the parameters to be determined. For the bosonic
trace ,
the braiding of the central element $p$ is trivial.
We substitute these general forms into the braided Hopf algebra axioms
(\ref{eq:bhopf})
and solve the equations by using the computer programming Maple V.
We find that that there are only two solutions.
For the first
solution the coproducts
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:firsttype}
\underline{\Delta }(a) &=& a\underline{\otimes } a+b\underline{\otimes } c \nonumber \\
\underline{\Delta }(b) &=& a\underline{\otimes } b-q^{-2}b\underline{\otimes } a+b\underline{\otimes } p \\
\underline{\Delta }(c) &=& c\underline{\otimes } a-q^{-2}a\underline{\otimes }
c+p\underline{\otimes } c \nonumber \\
\underline{\Delta }(p) &=& (q^{-2}+q^{-4})a\underline{\otimes } a+q^{-2}b\underline{\otimes } c
+c\underline{\otimes } b-q^{-2}p\underline{\otimes } a-q^{-2}a\underline{\otimes } p+p\underline{\otimes } p \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent the counits
\begin{eqnarray}
\underline{\epsilon }(a) &=& 1, \nonumber \\
\underline{\epsilon }(b) &=& 0 \\
\underline{\epsilon }(c) &=& 0, \nonumber \\
\underline{\epsilon }(p) &=& 1+q^{-2} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent the antipodes
\begin{eqnarray}
\underline{S}(a) &=& q^2(p-a), \nonumber \\
\underline{S}(b) &=& -q^2b, \\
\underline{S}(c) &=& -q^2c, \nonumber \\
\underline{S}(p) &=& p \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent together with the braidings
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:firstbraidings}
\psi (a\underline{\otimes } a) &=& a\underline{\otimes } a+(1-q^2)b\underline{\otimes } c, \nonumber \\
\psi (a\underline{\otimes } b) &=& b\underline{\otimes } a, \nonumber \\
\psi (a\underline{\otimes } c) &=& c\underline{\otimes }
a+(q^2-q^{-2})a\underline{\otimes } c+(1-q^2)p\underline{\otimes } c, \nonumber \\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes } b) &=& q^2b\underline{\otimes } b, \\
\psi (c\underline{\otimes } b) &=& q^{-2}b\underline{\otimes } c, \nonumber \\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes } c) &=& (-1-q^{-2}+q^{-4}+q^{-6})a\underline{\otimes }
a+(q^2-1-q^{-2}+q^{-4})b\underline{\otimes } c \nonumber \\
& & +q^{-2}c\underline{\otimes } b+
(1-q^{-4})a\underline{\otimes } p+(1-q^{-4})p\underline{\otimes } a+(q^{-2}-1)p\underline{\otimes } p \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and their $\underline{*}$-involutions define a braided Hopf
$\underline{*}$-algebra.
For the second solution the
coproducts
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:secondtype}
\underline{\Delta }(a) &=& a\underline{\otimes } a+q^4c\underline{\otimes } b, \nonumber \\
\underline{\Delta }(b) &=& -q^2a\underline{\otimes } b+b\underline{\otimes } a+q^2p\underline{\otimes } b, \\
\underline{\Delta }(c) &=& -q^2c\underline{\otimes } a+a\underline{\otimes }
c+q^2c\underline{\otimes } p, \nonumber \\
\underline{\Delta }(p) &=& (1+q^2)a\underline{\otimes } a+q^2b\underline{\otimes } c+q^4c\underline{\otimes } b
-q^2p\underline{\otimes } a-q^2a\underline{\otimes }
p+q^2p\underline{\otimes } p \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent the counits
\begin{eqnarray}
\underline{\epsilon }(a) &=& 1, \nonumber \\
\underline{\epsilon }(b) &=& 0, \\
\underline{\epsilon }(c) &=& 0, \nonumber \\
\underline{\epsilon }(p) &=& 1+q^{-2} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and the antipodes
\begin{eqnarray}
\underline{S}(a) &=& -q^{-2}a+p, \nonumber \\
\underline{S}(b) &=& -q^{-2}b, \\
\underline{S}(c) &=& -q^{-2}c, \nonumber \\
\underline{S}(p) &=& p \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent together with the braidings
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi (a\underline{\otimes } a) &=& a\underline{\otimes } a+(q^4-q^2)c\underline{\otimes } b, \nonumber \\
\psi (a\underline{\otimes } b) &=& b\underline{\otimes } a+(q^{-2}-q^2)a\underline{\otimes }
b+(q^2-1)p\underline{\otimes } b, \nonumber \\
\psi (a\underline{\otimes } c) &=& c\underline{\otimes } a \nonumber \\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes } b) &=& q^{-2}b\underline{\otimes } b, \\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes } c) &=& q^2c\underline{\otimes } b, \nonumber \\
\psi (c\underline{\otimes } b) &=& (q^2+1-q^{-2}-q^{-4})a\underline{\otimes }
a+q^2b\underline{\otimes } c+(q^4-q^2+q^{-2}-1)c\underline{\otimes } b \nonumber \\
& & +(q^{-2}-q^2)a\underline{\otimes } p+(q^{-2}-q^2)p\underline{\otimes } a+(q^2-1)p\underline{\otimes } p \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and their $\underline{*}$-involutions makes $B(R)$
a braided Hopf $\underline{*}$-algebra.
Note that
in the $q\rightarrow 1$ limit, not only the algebra becomes commutative but
also the braided tensor product becomes the ordinary tensor product, and
we obtain the bosonic statistics for both braided Hopf algebra solutions.
When we express the solutions in terms of the original generators of the
algebra, i.e., in terms of $a,b,c,d$ by using (\ref{eq:p}) we see that
that the first solution is completely equivalent to the braided Hopf algebra
given in the literature which we give in (\ref{eq:cop1})-(\ref{eq:braiding1}).
But the second solution with
the coproducts
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:cop3}
\underline{\Delta }(a) &=& a\underline{\otimes } a+q^4c\underline{\otimes } b, \nonumber \\
\underline{\Delta }(b) &=& (1-q^2)a\underline{\otimes } b+b\underline{\otimes } a+q^2d\underline{\otimes } b, \nonumber \\
\underline{\Delta }(c) &=& (1-q^2)c\underline{\otimes } a+a\underline{\otimes } c+q^2c\underline{\otimes } d, \\
\underline{\Delta }(d) &=& (q^2-1)a\underline{\otimes } a+(q^4-q^2)c\underline{\otimes } b+q^2b\underline{\otimes } c
+(1-q^2)a\underline{\otimes } d+(1-q^2)d\underline{\otimes } a+q^2d\underline{\otimes } d \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent counits
\be \label{eq:counit3}
\underline{\epsilon }(a)=\underline{\epsilon }(d)=1,\ \ \ \underline{\epsilon }(b)= \underline{\epsilon }(c)=0,
\ee
\noindent antipodes
\be
\underline{S}(a)=d,\ \ \underline{S}(b)=-q^{-2}b,\ \ \underline{S}(c)=-q^{-2},\ \ \underline{S}(d)=q^2d+(1-q^2)a
\ee
\noindent and braidings
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:bra2}
\psi (a\underline{\otimes } a)&=&a\underline{\otimes } a+(q^4-q^2)c\underline{\otimes } b, \nonumber \\
\psi (a\underline{\otimes } b)&=&b\underline{\otimes } a+ (1-q^2)a\underline{\otimes } b+(q^2-1)d\underline{\otimes } b, \nonumber \\
\psi (a\underline{\otimes } c)&=&c\underline{\otimes } a , \nonumber \\
\psi (a\underline{\otimes } d)&=&d\underline{\otimes } a+(1-q^2)c\underline{\otimes } b , \nonumber \\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes } a)&=&a\underline{\otimes } b , \nonumber \\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes } b)&=&q^{-2}b\underline{\otimes } b, \nonumber \\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes } c)&=&q^2c\underline{\otimes } b, \nonumber \\
\psi (b\underline{\otimes } d)&=&d\underline{\otimes } b, \\
\psi (c\underline{\otimes } a)&=&a\underline{\otimes } c +(1-q^2)c\underline{\otimes } a+(q^2-1)c\underline{\otimes } d, \nonumber \\
\psi (c\underline{\otimes } b)&=&(q^2-1)a\underline{\otimes } a+q^2b\underline{\otimes } c+(q^4-q^2+q^{-2}-1)c\underline{\otimes } b \nonumber \\
& &+(1-q^2)a\underline{\otimes } d+(1-q^2)d\underline{\otimes } a+(q^2-1)d\underline{\otimes } d, \nonumber \\
\psi (c\underline{\otimes } c)&=&q^{-2}c\underline{\otimes } c, \nonumber \\
\psi (c\underline{\otimes } d)&=&d\underline{\otimes } c+(1-q^{-2})c\underline{\otimes } a+(q^{-2}-1)c\underline{\otimes } d, \nonumber \\
\psi (d\underline{\otimes } a)&=&a\underline{\otimes } d+(1-q^2)c\underline{\otimes } b, \nonumber \\
\psi (d\underline{\otimes } b)&=&b\underline{\otimes } d+(1-q^{-2})a\underline{\otimes } b+(q^{-2}-1)d\underline{\otimes } b, \nonumber \\
\psi (d\underline{\otimes } c)&=&c\underline{\otimes } d, \nonumber \\
\psi (d\underline{\otimes } d)&=&d\underline{\otimes } d+(1-q^{-2})c\underline{\otimes } b \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent defines a different braided Hopf algebra.
\section{A New Algebra and its Transmutation}
We find that the nonbraided Hopf algebra generated by the generators
$a,b,c,d$ and $1$
whose coalgebra is of the form (\ref{eq:cop3})-(\ref{eq:counit3}) is a two
parameter ($q,r$) deformed Hopf algebra. The algebra part is found to satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
a\cdot b &=& rb\cdot a, \nonumber \\
a\cdot c &=& rc\cdot a, \nonumber \\
b\cdot c &=& c\cdot b, \\
b\cdot d &=& rd\cdot b+(q^{-2}-1)(r^2-1)b\cdot a \nonumber \\
c\cdot d &=& rd\cdot c+(q^{-2}-1)(r^2-1)c\cdot a, \nonumber \\
a\cdot d-d\cdot a &=& (r-r^{-1})q^2b\cdot c, \nonumber \\
q^2d\cdot a+(1-q^2)a\cdot a-r^{-1}q^4c\cdot b &=& 1.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent Finally the antipodes
\be
S(a)=(1-q^2)a+q^2d,\ S(b)=-rb,\ S(c)=-r^{-1}c,\ S(d)=(2-q^2)a+(q^2-1)d
\ee
\noindent completes Hopf algebra. For the $*$-algebra structure we find
\be
a^{*}=(1-q^2)a+q^2d,\ \ b^{*}=-r^{-1}c,\ \ c^{*}=-rb,\ \
d^{*}=(2-q^2)a+(q^2-1)d.
\ee
The adjoint coaction of this Hopf algebra on itself calculated by using
(\ref{eq:adaction})
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:coaction}
\beta (a) &=& a\otimes [(1-q^2)a\cdot a+q^2d\cdot a-r^{-1}q^4(1-q^2)c\cdot b]+b\otimes [-r^{-1}q^4c\cdot a] \nonumber \\
& & +c\otimes [q^4(1-q^2)a\cdot b+q^6d\cdot b]+d\otimes [-r^{-1}q^6c\cdot b],\nonumber \\
\beta (b) &=& a\otimes [-q^2a\cdot b]+b\otimes [a^2]+c\otimes [-q^4rb\cdot b]+d\otimes [q^2a\cdot b] \\
\beta (c) &=& a\otimes [q^4d\cdot c+q^2(1-q^2)a\cdot c]+c\otimes [(1-q^2)^2a\cdot a+q^2(1-q^2)a\cdot d+q^2(1-q^2)d\cdot a+q^4d\cdot d]\nonumber \\
& & b\otimes [-q^4r^{-1}c\cdot c]+d\otimes [q^2(q^2-1)r^{-1}c\cdot a+q^4r^{-1}c\cdot d]\nonumber \\
\beta (d) &=& a\otimes [(q^6-q^4)r^{-1}c\cdot b-q^4rc\cdot b]+c\otimes [(q^6-q^4-q^4r^2)d\cdot b+(q^4-q^2)(r^2-q^2+1)a\cdot b]\nonumber \\
& & b\otimes [(q^2(1-q^2)r^{-1}+q^2r)c\cdot a]+d\otimes [(1-q^2)a\cdot a+q^2a\cdot d-(q^6-q^4)r^{-1}c\cdot b]\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent does not define an algebra homomorphism. However when the
coacted copy satisfies the braided algebra (\ref{eq:braidedgrouprelations}),
the transformations (\ref{eq:coaction}) define an algebra homomorphism for
$r=q$.
It can be shown that the braiding of the transformation in the braided
tensor product space is equal to the transformation of the braiding on the
same space, i.e.,
\be
\psi (\beta (x\underline{\otimes }y))=\beta (\psi (x\underline{\otimes }y))\ \ \ \forall x,y\in B(R)
\ee
\noindent where the braidings are given by (\ref{eq:bra2}). It can also be
shown that the braided algebra is a comodule algebra under the
adjoint coaction for both of the braided Hopf algebra solutions.
The transmuted
multiplication ($\underline{\cdot }$)
in terms of the multiplication ($\cdot$) of the coacting nonbraided algebra
\begin{eqnarray}
a\underline{\cdot } a &=&a\cdot a \nonumber \\
a\underline{\cdot } b &=&q^{-1}b\cdot a \nonumber \\
a\underline{\cdot } c &=&a\cdot c \nonumber \\
a\underline{\cdot } d &=&a\cdot d+(q-q^3)b\cdot c \nonumber \\
b\underline{\cdot } a &=&qb\cdot a \nonumber \\
b\underline{\cdot } b &=&q^{-1}b\cdot b \nonumber \\
b\underline{\cdot } c &=&qb\cdot c \\
b\underline{\cdot } d &=&q^{-1}b\cdot d+q(1-q^{-2})^2b\cdot a \nonumber \\
c\underline{\cdot } a &=&q^{-2}a\cdot c \nonumber \\
c\underline{\cdot } b &=&qc\cdot b+(q^{-2}-1)(d-a)\cdot a \nonumber \\
c\underline{\cdot } c &=&q^{-1}c\cdot c \nonumber \\
c\underline{\cdot } d &=&q^{-1}c\cdot d+(1-q^{-2})a\cdot c \nonumber \\
d\underline{\cdot } a &=&d\cdot a \nonumber \\
d\underline{\cdot } b &=&d\cdot b+(q^{-2}-q^{-4})a\cdot b \nonumber \\
d\underline{\cdot } c &=&d\cdot c \nonumber \\
d\underline{\cdot } d &=&d\cdot d+(q-q^{-1})b\cdot c \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent completes the transmutation process.
|
Subsets and Splits